Shooting at Lone Star College in north Houston

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

There are already laws on the books. How many more are needed to continue saying the same thing? Where is the enforcement for infractions against today's laws?

There are laws on the books that are inadequate and ineffective. Background checks, for example. Almost half of all gun purchases require no background check. Then why have them at all? It's either universal or it's window dressing. What we have is window dressing. What we need are universal background checks for any and all gun acquisitions.

Edited January 23, 2013 by Mr. Big Dog

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

There's no punishment on gun owners. Gun ownership is not a free for all. The preamble of the Constitution states:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The consequences of flooding this land with guns is ruining this domestic tranquility. So we have your right to own a firearm interfering with one of the main purposes for which this country was founded. You want the second amendment to trump all else. That is asking for special treatment. It doesn't trump all else.

Pretty sure the pre amble is not an article or amendment nor can the preamble be amended. That was a real stretch

[natty bumppo 297]

1358906426[/url]' post='5936442']

There are laws on the books that are inadequate and ineffective. Background checks, for example. Almost half of all gun purchases require no background check. Then why have them at all? It's either universal or it's window dressing. What we have is window dressing. What we need are universal background checks for any and all gun acquisitions.

So you are admitting the laws stating it is illegal to kill ... Commit murder ... are inadequate and ineffective.

How do YOU suggest strengthening those laws to make murder more adequate and reflective

[natty bumppo 297]

1358906856[/url]' post='5936459']

No, it can't be amended making it much stronger a provision than anything that can be amended.

A preamble is an introductory and expressionary statement in a document that explains the document's purpose and underlying philosophy. When applied to the opening paragraphs of a statute, it may recite historical facts pertinent to the subject of the statute. It is distinct from the long title or enacting formula of a law.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

So you are admitting the laws stating it is illegal to kill ... Commit murder ... are inadequate and ineffective.

I don't know how you read that from what I wrote. I was referring rather specifically to gun control laws which are inadequate and ineffective.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

A preamble is an introductory and expressionary statement in a document that explains the document's purpose and underlying philosophy.

That's right. The purpose. The overarching philosophy. The grand goal. The Constitution is to serve this purpose among which you will find domestic tranquility. Anything in the Constitution should be understood as an element in furtherance of this overarching goal. That would include the Bill of Rights.

[Ban Hammer 13,762]

Yes, if I want to drive at autobahn speeds, I can break the speed limit. It works. I've tried it. So now what? Get rid of speed limits seeing that I can easily get passed them?

i can think of a few stretches out in west texas you can do that and not see anyone for hours, much less anyone with lights on their car....

however, i suppose the best answer is to ban those cars because they can exceed the speed limit

Secured is a relative term, I suppose. Seeing that he got his hands on them, I'd say if they were indeed "secured", then they were rather inadequately secured.

one could say mine are inadequately secured too, if one drops by the local hardware store and purchases a blowtorch. as discussed in previous threads on this subject, vj members have pointed out that trigger locks, which meet several state requirements for securing a firearm, can be defeated with a simple household drill and time.

so, i guess the ball is in the court of those who want them secured to arrive at an adequate, cost effective measure that would satisfy those demanding they be secured.

i say cost effective to short circuit those with visions of fort knox style security dancing in their heads, knowing that such measures would be out of reach of all but the most wealthy of gun owners...

What we need are universal background checks for any and all gun acquisitions.

i disagree with this for the reason it interferes with a parent passing on a firearm to their offspring.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

i can think of a few stretches out in west texas you can do that and not see anyone for hours, much less anyone with lights on their car....

however, i suppose the best answer is to ban those cars because they can exceed the speed limit

Simple enough - cars can easily be limited to any speed you want.

one could say mine are inadequately secured too, if one drops by the local hardware store and purchases a blowtorch.

One would make an absurd argument in that case.

i disagree with this for the reason it interferes with a parent passing on a firearm to their offspring.

Why? If your offspring ha a clean record, your offspring would be able to pass that background check. If your offspring can't pass a background check, then your offspring ought not to have any guns. Why is that a problem?

[Ban Hammer 13,762]

Simple enough - cars can easily be limited to any speed you want.

ah so we can discard that red herring of yours then.

One would make an absurd argument in that case.

there's been a lot of that already in this thread, why stop here?

so what is an adequate, cost effective measure that would satisfy those demanding they be secured?

Why? If your offspring ha a clean record, your offspring would be able to pass that background check. If your offspring can't pass a background check, then your offspring ought not to have any guns. Why is that a problem?

who pays for that background check again? maybe you're not aware of it, but passing on one's firearms to their children is a tradition in many families - it's how i acquired over half of the ones i have.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

ah so we can discard that red herring of yours then.

you give a red herring, you get a red herring. don't want a red herring, don't offer one. k?

there's been a lot of that already in this thread, why stop here?

so what is an adequate, cost effective measure that would satisfy those demanding they be secured?

I'd approach it from the other end. It's your gun, you're responsible for it and any damage it causes. Think people would figure out how to secure their guns.

who pays for that background check again? maybe you're not aware of it, but passing on one's firearms to their children is a tradition in many families - it's how i acquired over half of the ones i have.

You need one background check per person. It's not a ruinous expense. If you want to pass down a car, it will need to be re-registered. Who pays for that? If you want to pass down your house, there are fees involved with that. So what? That's just another red herring, Chuck.

[^_^ 5,021]

He's a moderator, tread carefully.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

[quote name=' timestamp='1358909576' post='5936572]He's a moderator, tread carefully.

What I do?

[^_^ 5,021]

What I do?

I have said enough.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

[quote name=' timestamp='1358909851' post='5936582]

I have said enough.

u skeered?

[^_^ 5,021]

u skeered?

Of a moderator? Yes.