They say the new gun laws are to prevent deaths right? Then why the heck do they allow......

reply to post by Hopechest


No problem, here is a Wikipedia page link for Pittman- Robertson.

It was enacted in 1937, so sportsmen and non sporting shooters/collectors have been supporting wildlife for a long time.

reply to post by Mianeye

"You can't compare the two at all. If you choose to smoke it's your decision, not someone else's. If someone try to shoot and kill you, it's someone else decision, not yours. The comparisons you guys come with in here are completly stupid."

Did you not see the stats on second hand smoke???? Now who is stupid????

Originally posted by djbj597922
reply to post by Mianeye

 

"You can't compare the two at all. If you choose to smoke it's your decision, not someone else's. If someone try to shoot and kill you, it's someone else decision, not yours. The comparisons you guys come with in here are completly stupid."

Did you not see the stats on second hand smoke???? Now who is stupid????

edit on 15-4-2013 by djbj597922 because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-4-2013 by djbj597922 because: (no reason given)

Yes i did, and you should know by now that smoking in public has been regulated for the last 10 years, i don't see anyone other than heavy smokers complain about that.

And BTW there is still no conclusive proof of people getting sick from second hand smooking, there is so much dirt in the air from thousends of polution sources that you can't seperate smoking as the cause.

The same goes for the comparison of car accidents, to minimize the death toll cars have been regulated since they started producing them, making them safer, speed limits and so on, but that dosn't stop you guys from comparing it to gun deaths, even though they are doing the same thing to guns now, trying to limit the death toll.

reply to post by Mianeye


I take it you are a smoker. Probably a heavy one at that. To say that second hand smoke is not dangerous or has caused problems and deaths is just denying the facts and stats. To say that babies have not been affected by their mothers smoking is denying the facts. Smoking may be regulated but not everywhere. There are still places you can go and have to deal with second hand smoke. Not to mention households and children. How many times have you seen people driving down the road smoking with the windows rolled up and kids in the back??? So before you go spouting your opinions on second hand smoke, do some research. Its not a theory, its fact!

Originally posted by djbj597922
reply to post by Mianeye

 

I take it you are a smoker. Probably a heavy one at that. To say that second hand smoke is not dangerous or has caused problems and deaths is just denying the facts and stats. To say that babies have not been affected by their mothers smoking is denying the facts. Smoking may be regulated but not everywhere. There are still places you can go and have to deal with second hand smoke. Not to mention households and children. How many times have you seen people driving down the road smoking with the windows rolled up and kids in the back??? So before you go spouting your opinions on second hand smoke, do some research. Its not a theory, its fact!

edit on 15-4-2013 by djbj597922 because: (no reason given)

No, i am not a smoker, but have been smoking, i don't know how you came to that conclusion

I did not say that second hand smoking is not dangerous,actually i said the complete oposite, hence the regulation on smoking in public.

No, smoking may not be regulated everywhere, but is regulated still in most places, and it's just a question of time before a full ban.

If you think that they are not working on that you are in denial.

The point is, that everything causing deaths to innocent people is regulated, you guys are blowing this way out of proportion.

reply to post by Mianeye


I hope they ban them! I would be extremely happy if they did. It would save millions of lives over a period of time. But this is off topic. The whole point of this thread was to show that the government is not putting all these gun laws into place for our safety, it is an effort to be able to control us even more then they do now. If it were about safety, guns would be one of the last things on the agenda. For them to say this has anything to do with safety is just plain ridiculous. Here are just a few facts:

In 2010 there were 358 murders involving rifles. Murders involving the use of handguns in the US that same year totaled 6,009, with another 1,939 murders with the firearm type unreported. (So why are we focusing on assault rifles and not handguns????)

Two-thirds of all gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides. In 2010, there were 19,392 firearm-related suicide deaths, and 11,078 firearm-related homicide deaths in the United States.

Gun Deaths 2011
Accidental discharge 851
Suicide 19,766
Homicide 11,101
Undetermined Intent 222
Total: At least 31940 people died from gun injuries in 2011.

Cigarette Deaths = 443,000

So 31,940 people die from guns each year, over 2/3 are self inflicted, but 443,000 people die each year from cigarettes. So why are we sooooo worried about guns again? People need to wake up and see what the government is really up to. They need to see what the ultimate goal is. It has nothing to do with our safety. Nothing at all!

Someone with ample funds should rent a billboard and place this ad upon it.

Average Cigarette Deaths Each Year = 443, 000
Average Handgun Deaths Each Year = Over 6,000
Average Rifle Deaths Each Year = Under 400


Proof that the new laws on guns and assault rifles have NOTHING to do with the American public’s safety

PRICELESS!!!!

Originally posted by Hopechest
reply to post by DAVID64

 

Yea I actually believe that what they are doing with cigarettes is a far greater threat to us than anything they are doing with guns.

Guns have at least some protection from the Constitution and the Courts, they can only do so much, but cigarettes do not and the government is forcing your behavior through policy.

That to me is beyond scary and I'm sure the Founders would throw up their arms and cry, "You know we just got done fighting a war because this is exactly what the British were doing to us.....idiots!"

In my opinion we need another amendment to prevent or limit consumption taxes and other types so that the government cannot do things like this. Now the healthcare law is a tax and is acceptable and it makes you wonder what will be next since apparently the government is not being held in check.

I'd say guns are very low on the endangered species list.

You gotta be walking around stone blind or you are being paid wages to subvert every gun thread youve jumped into with your "oh its not so bad" routine.
really the sitation is comming to a head on the civil war front, and you are babbling nonsense....
I think you need to re examine whats going on behind the scenes more....

Originally posted by Hopechest
They have hit cigarettes hard with regulation. The taxes are insane and plus you are limited to the places you can smoke outside of the home.

They are not trying to ban all your guns but they are regulating them the same as they have done for a pack of smokes. You'll notice you can still go and buy cigarettes even though its quite different than say 30 years ago when they were what, a dollar a pack or something?

Smoking is not a guaranteed right, there is also not specific legal language saying the right to smoke shall not be infringed.

Either the law mattrs or it dors not. Either the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, or we are all aloud to ignore whatever pieces of legislation we don't like.

Which one is it in your oppinion?

reply to post by SpearMint

Cigarettes aren't an enabling weapon. Although personally I think cigarettes should be banned or at least not sold, it's disgusting. These are two very different issues, both should be dealt with.

Both should be dealt with??

Government should BAN cigs and guns??

Have you ever read the constitution or Bill of Rights? I think NOT if you believe the government has the authority to do that. Although it is growing in strength thanks to people like you.

Unbelievable!!

Why is it that the people who cry about "staying out of your bedroom" and supporting "choice" are always so quick to take away other rights they DON'T agree with, like gun ownership? Hypocrisy at it's finest.

What I find "funny" that's not really funny is there is a "law" called the US constitution "regulating" goverments behavior that government turns around and thinks they get to "regulate" our behavior.

One giant circular flawed "argument"..

But they actually have passed more laws regulating cigarettes than guns....

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by SpearMint

 

Cigarettes aren't an enabling weapon. Although personally I think cigarettes should be banned or at least not sold, it's disgusting. These are two very different issues, both should be dealt with.

Both should be dealt with??

Government should BAN cigs and guns??

Have you ever read the constitution or Bill of Rights? I think NOT if you believe the government has the authority to do that. Although it is growing in strength thanks to people like you.

Unbelievable!!

Why is it that the people who cry about "staying out of your bedroom" and supporting "choice" are always so quick to take away other rights they DON'T agree with, like gun ownership? Hypocrisy at it's finest.

edit on 15-4-2013 by seabag because: (no reason given)

At what point in my post did I say they should both be banned? Calm down.

I suggest you start caring about what is best for your country (whatever that may be) instead of what the constitution says. That's what other countries do, and it's worked out well. I really don't think this blind support for the constitution is healthy, even if it says what is best for the country (and I withhold my opinion on that).

People don't really ask to be shot though do they? When it comes to smoking though, it's the individual and their choice.As stupid as their choice may be, it's them that are killing themselves off.

Oh and i am a smoker, so i guess i have made a stupid choice there.

reply to post by Hopechest

They are not infringing your rights to buy guns at all. Can you still go buy guns? Nuff said.

100 pages of specific guns banned in the feinstein bill. it isn't dead contrary to popular belief.

shall not be infringed is violated when one's ability to buy guns and ammo is restricted in any way.

Originally posted by Viking9019
People don't really ask to be shot though do they? When it comes to smoking though, it's the individual and their choice.As stupid as their choice may be, it's them that are killing themselves off.

Oh and i am a smoker, so i guess i have made a stupid choice there.

edit on 15/4/13 by Viking9019 because: (no reason given)

Babies don't ask for their mothers to smoke when they are pregnant. Children who have asimah don't ask for their parents to smoke at home and in the car when they are around. People don't ask for others around them to smoke when they are out at a place that allows it. So stop the "people don't ask to be shot" stuff. Second hand smoke kills more people per year then guns do. Did you not even look at the stats???? People don't ask to inhale second hand smoke but they are still forced to day after day. Second hand smoke is no different then being shot by someone else. They both kill!!!! They both don't ask for it!!!!! I bet your second hand smoke has affected many people in your lifetime. Especially those closest to you!

reply to post by SpearMint

I suggest you start caring about what is best for your country (whatever that may be) instead of what the constitution says.

Uhm…the constitution IS WHAT’S BEST for my country. Unfortunately we haven’t adhered to it in quite some time.

That's what other countries do, and it's worked out well. I really don't think this blind support for the constitution is healthy, even if it says what is best for the country (and I withhold my opinion on that).

You know what they say about opinions…

Because those cigarette facts are false to begin with. Because guns are designed for death or injuring. Cigarettes are designed to be enjoyed as one of the fruits of life. Although it may cause death on occasion as a consequence. Just like automobiles. But what's a life worth living without being enjoyed? They're not try to ban guns to reduce deaths, there's other motives as you all know already....

Cigarettes, guns, whatever, FREEDOM is #1 priority.

Second hand smoke kills more people per year then guns do.

Wow, for a forum like this, I really thought people were a little more enlightened. But I guess I shouldn't be surprised, given a forum like this is precisely what may attract those out of touch with reality. As for keeping you informed, second hand smoke probably hasn't killed a single person in all of history, short of asphyxiation by burning a bonfire in a small room.