Before the typical guns are stupid, they only kill people blah blah blah Americans blah blah. I would like to see some actual, good discussion on this. I personally think, making it into law could be a bad thing. I personally dont like the idea of making someone have a firearm, that wouldnt/shouldnt have one. Kindda like the draft, how most military personnel say theyd rather have someone there to watch their back, that WANTS to be there, not someone forced to be there. I rather like the idea of gun owners being responsible and owning firearms because they want to, not because they have too.
In the tradition of A Modest Proposal, five South Dakota lawmakers are pushing for a piece of legislation that would require all citizens, 21 and older, to purchase a firearm for self-defense.
The name of the bill is the “Act to provide for an individual mandate to adult citizens to provide for the self-defense of themselves and others.”
The bill has three sections: they are:
Section 1. Not later than January 1, 2012, each citizen residing in the state of South Dakota who has attained the age of twenty-one years shall purchase or otherwise acquire a firearm suitable to their temperament, physical capacity, and personal preference sufficient to provide for their ordinary self-defense.
Section 2. After January 1, 2012, each citizen residing in the state of South Dakota shall comply with the provisions of this Act within six months of attaining the age of twenty-one years.
Section 3. The provisions of this Act do not apply to any person who is disqualified from possessing a firearm pursuant to §§ 22-14-15, 22-14-15.1, or 22-14-15.2.
Sounds pretty reasonable, right?
Well, when Rep. Hal Wick (R-Sioux Falls), one of the sponsors of the bill, was asked about the true intent of H.B. 1237 he fessed up to its facetious nature but also underscored the larger political point the sponsors were making.
“Do I or the other cosponsors believe that the State of South Dakota can require citizens to buy firearms? Of course not. But at the same time, we do not believe the federal government can order every citizen to buy health insurance,” he said.
He is, of course, referring to the federal individual mandate to buy health insurance included under the "Affordable Care Act," or as its known colloquially, “Obamacare.”
Critics of the bill panned it as a pointless political stunt and/or a waste of time.
Doug Mataconis questioned the merits of the criticism the bill was placing on Obamacare.
He wrote in Outside the Beltway, “there isn’t any reason why a state government couldn’t require gun ownership — although I happen to think it would be an ill-advised policy — and as Massachusetts shows us, it can also require people to purchase health insurance.”
“Whether the Federal Government can do that last one is the issue presently before more than one Court. This little bill doesn’t prove anything and just makes its advocates look silly.”
If these lawmakers want to look less silly, they should sponsor a real bill that subsidizes the purchase of all firearms. Give each gun owner or prospective gun owner government funds to purchase the gun of his/her choice.
Um, How do they guarantee the person who is getting the gun isn't planing another columbine. I Believe in gun ownership(with certain restriction) but forcing it it just wrgong.
Also im thinking, what of the poor people that don't have a way to properly store a gun? what if their kids get a hand on it.
n0t_u wrote:Wow, that is pretty stupid. If they want people to have guns allow them to, don't force every idiot to have one...
This is truly a first for KC, Im agreeing with a non American, on firearm law
hotsauceman1 wrote:Um, How do they guarantee the person who is getting the gun isn't planing another columbine. I Believe in gun ownership(with certain restriction) but forcing it it just wrgong.
Also im thinking, what of the poor people that don't have a way to properly store a gun? what if their kids get a hand on it.
Again, this is why Im thinking such a law is a bad idea. Some people, no matter how old, are just not responsible enough for a firearm, period. And like you said, what if they work at McDonalds and literally live paycheck to paycheck, how are they going to safely stow away the weapon? I dunno....it seems a bit insane in my book
I seem to remember a County somewhere in the States actually did pass a law like this.. The problem wasn't within the county, as all crimes dropped to near zero. The problem with enacting this sort of law came in the neighboring counties, where crimes sky-rocketed; It was presumed at the state level that it was because criminals saw "This County Packs Heat! Move On To The Next One!" signs on the way in, and ended up moving to "greener" pastures.
I think that this law is a bad idea, A because of how many people can legitimately afford a firearm and all requisite items for maintenance. The law does a "good" job of ensuring those who cannot own a gun in the first place can't. However, the issue of "whether a kid gets ahold of daddy's gun" to me, is not an issue. That is a parenting issue. If you have not/will not teach your own children the proper uses and handling of a firearm, then you shouldnt own one in the first place.
I think that, overall it is indeed just a political stunt, and if it did pass, the neighboring states would probably see a rise in crime as a result. Also, how would a law enforcement agency enforce such a law?
Ensis Ferrae wrote:I seem to remember a County somewhere in the States actually did pass a law like this.. The problem wasn't within the county, as all crimes dropped to near zero. The problem with enacting this sort of law came in the neighboring counties, where crimes sky-rocketed; It was presumed at the state level that it was because criminals saw "This County Packs Heat! Move On To The Next One!" signs on the way in, and ended up moving to "greener" pastures.
If you think that's a bad thing, then we should remove locks from doors and force people to take out those little signs indicating an active security system present on the premises. Under certain conditions, I kind of like the idea. Reminds me of a step toward the Swiss military system, which would normally terrify me coming from a country as "ambitious" as ours, except you're not actually drafting people.
Johnny-Crass wrote:Maybe if the government bought the weapon for you but honestly it is just another tax on the poor and thus I would never support it
It's not really a tax on the poor because I see it as a way for SD to eliminate some of their law enforcement budget by having armed citizens (though if you look crime rates in SD are way lower than most of the country, anyways). Sort of like what happened here in CA; when Vallejo started to lay off the majority of its department, they actually advised citizens to arm themselves as there was going to be much less police in a city with already high rates of crime.
The gift of a gun from the government isn't a bad idea, either. There are millions of weapons we've got stockpiled from M1 Garands to M16's that we've already paid for that could be distributed without additional cost.
Monster Rain wrote:Telling people that they have to buy something is the opposite of freedom, isn't it?
My first thought was that this is essentially a tax, except the recipient of the cash is the armaments industry.
I understand that at least an element of the 'right to bear arms' movement is essentially a lobby to keep the public purchasing product. If most of the manufacturers are US companies employing US citizens this is a good thing, in a way. Not such a good thing for the 'free market' but a little bit of communism never hurt anyone.
I think if they were serious about the idea, they should eliminate the requirement to have a concealed permit to carry, as well as make firearms purchases tax-deductible.
I don't think this will pass. The people who don't want to own a gun will be forced to own one. That's like if I was forced to give money to fund abortions, it goes against my right of speech and religion.
But hen again, this bill was made by a bunch of smart-asses. Haha, I like their humor.
DickBandit wrote:I don't think this will pass. The people who don't want to own a gun will be forced to own one. That's like if I was forced to give money to fund abortions, it goes against my right of speech and religion.
I support the RIGHT to own a firearm, not the law forcing you to own one.
While I understand what you're saying, what religion is it a violation of to own a gun? What violation of your right to speech is owning a gun?
DickBandit wrote:I don't think this will pass. The people who don't want to own a gun will be forced to own one. That's like if I was forced to give money to fund abortions, it goes against my right of speech and religion.
I support the RIGHT to own a firearm, not the law forcing you to own one.
While I understand what you're saying, what religion is it a violation of to own a gun? What violation of your right to speech is owning a gun?
The religion part I meant with the "forced to fund abortions" (my beliefs go strongly against abortions).
The reason why I say forced to own a weapon is against a person's freedom of speech is that if an individual is strictly against owning firearms and is forced to own one, that law forced them to go against their beliefs.
You have to look at this as also being South Dakota. This is not a knock on the state or this bill, but in truth the vast majority of people in the state probably already own some sort of firearm. The population in the state isn't overly large either so it probably wouldn't be that big a deal. They shouldn't MAKE people own a weapon if they don't want though.
“Do I or the other cosponsors believe that the State of South Dakota can require citizens to buy firearms? Of course not. But at the same time, we do not believe the federal government can order every citizen to buy health insurance,” he said.
He is, of course, referring to the federal individual mandate to buy health insurance included under the "Affordable Care Act," or as its known colloquially, “Obamacare.”
“Do I or the other cosponsors believe that the State of South Dakota can require citizens to buy firearms? Of course not. But at the same time, we do not believe the federal government can order every citizen to buy health insurance,” he said.
He is, of course, referring to the federal individual mandate to buy health insurance included under the "Affordable Care Act," or as its known colloquially, “Obamacare.”
See.
Yes, but there is a very large difference between healthcare and a handgun.
Johnny-Crass wrote:Maybe if the government bought the weapon for you but honestly it is just another tax on the poor and thus I would never support it
It's not really a tax on the poor because I see it as a way for SD to eliminate some of their law enforcement budget by having armed citizens (though if you look crime rates in SD are way lower than most of the country, anyways). Sort of like what happened here in CA; when Vallejo started to lay off the majority of its department, they actually advised citizens to arm themselves as there was going to be much less police in a city with already high rates of crime.
The gift of a gun from the government isn't a bad idea, either. There are millions of weapons we've got stockpiled from M1 Garands to M16's that we've already paid for that could be distributed without additional cost.
“Do I or the other cosponsors believe that the State of South Dakota can require citizens to buy firearms? Of course not. But at the same time, we do not believe the federal government can order every citizen to buy health insurance,” he said.
He is, of course, referring to the federal individual mandate to buy health insurance included under the "Affordable Care Act," or as its known colloquially, “Obamacare.”
See.
Yes, but there is a very large difference between healthcare and a handgun.
Meh, I don't have healthcare. Don't need it right now. I'm a broke-ass student at UTI. If I get in an accident or brake something I'll just use the SAM splint I... "acquired" *ahem* from the Army.
Besides when people don't pay the hospital, guess who eats the bill? The hospital.
Hmm... Healthcare and a Handgun, I think that will be my debut single for my metal band.
Yea I read that, but didnt really read that if you get what Im saying. I was more paying attention to the legal part above it. Weather its a stunt or not, I think its a pretty stupid stunt, it COULD pass, then what? Im sure it wont, but personally like Ive said, Im not a fan of this idea at all
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SilverMK2 wrote:
Chowderhead wrote:Yes, but there is a very large difference between healthcare and a handgun.
For example one is useful, saves lives and benefits society and the other is a gun
Chowderhead wrote:Yes, but there is a very large difference between healthcare and a handgun.
For example one is useful, saves lives and benefits society and the other is a gun
OH HO HO!! Well played, sir.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KingCracker wrote:Yea I read that, but didnt really read that if you get what Im saying. I was more paying attention to the legal part above it. Weather its a stunt or not, I think its a pretty stupid stunt, it COULD pass, then what? Im sure it wont, but personally like Ive said, Im not a fan of this idea at all
Yeah, I feel the same way. I guess it was worth a try, worst thing they can say is "No", right?
The gift of a gun from the government isn't a bad idea, either. There are millions of weapons we've got stockpiled from M1 Garands to M16's that we've already paid for that could be distributed without additional cost.
There's some propels with that. The very last of the M1 rifles are going to be gone soon, the stock is so low CMP is now offering new builds from SA. IIRC the last foriegn held stock of leased rifles is in North Korea, and the current administration has been keeping them from beig returned. Last I heard they allowed the rifles but are blocking 10s of thousands of m1 carbines that are technically still owned by our government. It's an idiotic attempt to keep CMP from selling M1 carbine...you know assault weapons, in the same fashion the .gov will saw M14 recievers in half instead of demil-ing them to semi only and giving them to CMP. So I have my doubts any AR platforms will move from government stock to private ownership through any means.
Well seeing as handgun ownership is regulated by a Federal requirement.... Background check.... and
Section 3. The provisions of this Act do not apply to any person who is disqualified from possessing a firearm...
I doubt that ALL residents will actually be allowed to purchase said firearm.
Also, the proposal says nothing about owning either a working weapon, nor the ammunition for such.
I raised a question earlier on in the thread (well really it was a statement), but IF a law like this went through, then how does any Law Enforcement agency legitimately enforce such a law?
Would it be a sort of annual poll, or "you have to prove you own a firearm in order to go into this here voting booth" type thing?
Either way, it is basically impossible to enforce, without creating new laws to go alongside this one, and/or violate other rights that the people currently have.
Johnny-Crass wrote:Maybe if the government bought the weapon for you but honestly it is just another tax on the poor and thus I would never support it
It's not really a tax on the poor because I see it as a way for SD to eliminate some of their law enforcement budget by having armed citizens (though if you look crime rates in SD are way lower than most of the country, anyways). Sort of like what happened here in CA; when Vallejo started to lay off the majority of its department, they actually advised citizens to arm themselves as there was going to be much less police in a city with already high rates of crime.
The gift of a gun from the government isn't a bad idea, either. There are millions of weapons we've got stockpiled from M1 Garands to M16's that we've already paid for that could be distributed without additional cost.
Ever been there? It's low because it's got a lower population I would guess. I lived in Wyoming for 4 years. I've heard they are alot alike.
Monster Rain wrote:I'm a pretty intense supporter of the right to keep and bear arms, but I'm not crazy about this.
Telling people that they have to buy something is the opposite of freedom, isn't it?
Smells an awful like a mandate to me! Where's biccat.....
Ensis Ferrae wrote:I raised a question earlier on in the thread (well really it was a statement), but IF a law like this went through, then how does any Law Enforcement agency legitimately enforce such a law?
Ask the Swiss.... I believe they have a similar law.
Melissia wrote:Can you make your own gun instead of buying one?
You would have to apply for a federal firearms license type 7 which is a $150 fee, plus the cost of building your firearm. On the upside you could then act as a transfer dealer and recoup your costs through transfer fees.
Melissia wrote:Can you make your own gun instead of buying one?
You would have to apply for a federal firearms license type 7 which is a $150 fee, plus the cost of building your firearm. On the upside you could then act as a transfer dealer and recoup your costs through transfer fees.
Does it have to be a firearm?
What about making your own laser? I can build my own electroshock laser for cheaper than I can buy a gun.
Kennesaw Georgia, there is a similiar law, passed in 1982.
(a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore.
(b) Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.
It sounds like the Dakota bill is more of a stunt than actually trying to pass a law, or they would have modelled it after this existing one.
Now, I do believe that responsible law abiding people should arm themselves for protection from threat and harm, but a blanket requirement, eh.
State full of citizens armed with military grade rifles? YES. Since the 2nd Ammendment was put in place for several reasons, not the least of which was deterring undemocratic government, and of course to ensure the other freedoms were protected.
Early American settlers viewed the right to arms and/or the right to bear arms and/or state militias as important for one or more of these purposes:
deterring undemocratic government;
repelling invasion;
suppressing insurrection;
facilitating a natural right of self-defense;
participating in law enforcement;
enabling the people to organize a militia system.
For those who don't know, electrolasers are basically taser which use a laser to create a plasma channel that funnels the electricity, thus delivering a shock without needing to launch contact points at the target.
You would have to apply for a federal firearms license type 7 which is a $150 fee, plus the cost of building your firearm.
That is only in the event that you wish you engage in sales. So long as YOU build it for YOUR usage and you have no intentions of selling it, no FFL is required for manufacture unless you want to start building things like machine guns.
Technically, I can go to a machine shop with an AR15 lower forging, rent machine time, come back with a complete, usable AR lower, and then slap the rest of the parts in and go. I don't even -need- a serial number on it...though this is a recommended practice by the ATF, for what should be obvious reasons. If I however turn around a week later and sell it off, well, some people might be annoyed with me. Very mean people, who have no sense of humor.
Back on topic...I say pass a law like this in all 50 states. Lets even go two further: Start surplusing all those M16s we bought from vietnam onward that the government gives to departments for (literally) around 20 dollars a pop to the peasantry, and start up a yearly training program. Switzerland has a good thing going, I say we follow their lead on this one. Again.
....Besides, one more term with a democrat president in combination with a democratic majority in the house and senate, and we will have that too. In spades.
a firearm suitable to their temperament, physical capacity, and personal preference sufficient to provide for their ordinary self-defense.
I think a Tippman C-3 could fit the above description. Sounds real enough and getting an unprotected hit at close range can scare off most people..... freeze the paintballs and you can do some real damage at the ranges found in most homes....
You would have to apply for a federal firearms license type 7 which is a $150 fee, plus the cost of building your firearm.
That is only in the event that you wish you engage in sales. So long as YOU build it for YOUR usage and you have no intentions of selling it, no FFL is required for manufacture unless you want to start building things like machine guns.
Technically, I can go to a machine shop with an AR15 lower forging, rent machine time, come back with a complete, usable AR lower, and then slap the rest of the parts in and go. I don't even -need- a serial number on it...though this is a recommended practice by the ATF, for what should be obvious reasons. If I however turn around a week later and sell it off, well, some people might be annoyed with me. Very mean people, who have no sense of humor.
Back on topic...I say pass a law like this in all 50 states. Lets even go two further: Start surplusing all those M16s we bought from vietnam onward that the government gives to departments for (literally) around 20 dollars a pop to the peasantry, and start up a yearly training program. Switzerland has a good thing going, I say we follow their lead on this one. Again.
You're totally right, I guess I just knee jerked into "manufacture=type 7 or the ninjas will come and shoot your dog and your wife after they finish raiding the wrong house next door"
Melissia wrote:
AustonT wrote:
Melissia wrote:Can you make your own gun instead of buying one?
You would have to apply for a federal firearms license type 7 which is a $150 fee, plus the cost of building your firearm. On the upside you could then act as a transfer dealer and recoup your costs through transfer fees.
Does it have to be a firearm?
What about making your own laser? I can build my own electroshock laser for cheaper than I can buy a gun.
Eerm...answer below next quote.
helgrenze wrote:Hmm.. going back to the proposed law....
a firearm suitable to their temperament, physical capacity, and personal preference sufficient to provide for their ordinary self-defense.
I think a Tippman C-3 could fit the above description. Sounds real enough and getting an unprotected hit at close range can scare off most people..... freeze the paintballs and you can do some real damage at the ranges found in most homes....
The law says "firearm" and the ATF has made a living, and ruined peoples lives, defining a firearm. Neither electroshock lasers or paitballs fit that definition. IIRC a muzzle loader doesn't either, figure that one out.
Well, when Rep. Hal Wick (R-Sioux Falls), one of the sponsors of the bill, was asked about the true intent of H.B. 1237 he fessed up to its facetious nature but also underscored the larger political point the sponsors were making.
“Do I or the other cosponsors believe that the State of South Dakota can require citizens to buy firearms? Of course not. But at the same time, we do not believe the federal government can order every citizen to buy health insurance,” he said.
...I love the idea behind this...but dammit he's totally wrong on this. The State of South Dakota can require citizens to buy firearms, or health insurance, or anything else. The Federal Government can't.
On the merits, yeah, it's a stupid idea. But it's not being proposed for its merits.
alarmingrick wrote:Smells an awful like a mandate to me! Where's biccat.....
And as a mandate it's a bad law. But it is not unconstitutional, like Obamacare is.
KingCracker wrote:But....it has an explosive charge, that fire out a projectile bullet...........I mean its...firearm?
It's an issue of semantics, very important semantics, But semantics nontheless. There's a particular part of the US code that explains and defines "firearms" so the legal definition is established. Muzzleloaders that are not easily convertible to fire regular rimfire or centerfire cartridges fall under a different section as "antique firearms" and are pretty much unregulated. I'm fuzzy on weather antique firearms replicas designed before 1898 to fire rimfire or centerfire blackpowder cartridges still qualify as antique firearms or as "firearms."
AustonT wrote:The law says "firearm" and the ATF has made a living, and ruined peoples lives, defining a firearm. Neither electroshock lasers or paitballs fit that definition. IIRC a muzzle loader doesn't either, figure that one out.
alarmingrick wrote:Smells an awful like a mandate to me! Where's biccat.....
And as a mandate it's a bad law. But it is not unconstitutional, like Obamacare is.
Oh yes! It's just freakin' horrid! I mean, hell, I just took my 21 yr old son to the AM/PM clinic this evening.
Thanks to that stupid freakin' horrid law, it cost him $30 instead of over a hundred. And his damn meds
only cost $5. Geez, I feel so screwed by that damn law.....
I realize it's a sarcastic bill, but I can't help but imagine how they would enforce it if it passed. They would send the census takers out with knives instead of clipboards. If you save yourself with a gun, you're following the law, and don't have to worry. If you don't have a gun, you're dead and can't break the law because your a corpse. Easy!
moom241 wrote:I realize it's a sarcastic bill, but I can't help but imagine how they would enforce it if it passed. They would send the census takers out with knives instead of clipboards. If you save yourself with a gun, you're following the law, and don't have to worry. If you don't have a gun, you're dead and can't break the law because your a corpse. Easy!
The right to bear arms is important. Gun crime is still high in a country that bars guns to people who don't have an excuse to carry it. All that it means that innocent people can't get guns and criminals can.
biccat wrote:Posters here do know what "A Modest Proposal" was, right?
A well known piece of political satire?
Very good guess dogma! Honestly, I'm kind of surprised you got it on the first try.
The reason I ask is because it was literally the first line of the article, which should have alerted people that this was a satirical law.
alarmingrick wrote:
biccat wrote:
alarmingrick wrote:Smells an awful like a mandate to me! Where's biccat.....
And as a mandate it's a bad law. But it is not unconstitutional, like Obamacare is.
Oh yes! It's just freakin' horrid! I mean, hell, I just took my 21 yr old son to the AM/PM clinic this evening. Thanks to that stupid freakin' horrid law, it cost him $30 instead of over a hundred. And his damn meds only cost $5. Geez, I feel so screwed by that damn law.....
/sarcasam
Wow, your 21 year old son is still living with you? Maybe you should talk to him about becoming more independent.
However, whether Obamacare is or is not a bad law doesn't affect its constitutionality. I think the "Stolen Valor Act" is a decent law, but it's still unconstitutional.
Well.... I have always held that guns are for people who lack the skills to .... interact with others on a more personal level.....
In this house, you REALLY don't want to bring a gun to the knife fight.
You forgot flaming ninja in there somewhere. Sorry Helgrenze, but if I were to rob your house, your crazy wicked street knife fighting skills would fall pretty quickly to me just fething shooting you. In the really real world, you cant super slash bullets into dust. Now Im reminded of that part in Robin Hood men in tights, where that dude slices and dices that arrow with his daggers
biccat wrote:Posters here do know what "A Modest Proposal" was, right?
A well known piece of political satire?
Very good guess dogma! Honestly, I'm kind of surprised you got it on the first try.
The reason I ask is because it was literally the first line of the article, which should have alerted people that this was a satirical law.
alarmingrick wrote:
biccat wrote:
alarmingrick wrote:Smells an awful like a mandate to me! Where's biccat.....
And as a mandate it's a bad law. But it is not unconstitutional, like Obamacare is.
Oh yes! It's just freakin' horrid! I mean, hell, I just took my 21 yr old son to the AM/PM clinic this evening.
Thanks to that stupid freakin' horrid law, it cost him $30 instead of over a hundred. And his damn meds
only cost $5. Geez, I feel so screwed by that damn law.....
/sarcasam
Wow, your 21 year old son is still living with you? Maybe you should talk to him about becoming more independent.
However, whether Obamacare is or is not a bad law doesn't affect its constitutionality. I think the "Stolen Valor Act" is a decent law, but it's still unconstitutional.
Ah, I see. Just because he's on my insurance, "He lives with me"? Hey tool, ever stop to thing I took him because he was in too much
pain to drive himself. And that maybe he doesn't live with me? I wouldn't be happy if you didn't make assumptions. Any other gak you'd like to say
about my son, genius?
alarmingrick wrote:Ah, I see. Just because he's on my insurance, "He lives with me"? Hey tool, ever stop to thing I took him because he was in too much
pain to drive himself. And that maybe he doesn't live with me? I wouldn't be happy if you didn't make assumptions. Any other gak you'd like to say
about my son, genius?
The only part of "that stupid freakin' horrid law" that has gone into effect is the requirement that insurance companies are required to allow children to remain on their parents' health insurance until (IIRC) 26. However, I'm pretty sure that it requires either your child is a student or that he lives with you full time.
Now, given that you drove him to the hospital, I made the assumption (grounded I think) that he isn't away at college, but rather living with you.
If your son really is living on his own and has his own insurance, and simply needed you to drive him to the hospital (and I'm pretty sure nothing in the Obamacare law changed your desire or need to drive him to the hospital), then good for him for being independent and good for you for being a good father. But then your comment that "it cost him $30 instead of over a hundred" has absolutely nothing to do with the law.
I never insulted your son. Any other personal insults you want to throw around?
biccat wrote:
The reason I ask is because it was literally the first line of the article, which should have alerted people that this was a satirical law.
Does this mean I should start assuming that all news articles lead with statements that are fully accurate, and not at all attempting to portray what they are covering in a dishonest light?
biccat wrote:
Now, given that you drove him to the hospital, I made the assumption (grounded I think) that he isn't away at college, but rather living with you.
That's a poor assumption considering that many people go to colleges near to home, or live near their parents even if not at school.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:He basically implied the guys' son was a loser.
dogma wrote:Does this mean I should start assuming that all news articles lead with statements that are fully accurate, and not at all attempting to portray what they are covering in a dishonest light?
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're being flippant, rather than outright insulting.
Melissia wrote:
biccat wrote:But then your comment that "it cost him $30 instead of over a hundred" has absolutely nothing to do with the law.
The law reduced the prices, ergo, it has plenty to do with it.
So you can point to what parts of the law actually reduced prices?
biccat wrote:
Wow, your 21 year old son is still living with you? Maybe you should talk to him about becoming more independent.
This isn't necessarily insulting, but it is at least flippant.
I'd use the term "saucy."
I use the term insulting. He made wild, wide accusations without knowing anything about the case, other than I drove my son there
and he's on my insurance. I used to find the strawman arguements entertaining, a little. Now I'm rolling biccathole free thanks to "ignore".
What a tool.
biccat wrote: I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're being flippant, rather than outright insulting.
I imagine that were I to be outright insulting regarding your views or mannerisms, it would involve much more vulgarity.
Unlikely, you've done so in the past without vulgarity.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
alarmingrick wrote:I use the term insulting. He made wild, wide accusations without knowing anything about the case, other than I drove my son there and he's on my insurance. I used to find the strawman arguements entertaining, a little. Now I'm rolling biccathole free thanks to "ignore". What a tool.
Yay, unintended offense is given and now you're unwilling to defend your deliberate misstatement of facts!
alarmingrick wrote:I use the term insulting. He made wild, wide accusations without knowing anything about the case, other than I drove my son there
and he's on my insurance. I used to find the strawman arguements entertaining, a little. Now I'm rolling biccathole free thanks to "ignore".
What a tool.
Yay, unintended offense is given and now you're unwilling to defend your deliberate misstatement of facts!
Another satisfied customer I suppose.
My " deliberate misstatement of facts " would be? Please tell me, oh holier than thou.
edit:
And how's telling someone to tell their son to be more responsabile, without out knowing a damn thing about either,
not an insult?
Archaeo wrote:alarmingrick: I made the same assumption also that it sounded like he lived with you, but thats more common these days anyway.
Melissa: "The law reduced the prices, "
I am glad someone is benefitting because my inurance went WAY up and its benefits went WAY down. I am afraid that it will only get worse.
It probably will.
I've been with my company for 12 years. It's been that way from year 1. Your prices go up, or the coverage gets a little less.
Sometimes both has happened in the same cycle.
It's nice to be able to provide my son the ability to be treated, without him having to file bankruptcy if he needs surgery. And
also not chose whether he buys groceries this week or he gets to get his persciption filled.
Bi cat would of course know nothing about such things. RL is just something Fox tells him about.
I'd rather see bills that require all gun owners to regularly undergo training (and possibly re-evaluation as to their suitability for gun ownership).
Too bad this is in America, where we're allowed to have guns.
Yah but if you buy a plane you have to take a pilots test to fly the thing. So why not undergo training to use something else you bought. Do you own a car? If the answer is yes then do you drive the car? If that answer is also yes you do know that you have to renew your license every now and then right?
And where is a Glock mentioned? All I am saying is you require refreshers in your training of those items why not a gun? I am not trying to say that all you gun bearers should not have them I am saying you should be reminded how to use them.
How those sayings go...?
"Gun Control is using both hands."
"Gun Control is hitting what you shoot at."
One of the problems with some "gun owners" is they are not trained in the care and usage of the weapons they have. Roughly, 18,000 gun injuries are listed as "accidental". Hard to have an "accident" with a properly maintained weapon.
Heck there is even a trope of "I didn't know the gun was loaded."
You want to Own a gun, learn the proper way to use and maintain it.
alarmingrick wrote:Biccat would of course know nothing about such things. RL is just something Fox tells him about.
You know, if I wanted to, I could misspell your name to try to be insulting. However, I'm above such things.
I do know about real life. In fact, I lost the health care coverage I used to like precisely because of this law. I had a high deductible plan that Mr. President decided I can't have anymore (the company eliminated that plan in light of the pending changes to the law). It was a good plan - it worked for me and my family.
So now I've been forced into a more expensive plan - that does have real life consequences for me - for the clearly expressed purpose of allowing your kid to stay on your insurance for another couple of years, rather than having to buy his own insurance.
The Health Insurance law ("Obamacare") doesn't reduce costs, it shifts them. Mostly from younger, poorer, workers (who now have to have their own plans) to older workers who will (assuming it ever happens, and I think it's unlikely) see a reduction in premiums.
But again, that doesn't address whether the law is constitutional or not. A discussion I expect you're not prepared to have, nor interested in having. Which is the point I raised in my original post, before noticing that you tried to call me out.
Next time you decide to call me out on something ("Sounds like a mandate, where's biccat"*), try engaging in the debate that you're trying to have, rather than throw in some personal sob story just so you can get righteously indignant.
Whether you ignore this post or not doesn't really concern me.
* paraphrasing, or quoting, I don't remember, nor do I care enough to go back and look
helgrenze wrote:How those sayings go...? "Gun Control is using both hands." "Gun Control is hitting what you shoot at."
One of the problems with some "gun owners" is they are not trained in the care and usage of the weapons they have. Roughly, 18,000 gun injuries are listed as "accidental". Hard to have an "accident" with a properly maintained weapon. Heck there is even a trope of "I didn't know the gun was loaded."
You want to Own a gun, learn the proper way to use and maintain it.
Those arguments make me think of my Uncle, who I think is a complete dick hole. Hes the "family gun guy" according to him, and basically demanded he got my pawpaws police firearms (hes not even blood mind you) because he knows how to handle weapons properly. Funny thing is, he shot himself in the upper thigh, nearly severing his penis, while cleaning a revolver, and used that excuse. Go ahead and think about what I just said for a moment......................get it yet? yea, he thought a REVOLVER was unloaded and nearly shot his dick off. At least it makes me chuckle when I think of my Uncle.
biccat wrote:
Unlikely, you've done so in the past without vulgarity.
I did?
I suppose its in the eye of the beholder, but then not really, because insults are primarily issues of social consideration.
Calling someone a fascist doesn't really have much in the way of derogatory meaning if "fascist" isn't a term that many people find insulting.
Alternatively, suggesting that someone's child should be more independent, in the United States, is often viewed as insulting. Either you didn't know that, or you did, and you intended to insult a particular person.
Now, before you attempt to draw a parallel, satire is not implicitly insulting; nor is mockery, if you want to go that way.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:
So now I've been forced into a more expensive plan - that does have real life consequences for me - for the clearly expressed purpose of allowing your kid to stay on your insurance for another couple of years, rather than having to buy his own insurance.
alarmingrick wrote:My " deliberate misstatement of facts " would be? Please tell me, oh holier than thou.
That would be the statement that the Health Care law had anything to do with your son saving money.
alarmingrick wrote:And how's telling someone to tell their son to be more responsabile, without out knowing a damn thing about either, not an insult?
Well, I don't think it's insulting. So the mens rea requirement isn't satisfied. You could tell me my daughter should be more responsible, and I'd laugh at the comment, not find it offensive.
Perhaps I touched a nerve?
dogma wrote:Why should he care more about your kids than his?
I don't expect him to. However, I take offense to rent seekers, particularly when it's at my expense.
KingCracker wrote: Funny thing is, he shot himself in the upper thigh, nearly severing his penis, while cleaning a revolver, and used that excuse. Go ahead and think about what I just said for a moment......................get it yet? yea, he thought a REVOLVER was unloaded and nearly shot his dick off. At least it makes me chuckle when I think of my Uncle.
Hahahahahaha. I'm a Brit and this is funny! Just because I don't own a gun or believe in having one doesn't mean I don't know how to use one. Your uncle is a MORON.
For those other Brits that might not get this...
0. Never point a gun at something you don't want to hit.
1. Never leave an unattended weapon loaded.
2. Even if you know it isn't loaded check the magazine and breach when it is handed over or picked up.
3. You can see the frickin rounds in a revolver and you are supposed to open it before you clean it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Emerett wrote:
SilverMK2 wrote:
I'd rather see bills that require all gun owners to regularly undergo training (and possibly re-evaluation as to their suitability for gun ownership).
Too bad this is in America, where we're allowed to have guns.
Go back to the UK where knives will be illegal soon.
It is already illegal to carry knives over 2 inches long without an "Occupational Reason" foor it.
Normally I couldn't carry any more than a pen knife but when I am out and about doing re-enactments I get to carry a broadsword. It is all about context here. If you have a knife as a threat or potential threat to another person it is illegal; if on the other hand you are out fishing you can have a large blade (you will have to have the rods with you).
It's the same with guns. You can't have a hand gun or automatic weapon because no-one could come up with a good reason for them other than killing people. Shotguns and rifles are legal for hunting, farming and target shooting.
This is interesting because the guns used in the 2012 olympics are classified as illegal hand guns under British law.
I don't think calling republicans "Repugs" is insulting but I still got a mod asking me to stop.
It is. Its like calling Democrats Demonrats.
True, but Democrats get offended if you refer to their party as the "Democrat Party."
If a mod wants me to stop calling people who don't buy their own insurance "irresponsible," I will refrain from doing so. If they want me to stop calling "daschunds" "weiner dogs" I can do that too.
biccat wrote: If they want me to stop calling "daschunds" "weiner dogs" I can do that too.
Tbone the Yoda of wiener dogs says the term "weiner" is all part of their nefarious scheme. No one expects Dachshundskrieg from a bunch of "wieners."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
alarmingrick wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:
dogma wrote:
biccat wrote:
Wow, your 21 year old son is still living with you? Maybe you should talk to him about becoming more independent.
This isn't necessarily insulting, but it is at least flippant.
I'd use the term "saucy."
I use the term insulting. He made wild, wide accusations without knowing anything about the case, other than I drove my son there
and he's on my insurance. I used to find the strawman arguements entertaining, a little. Now I'm rolling biccathole free thanks to "ignore".
What a tool.
Twenty one? Mine's 17 and already eats me out of house and home. She Who Must Be Obeyed has queried my desire to install a time locked Sweeney Todd style ejection system and slide under his bed set for his 18th birthday. Its just a motivational tool...
Wait for the spike in accidental gun deaths and fatal crimes of passion then the repeal, immediately followed by a slow drop. I bet the graph will be shaped like a block of cartoon cheese.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sonophos wrote:
Yak9UT wrote:Well I guess no one will do anything illegal or stupid then.
If everyone has a gun no one will do anything bad or they will get shot.
sounds like a rather good idea really.
No Darwinian determination will take on a new path: Survival of the judisciously trigger happy.
If you want to see what this produces I would recommend visiting Texas.
ShumaGorath wrote:Wait for the spike in accidental gun deaths and fatal crimes of passion then the repeal, immediately followed by a slow drop. I bet the graph will be shaped like a block of cartoon cheese.
That actually goes against most evidence, gathehred from states that went CHL, or OC.
ShumaGorath wrote:Wait for the spike in accidental gun deaths and fatal crimes of passion then the repeal, immediately followed by a slow drop. I bet the graph will be shaped like a block of cartoon cheese.
That actually goes against most evidence, gathehred from states that went CHL, or OC.
Oh? Are those mandatory for 100% of citizens in those states? Is that actually a thing? How is shadow america these days? I don't go through the dark mirror much so I don't get to head that way often.
ShumaGorath wrote:Wait for the spike in accidental gun deaths and fatal crimes of passion then the repeal, immediately followed by a slow drop. I bet the graph will be shaped like a block of cartoon cheese.
That actually goes against most evidence, gathehred from states that went CHL, or OC.
Oh? Are those mandatory for 100% of citizens in those states? Is that actually a thing? How is shadow america these days? I don't go through the dark mirror much so I don't get to head that way often.
alarmingrick wrote:My " deliberate misstatement of facts " would be? Please tell me, oh holier than thou.
That would be the statement that the Health Care law had anything to do with your son saving money.
Wrong. He paid a $30 Copay instaed of a full price office visit. He paid $5 for his Medications instead of full price.
You you can add the apology for this on to the one for the insult of my son.
Oh, wait....
biccat wrote:
alarmingrick wrote:And how's telling someone to tell their son to be more responsabile, without out knowing a damn thing about either, not an insult?
Well, I don't think it's insulting. So the mens rea requirement isn't satisfied. You could tell me my daughter should be more responsible, and I'd laugh at the comment, not find it offensive.
Perhaps I touched a nerve?
Talking about someones child is hitting a nerve, really?! If you had feelings you'd understand.
That's the problem isn't it. You say what ever you want, and if offends someone, then it's their problem.
You're still a tool. And you are now gone from my Dakkaverse at the end of this sentence. Have a great life.
alarmingrick wrote:Talking about someones child is hitting a nerve, really?! If you had feelings you'd understand.
That's the problem isn't it. You say what ever you want, and if offends someone, then it's their problem.
You're still a tool. And you are now gone from my Dakkaverse at the end of this sentence. Have a great life.
I can say I'm really, truly heartbroken.
Frazzled wrote:Shadow America? You mean this?
Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men?
Spoiler:
(there is a dearth of daschunds wearing fedoras on the internet)
Slarg232 wrote:Them damn South Dakotans aren't in their right minds.
Unlike us North Dakotans, we are totally a-ok.
FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT! Er...does the winner get Dakota Fanning?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote:
helgrenze wrote:Well.... I have always held that guns are for people who lack the skills to .... interact with others on a more personal level.....
I suppose we can't all be Jedi Shaolin Spartans.
Or bears with rocket propelled chainsaws. Do rocket propelled chainsaws fall under the heading of firearm?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:I never insulted your son. Any other personal insults you want to throw around?
I still miss Genghis Connie calling her brother a poopy head and threatening to shove a straw through his skull. I need to update, she is as tall as the Wife now.
