Originally Posted By cape cod joe DVC--Why anyone wouldn't like me? Ask my wife Seriously Chris, my wife came up with a quick little thought about that thought. Anyone who doesn't like me has got to be a very bad person. Not an ego thing, but just a nonchalant albeit "opinionated" feeling that SHE expressed as I bend over backwards to be nice. Of course she gets upset at me and I get upset at others sometimes too as we are all only human. BTW---How could anyone not like you? Seriously? Check out the Masters thread. I agreee on most of your politics but not all as what fun would life be if we all thought alike? OC--bolting doesn't even imply that your thinking people spinning is correct. And I DO take this stuff seriously, as do most posters, and it would be insulting if I did NOT take others people's ideas seriously. What makes you or me more right than anyone else? Certainly bolting doesn't help to prove your ideas valid?
Originally Posted By hightp "Gun ownership is a right, but it is also a responsibility. We should treat guns no differently than we treat cars" Absolutely! I just wish everyone else would see this. There is no restrictions on the purchase of cars. Everyone, even a minor can purchase a car in the US, as long as he/she has the money. No license, registration or insurance is needed to operate a car, as long as it is done on private property. You can buy a car in any state of the Union, from any person and transport it anywhere. If you want a Ferarri, and you got the money, all the power to you. I think it's about time we started treating guns like cars.
Originally Posted By Mort2 Allow me to clarify my position, hightp, and see if you feel the same way: >>There is no restrictions on the purchase of cars. Everyone, even a minor can purchase a car in the US, as long as he/she has the money. << A sale of a car involves transfer of a title. I think ownership of all guns should be traceable. The gun's serial number should be treated the same as a car's VIN. If you're listed as the last owner of a gun used in a crime, and you are clearly not the person committing the crime, you have proved yourself to be irresponsible and forfeit your rights to own or operate a firearm because you failed to transfer title or report it stolen. Also, the victims of said crime should be able to sue you for damages in civil court. Likewise, if you accidentally shoot somebody, you’ve proven yourself irresponsible and forfeit your rights to own or operate a firearm. (Yes, that includes you, Dick.) >>No license, registration or insurance is needed to operate a car, as long as it is done on private property. << Clear, traceable transfers of titles are, to me, basically the same as registration. Being able to be sued in civil court for damages done by a gun that was either stolen/sold from you and not reported would probably give create a new category of insurance policies. And while you may not need a license to operate a car on private property, due to the lethal nature of firearms, I would require a tiered-license program much like our driver’s licenses. Right now I’m licensed to drive automobiles, not motorcycles, busses, trucks, etc. This same approach should be applied to gun ownership. >>You can buy a car in any state of the Union, from any person and transport it anywhere.<< Okay, so long as we can trace ownership. >>If you want a Ferarri, and you got the money, all the power to you.<< Not quite. More than money would be required. A demonstrable working knowledge of how to safely operate it would be required to get a license.
Originally Posted By DlandDug Oh brother. >>There is no restrictions on the purchase of cars. Everyone, even a minor can purchase a car in the US, as long as he/she has the money.<< But a minor may not operate said car, even on private property (laws vary by state). >>No license, registration or insurance is needed to operate a car, as long as it is done on private property.<< Not true in California. Even if you park the car under a tarp in a garage, you must maintain registration. Again, laws vary by state. (Parenthetically, are you suggesting guns should be available only for use on private property? Specifically, the gun owner's private property?) >>You can buy a car in any state of the Union, from any person and transport it anywhere.<< From any person? You may not purchase a car from someone other than its owner. And if you transport it to another state, you must meet any salient requirements of that state. For example, when bringing a car into California, it must be proven to meet emission standards. Until it does, it may not be operated. (But it still must be registered!) >>If you want a Ferarri, and you got the money, all the power to you.<< And if you run over someone in your driveway in your unregistered, uninsured Ferarri, be prepared to go to jail. >>I think it's about time we started treating guns like cars.<< Until guns prove as universally useful as cars, I would be hesitant to make so broad a statement.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <But a minor may not operate said car, even on private property (laws vary by state).> I'm pretty sure they can in most states. <Not true in California. Even if you park the car under a tarp in a garage, you must maintain registration.> As I pointed out the last time this came up, you are incorrect. If you never plan on parking or operating a vehicle on a public street, you do not need to register it. <Parenthetically, are you suggesting guns should be available only for use on private property? Specifically, the gun owner's private property?> I don't think he's suggesting that at all. Simply that one should only need a permit if one is taking a gun into a public place.
Originally Posted By hightp Gentlemen, I defer to your expertise. (And to not hyjack the thread.) I am just stating that the comparison of gun ownership and autos are really quite different. What Mort2 is suggesting is to register guns like cars. Something that will, probably, never be passed. Where firearms are considered, registeration means confiscation. While that hasn't happend yet, California is very close to it with their .50 Caliber rifle laws. In Pennsylvania, a car only has to be registered if it is to be used on a public roadway. If I were to have a truck for farm use, I can let the registration lapse. (I don't own a farm.)I'm not sure what would happen if I were to sell the truck, but I see your point. DlandDoug, I'm sorry I was not clearer in my post regarging the purchase of cars. I meant from the legal owners, and I was not aware of the California laws regarding emmision standards. But I beleive there must be exceptions to older/antique vehicles. In Pennsylvania, and quite a few states the laws are as I stated, no license is required for private property. Even though I am not licensed to ride a motorcycle or dive a truck, I could do so on my Uncle's farm, without penalty. Even if I had broken a law which required my license to be revoked, legally, I can still own a car, and drive it on private land. As for owning a Ferarri (which I don't), they are governed by the same laws as other cars. I don't need a license or special training to own one, if I have the cast to do so. And, if I happen to injure someone with an unregistered, uninsured one on my own property, I would only go to jail if it could be shown I did it with malice and intent. Though I would, definitly, be liabile for the hospital bill, but that would be in any case. In any case, I see a need uniform laws. I do take exception to your statement 'Until guns prove as universally useful as cars...' I would think protection would out rank transportation in usefullness, but that is only my opinion.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <Running the country or fighting Al Quida?? Hell no. That is for serious people who are responisible> It doesn't take a lot of smarts to blow stuff up.
Originally Posted By hightp Sorry, I meant Cash instead of 'cast' in paragraph 4. Douglas is correct in my intent regarding use. If I intend to carry a firearm in a public place, I should be licensed. If I'm using one at a private club, or on private land one is not needed for a car, why for a gun.
Originally Posted By Mort2 >> If I intend to carry a firearm in a public place, I should be licensed. If I'm using one at a private club, or on private land one is not needed for a car, why for a gun. << Bullets don't stop at property lines.
Originally Posted By hightp I'm not saying you shouldn't be responsible for your actions, one of the first rules of shooting, is knowing what's in back of your target. Back to the car analogy, I just checked with the PA department of transportation. A vehicle only has to be registered, or titled if it is to be driven on a public road. Surprisingly, there is no minimum age for one to register a vehicle. That means a title can be transfered to a 3 year old, if one so wanted. The state suggests, but is not required, that the seller keep minimal information about the vehicle they sold, such as the make, model, color VIN # and the person's name and address, but once the vehicle is sold, it is the responsiblity of the buyer to register it, if he so desires.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Not true in California. Even if you park the car under a tarp in a garage, you must maintain registration.>> <As I pointed out the last time this came up, you are incorrect. > Doug fight! Doug fight!! (Or is that "Dug fight?"). This was fun last time.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>Where firearms are considered, registeration means confiscation.<< On what basis do you assert this? >>I would think protection would out rank transportation in usefullness, but that is only my opinion.<< In my household growing up, guns were used strictly for hunting, which is also quite useful. But far too many guns are used not for useful purposes, but for mischief. If guns were as necessary (a better word, perhaps, than useful) as cars, your anaolgy would hold better. But the fact is, cars provide a valuable, and necessary service daily to millions of people. Guns are, for the most part, not necessary unless you are a soldier or police officer.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I thought this thread was to bash Bush, not to bash gun control or lack thereof. Let's get back to trashing Dubya, OK?? ;-)
Originally Posted By cape cod joe Well Rt and others> in the office this morning, out of nowhere, my wife said she has had it with George. This immigration thing is killing her with a couple Polish people trying to commit insurance fraud this morning in our office and also the millions of illegals marching recently. I told her about our biggest threat, Iran, which I just saw on hardball now (Seymour Hersh one of the guests. It looks like George wants to take out the country for purposes of regime change? My wife and other fundamentalists love George as he is into fulfilling the Bible's progostication on Armagedddon, etc> others know more about this obviously than I do. I am getting scared that MAYBE, just MAYBE George might be getting or is wacked out??????????? I'm still being patient but it's wearing thin. The scandal things I can live with, but this NOT ruling out using our nuclear weapons as a first strike is insane NOW.. This is NOT the COLD WAR anymore for cryin out loud. I also heard talk that George and my worst enemy Dick the you know what Cheney is pushing him into the nuclear thing which some top ranked generals are threatening to resign if that occurs. This is breaking news RIGHT NOW so I'll be watching everything tonight. It is getting a little scary now as macho I am, but not insane.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA Yeah, Iran can't have nukes because we're afraid they'll use them. But we can use nukes on Iran because...why? Iran's dangerous. I see...
Originally Posted By CrouchingTigger Any one in Bush's position should have a plan for when to use nukes, whether that plan includes first-strike, or only retaliatory strikes, or not at all. You don't necessarily want to tell your opponents just what that plan is. So just because the media is reporting a rumor that Bush is considering first-strike use, and Bush isn't publicly ruling it out, doesn't mean anything, as far as I'm concerned.
Originally Posted By DlandDug I seem to recall when everyone just knew that this neo-conservative President was a dunder head, hated any country that had policies contrary to his own version of democracy, and was only too eager to hit the red button. In fact, people said if he was ever elected, he'd blow up the world. You remember-- they said all that about Ronald Reagan back in 1980.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA With the Cold War behind us, it all seemed so quaint and cute. The U.S.S.R. was poised with their hand on the button, and we were all going to either die, or wear little Russian hats. Somehow, with President Bush at the helm, and all his stuff he spews forth, the whole notion seems a bit more scary and real. I mean, what's the end game here? Everybody pushes a button? And the news reports tell us that Los Angeles has just been leveled, and a radio-active cloud is moving north toward San Francisco, start duct-taping your windows? WTF People?????
Originally Posted By DlandDug And this will all seem quaint and cute twenty years from now. But it's really irresponsible right now, just as it was back then.
