Page 13 of 31 FirstFirst ... 31011121314151623 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 302
  1. #121


    Wickabee's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    16,749
    Country
    Card Cash
    250.00
    Savings
    0.00
    Blog Entries
    2
    Transferred Feedback
    Beckett (66)

    View my Inventory New
    View my store Beta
    Quote Originally Posted by BGT Masters View Post
    I believe what I am saying as well as Wickabee is if you locked your fire arm up is a reasonable manner. Yet someone somehow breaks in and still gets a hold of it, you shouldn't be held accountable. However it you readily keep your fire arm laying around in a drawer, or laying around your closet with no real protection over someone just picking it up and taking it, you should shoulder some of them blame if a crime is committed using your fire arm. I don't see the big deal of that you should have to keep unused fire arms locked up in a gun safe/lock box/whatever. Just keeping your front door closed isn't good enough protection if you own firearms as far as I am concerned.
    Exactly. If it worked as I personally would want it to, you'd see the owner charged in maybe 5% of these cases. The arguments about kitchen knives or not punishing criminals is either peoe who don't understand or people who don't want to be responsible for their own property.

  2. #122
    Quote Originally Posted by indexed View Post
    this is not about common sense its about the constitution and our rights. If people had common sense there wouldnt be people laying in emergency rooms getting stitches, with broken arms and legs. We wouldn't need car insurance because there would be no accidents.

    Accidents happen. What won't happen is my household won't be taken over by drug cartels or the gov't or the mafia etc etc.
    And the constitution needs a little updating. It was written in a totally different time, under certain/different circumstances. Not only that but guns where used more like a tool (for putting food on the table) and you had one shot. People back then needed a fire arm a heck of a lot more than today. I'm sure they couldn't imagine a time where one armed man in a few seconds could easily kill a couple dozen people. Back then you had what one shot every 40 seconds or so. The times have changed. How can you NOT understand the difference between when and why the law was written and how life was back then and how it is a few hundred years later, I mean COME ON MAN!!!!!

  3. #123
    Quote Originally Posted by Wickabee View Post
    If my car gets stolen and crashed, my premiums go up. If your only means of protecting yourself gets stolen and used in a crime, there should be consequences.

    Also, if the only means you have for protecting you and yours gets stolen, then it's no very effective, is it?
    What car insurance company do you have? I've worked for a car insurance company before and that is not accurate.
    Sorry, no PayPal gift and no international shipping.
    "Hidden Content " (Titus 2:11)

  4. #124


    Wickabee's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    16,749
    Country
    Card Cash
    250.00
    Savings
    0.00
    Blog Entries
    2
    Transferred Feedback
    Beckett (66)

    View my Inventory New
    View my store Beta
    Quote Originally Posted by notes2us View Post
    What car insurance company do you have? I've worked for a car insurance company before and that is not accurate.
    Have you ever worked in Canada? It doesn't go on my licence, but does go on my plate, which means higher premiums for me.

  5. #125
    Back when I had my first car many years ago and I was on my father insurance it was stolen and he said it wasn't worth claiming because his rate would go up and it wasn't worth it. I am pretty sure you're wrong in saying your premium will not go up if your car is stolen. He could have been wrong but I doubt it.

  6. #126
    Quote Originally Posted by duane1969 View Post
    I would say they have gone up quite a bit in the last 5 years. My guess is the movement to ban guns, etc. has spawned a rise in price because more and more people are buying and stockpiling guns and creating a bigger market for safes. We have a Tractor Supply here too, they are on par with the prices I have seen other places. I missed a good deal on a 12 gun safe in Gander Mountain that knocked the normally $700 safe down to $500, but that is the least expensive one that I have found so far.



    I am unaware of any state in the country that requires an FBI database background check for a driver's license or that will limit your ability to get a driver's license if you broke a law 20 or 30 years ago. There is no state that it is easier to get a handgun and license to carry than it is to get a driver's license.



    There is no arguable need for a car that can go 100MPH yet every car produced is capable of it. Should we outlaw cars than can exceed the speed limit? Demanding validation of a need does not negate the consitutional right to own something. If I can not prove that I need something it does not eliminate my right to own it.



    You are aware that the Assault Weapons Ban was just one big joke, right? It did not limit firepower, killing ability or magazine capacity of guns. It eliminated cosmetic things such as folding stocks, flash suppresors, bayonets and pistol grips.

    Example:

    This gun was illegal


    This gun was not illegal


    Now your reaching...as always.

    Provide a valid argument why we should not ban assault weapons...

    Your reply well cards can do 100 MPH and we dont ban those? really? Sorry but that logic fails in so many ways. IF these how you are going to argue the point then you have already lost.

    I would love to show you that person can get a FID card faster then obtaining a drivers license.
    TRADING FOR ALL JEROME BETTIS I NEED! Hidden Content
    Hidden Content
    Collecting Roethlisberger and Charlie Batch
    “The only real failure in life is not to be true to the best one knows.”-Buddha

  7. #127


    Wickabee's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    16,749
    Country
    Card Cash
    250.00
    Savings
    0.00
    Blog Entries
    2
    Transferred Feedback
    Beckett (66)

    View my Inventory New
    View my store Beta
    I think he has a very valid point. Before you can ban assault weapons you need a much better and clearer system of classification. That's step one, you're trying to skip over it.

  8. #128
    Quote Originally Posted by BGT Masters View Post
    Back when I had my first car many years ago and I was on my father insurance it was stolen and he said it wasn't worth claiming because his rate would go up and it wasn't worth it. I am pretty sure you're wrong in saying your premium will not go up if your car is stolen. He could have been wrong but I doubt it.
    I am not sure how it works in Canada, but from where I worked....

    A stolen car is covered under the Comprehensive part of your insurance policy. Any damage done to your stolen vehicle will fall under this umbrella - unlike the typical Collision coverage if your car was not stolen. If another party's property was damaged or someone was hurt, they (or their insurance company) can go after the other party (the one who stole the vehicle) for recovery of damages. If the other party is unknown or uninsured, then they can use the Uninsured Motorist portion of their own policy. Comprehensive claims do not increase your insurance rates. Now, if you live in an area when cars are stolen often, or you have a popular car that is stolen often....your rates may be higher.....but they will not increase from where they were because your car was stolen.
    Sorry, no PayPal gift and no international shipping.
    "Hidden Content " (Titus 2:11)

  9. #129


    Wickabee's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    16,749
    Country
    Card Cash
    250.00
    Savings
    0.00
    Blog Entries
    2
    Transferred Feedback
    Beckett (66)

    View my Inventory New
    View my store Beta
    You forgot the part where your comprehensive goes up relative to the entire cost since the vehicle is registered to your plate.

  10. #130



    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,469
    Country
    Card Cash
    0.00
    Savings
    0.00
    Transferred Feedback
    TheBench(150)

    View my Inventory New
    View my store Beta
    Quote Originally Posted by BGT Masters View Post
    And the constitution needs a little updating. It was written in a totally different time, under certain/different circumstances. Not only that but guns where used more like a tool (for putting food on the table) and you had one shot. People back then needed a fire arm a heck of a lot more than today. I'm sure they couldn't imagine a time where one armed man in a few seconds could easily kill a couple dozen people. Back then you had what one shot every 40 seconds or so. The times have changed. How can you NOT understand the difference between when and why the law was written and how life was back then and how it is a few hundred years later, I mean COME ON MAN!!!!!
    The Constitution is fine. What is laughable is that people don't understand the meaning of the 2nd Amendment. There is a very good reason that the right to bear arms is listed so highly in the Bill of Rights. Not only did the Founders believe that individuals had the right to protect themselves and their family, but they also understood that a well regulated militia (meaning the people) must be armed to to prevent a tyrannical government from taking away individual rights. What other possible meaning could it have? These men had just participated in an armed rebellion against England!

    Furious at the December 1773 Boston Tea Party, Parliament in 1774 passed the Coercive Acts. The particular provisions of the Coercive Acts were offensive to Americans, but it was the possibility that the British might deploy the army to enforce them that primed many colonists for armed resistance. The Patriots of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, resolved: “That in the event of Great Britain attempting to force unjust laws upon us by the strength of arms, our cause we leave to heaven and our rifles.” A South Carolina newspaper essay, reprinted in Virginia, urged that any law that had to be enforced by the military was necessarily illegitimate.

    The Royal Governor of Massachusetts, General Thomas Gage, had forbidden town meetings from taking place more than once a year. When he dispatched the Redcoats to break up an illegal town meeting in Salem, 3000 armed Americans appeared in response, and the British retreated. Gage’s aide John Andrews explained that everyone in the area aged 16 years or older owned a gun and plenty of gunpowder.

    Military rule would be difficult to impose on an armed populace. Gage had only 2,000 troops in Boston. There were thousands of armed men in Boston alone, and more in the surrounding area. One response to the problem was to deprive the Americans of gunpowder.

    Modern “smokeless” gunpowder is stable under most conditions. The “black powder” of the 18th Century was far more volatile. Accordingly, large quantities of black powder were often stored in a town’s “powder house,” typically a reinforced brick building. The powder house would hold merchants’ reserves, large quantities stored by individuals, as well as powder for use by the local militia. Although colonial laws generally required militiamen (and sometimes all householders, too) to have their own firearm and a minimum quantity of powder, not everyone could afford it. Consequently, the government sometimes supplied “public arms” and powder to individual militiamen. Policies varied on whether militiamen who had been given public arms would keep them at home. Public arms would often be stored in a special armory, which might also be the powder house.

    Before dawn on September 1, 1774, 260 of Gage’s Redcoats sailed up the Mystic River and seized hundreds of barrels of powder from the Charlestown powder house.

    The “Powder Alarm,” as it became known, was a serious provocation. By the end of the day, 20,000 militiamen had mobilized and started marching towards Boston. In Connecticut and Western Massachusetts, rumors quickly spread that the Powder Alarm had actually involved fighting in the streets of Boston. More accurate reports reached the militia companies before that militia reached Boston, and so the war did not begin in September. The message, though, was unmistakable: If the British used violence to seize arms or powder, the Americans would treat that violent seizure as an act of war, and would fight. And that is exactly what happened several months later, on April 19, 1775.

    Five days after the Powder Alarm, on September 6, the militia of the towns of Worcester County assembled on the Worcester Common. Backed by the formidable array, the Worcester Convention took over the reins of government, and ordered the resignations of all militia officers, who had received their commissions from the Royal Governor. The officers promptly resigned and then received new commissions from the Worcester Convention.

    That same day, the people of Suffolk County (which includes Boston) assembled and adopted the Suffolk Resolves. The 19-point Resolves complained about the Powder Alarm, and then took control of the local militia away from the Royal Governor (by replacing the Governor’s appointed officers with officers elected by the militia) and resolved to engage in group practice with arms at least weekly.

    The First Continental Congress, which had just assembled in Philadelphia, unanimously endorsed the Suffolk Resolves and urged all the other colonies to send supplies to help the Bostonians.

    Governor Gage directed the Redcoats to begin general, warrantless searches for arms and ammunition. According to the Boston Gazette, of all General Gage’s offenses, “what most irritated the People” was “seizing their Arms and Ammunition.”

    When the Massachusetts Assembly convened, General Gage declared it illegal, so the representatives reassembled as the “Provincial Congress.” On October 26, 1774, the Massachusetts Provincial Congress adopted a resolution condemning military rule, and criticizing Gage for “unlawfully seizing and retaining large quantities of ammunition in the arsenal at Boston.” The Provincial Congress urged all militia companies to organize and elect their own officers. At least a quarter of the militia (the famous Minute Men) were directed to “equip and hold themselves in readiness to march at the shortest notice.” The Provincial Congress further declared that everyone who did not already have a gun should get one, and start practicing with it diligently.

    In flagrant defiance of royal authority, the Provincial Congress appointed a Committee of Safety and vested it with the power to call forth the militia. The militia of Massachusetts was now the instrument of what was becoming an independent government of Massachusetts.

    Lord Dartmouth, the Royal Secretary of State for America, sent Gage a letter on October 17, 1774, urging him to disarm New England. Gage replied that he would like to do so, but it was impossible without the use of force. After Gage’s letter was made public by a reading in the British House of Commons, it was publicized in America as proof of Britain’s malign intentions.

    Two days after Lord Dartmouth dispatched his disarmament recommendation, King George III and his ministers blocked importation of arms and ammunition to America. Read literally, the order merely required a permit to export arms or ammunition from Great Britain to America. In practice, no permits were granted.


    For those that understand American history, the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is quite clear. And for those who believe that we don't have to worry about the government taking away our personnel freedoms, I'd say you're not really paying attention.
    Last edited by tpeichel; 01-08-2013 at 03:40 PM.
    Buying "Broder" unlicensed sets and singles.

Page 13 of 31 FirstFirst ... 31011121314151623 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •