Round 2: We can't legislate it, we'll mandate it - Page 3

P7fanatic · July 2nd, 2008, 12:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deadeye72

What idiots.

+1

You've got to be very ignorant to be so ignorant and not know it.

gwhall57 · July 2nd, 2008, 01:46 PM

So, why isn't the author quoted in the original post demanding that the automobile industry "do something" about the tens-of-thousands of people killed in car wrecks each year?

Hopyard · July 2nd, 2008, 02:02 PM

The idea of using business regulation to accomplish things the government can not, is one of the most distasteful around. Whether it is demanding that employers check the citizenship of employees (which sounds so nice and useful) or requiring gun makers to somehow come up with a plan to reduce gun homicides, the principle is wrong. We have yet another example (one the libertarians tout) in the encouragement (if not mandate through things like workers comp laws) that employers do drug screening.

In all of these instances, government is attempting to use (and is using) private organizations to accomplish what it can not do, or is prohibited from doing.

So, the proposal reported by the o.p. is quite a pernicious one; aside from it being entirely wrongheaded.

Cthulhu · July 2nd, 2008, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by edr9x23super

here's another novel idea:

lets try bringing moral teachings back into our schools; Prayer to GOD back as well. While we are at it, bring back corporal punishment too.

At home, lets start teaching our kids right from wrong. Tell our deadbeat dads to own up to their responsibilities and be fathers, not delinquent drunkards.

And lets put a stop to raising "girly men". lets raise our boys to grow up espousing the traditional values of honor, truth and civic duty. No more body piercings, "tats" or other bodily decorations celebrating their "individuality".

And back to the home front, we can really sit down and monitor what is on TV; ban stations like MTV and VH1 from our homes and our lifestyle. They have no place whatsoever in a society with a moral compass.

And when we see morally reprehensible people on the street, run them out of town and back into the closet.

Then, perhaps we can turn the tide in about 20 years or so on all of this violence. In the time of my grandfathers, they did not kill each other over pairs of shoes, or television sets.

Prayer in PUBLIC schools is NOT required to "bring back moral teachings". I don't enforce religion, religious ideals, or any theological ideology on my child and I DEFY anyone here to prove that I'm not teaching my daughter morals. And anyone who would try to enforce and mandate any religion upon my daughter best be prepared to reap the whirlwind.

On the other side of the coin, I also don't suppress the practice or belief of any religion for her. This is a FREE country. She has the FREEDOM to CHOOSE if she wants to follow any particular religion or not. Right now, she IS interested in attending church from time to time, and if it's doable, her mommy or other relatives can take her. If she changes her feelings about it later on, I'll be just as supportive of her.

Religion does not have the monopoly on morality and basic decency.

I don't give a squat what anybody BELIEVES in...it's what they actually DO that determines the kind of person they are.

Swaggart?

Bakker?

-JT

Tye_Defender · July 2nd, 2008, 04:21 PM

I'm all for performance based standards for this. But it's got to be whole-hog and based on sensible statistics. You can't count "victims" shot while they were committing a crime (shot by police or shot by their true intended victim), etc..

Repeal all the existing laws that put the burden on non-criminals, for example make every state shall-issue, and the firearm death rate will drop in 10 years. Now the number of scumbags killed would go up for the first few years but that number should come down as well as they either die off or figure out that they have to be more careful.

digitalexplr · July 2nd, 2008, 05:44 PM

And these guys are law professors. No wonder we have such screwed up judges!

bluelineman · July 3rd, 2008, 12:08 AM

Why don't we have these two idiots explain why innocent people would be dead if guns were outlawed.

Tubby45 · July 3rd, 2008, 02:45 AM

As a licensed firearm manufacturer, Fagan and Sugarman can pound sand. Lift up your skirt, grab your manhood, and act like a freedom loving American male.

TyC · July 3rd, 2008, 02:49 AM

Quote:

Surely they will think up new strategies once they have a legal obligation

Wow. I'm speechless.

Colin · July 3rd, 2008, 03:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmidkiff

Hey... Let's apply the same criteria to our Automotive Industry! At roughly 50,000 deaths (and a far larger number of serious injuries), we could reduce human suffering even more!

As long as we're applying this type of system, we should consider abortion, as well. Heck, that number is somewhere around a million and a half deaths per year!

Suppose we use that 'cap and trade' idea, and let gun manufacturers credit their accounts each time a law abiding citizen or law enforcement officer successfully defends their life with a firearm? What do you know... all of a sudden we have a surplus!

That 12,000/year number includes legal self defense, suicide, police officer shootings, warfare among gang members and drug dealers... If we limit those to just accidental deaths by firearm, then the number is somewhere less than 800 per year... Far more people are killed by falling down, drowning, medical malpractice, and many other causes than by firearms. Why are we discussing this again?

What an idiot.

Exactly, the auto industry is incrediable quiet on the fact that governing the top speed of vehicle is quite easy in computer controlled engine managment systems. You could even program a set of keys for your kid so the vehicle could not go over 50, while you could go faster. with built in GPS you could even limit the distance they could drive. meanwhile the silence from the automakers is deafening as they know that once the politicans latch on to this, the era of fast cars is doomed.

July 2nd, 2008, 01:46 PM	#22
gwhall57 Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Midlothian, VA Posts: 315	So, why isn't the author quoted in the original post demanding that the automobile industry "do something" about the tens-of-thousands of people killed in car wrecks each year? __________________ "Bad spellers of the world - untie!" DAV Life member, NRA Life member Springfield XD 9mm Sub-Compact Taurus PT111 Millennium Pro 9mm

July 3rd, 2008, 12:08 AM	#27
bluelineman Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Texas Posts: 832	Why don't we have these two idiots explain why innocent people would be dead if guns were outlawed. __________________ Support the Wounded Troops Medal of Honor Recipients, Iraq

July 3rd, 2008, 02:45 AM	#28
Tubby45 Distinguished Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: In the reloading room Posts: 1,988	As a licensed firearm manufacturer, Fagan and Sugarman can pound sand. Lift up your skirt, grab your manhood, and act like a freedom loving American male. __________________ Freakshow Manufacturing LLC "You can kill it. We can help." 07 FFL/ 02 SOT

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

July 2nd, 2008, 02:02 PM	#23
Hopyard Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: College Station Posts: 1,178	The idea of using business regulation to accomplish things the government can not, is one of the most distasteful around. Whether it is demanding that employers check the citizenship of employees (which sounds so nice and useful) or requiring gun makers to somehow come up with a plan to reduce gun homicides, the principle is wrong. We have yet another example (one the libertarians tout) in the encouragement (if not mandate through things like workers comp laws) that employers do drug screening. In all of these instances, government is attempting to use (and is using) private organizations to accomplish what it can not do, or is prohibited from doing. So, the proposal reported by the o.p. is quite a pernicious one; aside from it being entirely wrongheaded.

July 2nd, 2008, 04:21 PM	#25
Tye_Defender Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Arkansas Posts: 172	I'm all for performance based standards for this. But it's got to be whole-hog and based on sensible statistics. You can't count "victims" shot while they were committing a crime (shot by police or shot by their true intended victim), etc.. Repeal all the existing laws that put the burden on non-criminals, for example make every state shall-issue, and the firearm death rate will drop in 10 years. Now the number of scumbags killed would go up for the first few years but that number should come down as well as they either die off or figure out that they have to be more careful.

July 2nd, 2008, 05:44 PM	#26
digitalexplr Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Jefferson City, MO Posts: 437	And these guys are law professors. No wonder we have such screwed up judges!