<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:s="http://www.techrepublic.com/search" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"  xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
    <title><![CDATA[Discussion on Constitutional Rights vs Voice of the People ]]></title>
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/103-401241]]></link>
    <atom:link rel="hub" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/" />
    <atom:link rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/103-401241/rss" />

    <description><![CDATA[]]></description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>2013-06-19T11:18:07-07:00</lastBuildDate>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Exactly]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/103-401241-3745825]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[It's always a debate by &quot;responsible gun owners&quot; that they lock them up properly, don't store them with ammo, are properly 'trained' (by whom, we never know) etc.But aren't many of the illegally obtained gun stolen, traded, bought etc from thee so called 'responsible gun owners?  Once a responsible gun owner has  a gun stolen, they are no longer part of the 'responsible group'.  This makes it convenient for their cause because it results in no 'responsible' gun owners having their firearms stolen.   Clever indeed, if you are 4 years old.I know, for sure, that any THING can be stolen.  any PLACE can be broken into.  It makes no difference how well secured or protected, if someone REALLY wants it or really wants in, they will achieve it.  People lock their guns up, they are still stolen.  People store ammo in a different place, it's readily acquired anyway.   Fact of the matter is, despite the millions of &quot;responsible gun owners&quot; their guns are still stolen, their guns still end up killing people and the problem increases, regardless of their training, expertise and precautions.  Clearly they operate on a false sense of security. Mexicans want US guns because their own just blow up due to poor maintenance, being 100 years old etc.  If tens of thousands of PEOPLE, many being women with children and belongings in tow, can infiltrate a border repeatedly, then how secure is the nation itself?  Bottom line, it's not.  Of course that's Canada's border issue or Mexico's border issue, but surely not US customs. 'America' doesn't look inward for resolutions (or anything else for that matter), only outward. This way people feel safe, though they are misguided into feeling that way.  People feel secure, again misguidedly so and people stay in America (much to my enjoyment but also due to being misguided).  If more Americans were actually aware that they are lied to daily and practically coerced into staying in America with propaganda based media, the army would dwindle and the government would have no wars to fight...crumbling America.FEAR, UNCERTAINTY an DOUBT.  The biggest killer of any corporate growth and exactly what keeps America functioning under it's tight government control.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/103-401241-3745825]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[aidemzo_adanac]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 08 Feb 2013 09:34:26 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[I keep returning to the fact that people actually smuggle guns to Mexico...]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/103-401241-3745822]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[from the US.That shows the absolutely ridiculous amount of &quot;illegal&quot; weapons in the US.&quot;Illegal&quot; because they're all legal weapons that just somehow changed to the wrong hands.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/103-401241-3745822]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[AnsuGisalas]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 08 Feb 2013 08:32:16 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Excellent point Ansu!]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/103-401241-3745648]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[&quot;To date, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) has prevented nearly 1.8 million criminals and other prohibited purchasers from buying guns. The law also has a deterrent effectprohibited purchasers are less likely to try to buy guns when they know comprehensive background check requirements are in place. &quot;&quot;Unfortunately, current federal law requires criminal background checks only for guns sold through licensed firearm dealers, which account for just 60% of all gun sales in the United States. A loophole in the law allows individuals not engaged in the business of selling firearms to sell guns without a licenseand without processing any paperwork. That means that two out of every five guns sold in the United States change hands without a background check.&quot; &quot;Unfortunately, only six states (CA, CO, IL, NY, OR, RI) require universal background checks on all firearm sales at gun shows. Three more states (CT, MD, PA) require background checks on all handgun sales made at gun shows. Seven other states (HI, IA, MA, MI, NJ, NC, NE) require purchasers to obtain a permit and undergo a background check before buying a handgun. Florida allows its counties to regulate gun shows by requiring background checks on all firearms purchases at these events. 33 states have taken no action whatsoever to close the Gun Show Loophole.&quot;There are over 5000 gun shows in the us each year, compared to how many car shows, boat shows, home shows?  It's so far out of control that no single measure will do much but every small step helps.  Perhaps this is why so many Americans feel they will be stripped of rights and stripped of freedoms.In the same sense, I was always told to pick my battles wisely.  If the government were looking to restrict free speech, freedom of press or freedom of religion, I would strongly oppose THOSE right being taken away.  But with something as stupid as gun ownership, I think Americans need to get a grip on what's actually important.  Owning a gun is not important, it is a luxury.  There are cases where it is very important but in such cases it is also legal and a matter of safety, security, police etc.  For the average American to fight for gun freedom is simply insane to me. Nobody actually NEEDS a gun.  Sport and hunting are fine examples of a DESIRE but not a need.  Carrying a weapon for safety when in the wild is a NEED, even though just about any loud noise will work, except in the case of grizzlies. MOST wild animals flee at the sound of even distant human voices though.This whole protection of your home, family and property is a crappo excuse to me though. Other country's with more stringent gun laws still have the odd home invasion but not to the point that most homeowners feel a NEED to protect themselves with a firearm.  When I grew up, guns were simply for cowards. Anyone carrying a gun in the street or having one to protect their home would have been knocked out and laughed at for being such a pu$$y.  Back on topic, person to person gun sales are, for the most part, unregulated and often allow serious crimes to go forward.  With 60% of US guns being obtained by any SCHMOE with a wallet, how is gun control such a confusing issue?  Put an end to it, it doesn't infringe on your freedoms to be checked out before being allowed to buy a gun.  IT's baffling how many Americans get so upset over something as gun registrations.  As an upstanding citizen, how could such a system possibly be infringing on your rights?]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/103-401241-3745648]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[aidemzo_adanac]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 07 Feb 2013 11:29:44 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[That's the most common flaw of all criminals]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/103-401241-3745650]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Actually two.  Return to the crime scene and repeat the same crime.  DOH!  A lot more people would still be out there if they only had some common sense and didn't act on impulse.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/103-401241-3745650]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[aidemzo_adanac]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 07 Feb 2013 11:10:09 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[&quot;...why not a different store for paddles?!?&quot;]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/103-401241-3745635]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Because if they had the sense to change stores, they'd probably be smart enough to have real jobs and be able to afford to buy canoes and paddles instead of stealing them.They probably figured that since it worked once, it would work every time.  Never a good assumption when breaking the law.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/103-401241-3745635]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[CharlieSpencer_Palmetto]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 07 Feb 2013 10:49:00 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[In this case]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/103-401241-3745559]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Preventing the government from using computers reinforces the &quot;Government can't do anything right&quot; refrain because people can point to the inefficiency of not using computers in today's world.   The first argument then justifies arguments that there shouldn't be any expansion of what the government is already not doing correctly.  That the NRA not only fully supports, but lobbied for, the current woeful state of affairs at ATF is immaterial in their fallacious arguments.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/103-401241-3745559]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[NickNielsen]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 07 Feb 2013 07:14:25 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[LOL brazen theft]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/103-401241-3745441]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[That one always makes me chuckle. Being Ron Obvious is often the best way to be unnoticed. People think that it MUST be legit, nobody would be THAT obvious when committing a crime!  When I worked in store security, many many moons ago, we did some video testing with old crimes to see how brazen thieves would actually be. Two guys walked into The Bay  (Hudson's Bay Company, largest and oldest department store, ex trading post company in Canada).  They went to the candy department and bought $1.50 worth of candy, which was put into a Bay bag, and casually munched away while strolling the store and checking out security.  They walked up to a canoe in the sporting good department, taped the empty bag onto one of the seats and thanked security for holding the door as they walked out of the store with it.They ended up getting arrested three days later, not because they were tracked down by great security and cameras but because they returned and tried to do the same thing to steal the paddles !  Clever to start but why not a different store for paddles?!?Needless to say we all pee'd ourselves with laughter but it can happen to the best of us, even the police (not to suggest they are the best of us).]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/103-401241-3745441]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[aidemzo_adanac]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 06 Feb 2013 16:41:58 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[OK legally they May Not]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/103-401241-3745430]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[But the only reason that it's like that is because someone or some group wants to prevent fast access to information and the most likely reason is that the Baddies want it that way.Col]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/103-401241-3745430]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[HAL 9000]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 06 Feb 2013 14:34:27 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Very minor quibble.]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/103-401241-3745271]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[&quot;Though why the US Government can not use Computers to store the Records of Fire Arm Owners is beyond my understanding.&quot;Technically, it's not 'can not', but 'may not'.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/103-401241-3745271]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[CharlieSpencer_Palmetto]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 06 Feb 2013 03:36:09 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[That reminds me of a Gun Thieft here a few years ago now]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/103-401241-3745262]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[The Local Police Station was broken into and the side arms stolen from the safe. Well actually the safe and half the wall where stolen and latter found but by that time the safe was empty and several Glocks where missing. Unfortantly there is no easy way to prevent something like that from occurring though I am however still amazed that they got away with it as the Police Station was in a residential area with lots of people around and no one noticed some sort of truck backing up to the wall of the Police Station and tearing it out.I would have imagined that the thieves made quite a lot of noise with the way they took the safe.Though why the US Government can not use Computers to store the Records of Fire Arm Owners is beyond my understanding.Col]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/103-401241-3745262]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[HAL 9000]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 06 Feb 2013 02:49:37 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[How to stop legal weapons becoming illegal weapons.]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/103-401241-3745157]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Ban person-to-person gun sales.The thing to bear in mind here is this: The US has so many legal firearms, so many of which turn into illegal firearms, that people are smuggling them to Mexico!!!Chew on that for a sec.If people are smuggling something from a high-earning country, into a low-earning country, there's something not right.The FBI is confident that theft, gun shows and person-to-person sales account for the bulk of the illegal weapons.Considering that gun show salesmen are allowed to sell firearms without background checks for the same reasons private persons are, that's a two-fer.As for theft: Put damn license plates on the weapons. Demand secure storage. Theft is hard to avoid, but it is possible to make people store the weapons so that they're hard to steal.Illegal guns are a big problem, and there are insane amounts of them.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/103-401241-3745157]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[AnsuGisalas]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 05 Feb 2013 13:35:22 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Make the most of it]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/103-401241-3745154]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[If they start having a central registration database of your serial numbers, the next step is to remove your right to ignore posts.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/103-401241-3745154]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[aidemzo_adanac]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 05 Feb 2013 12:42:39 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[The whole comment is poorly presented]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/103-401241-3745163]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[From my view, whic seems to mirror your own, the entire premise of the first paragraph is convoluted and one sided.  &quot;Obama's plan to attack Americans right to keep and bear arms&quot; sounds pretty biased in it's context.  Is Obama REALLY out to &quot;attack&quot; people's rights?  or does he propose that some changes need to be made for the nation and to safely progress?&quot;as a means to end gun violence&quot; I could be wrong but I highly doubt he's said as much, at least not in that simple context.  It is a means to help reduce unnecessary deaths and greater CONTROL will most likely validate the effort.Once again, how many lives saved does it take to make it a valid solution? It's a bit of a trick question really.  IF the answer is 1, then clearly it shows a value toward human life.  If you say 10 or 50 or 100, then one's humanity is questionable.   The question is still very valid though, if one is to deny such actions as being valid, then they surely have a value placed on human life and HOW MUCH VALUE is the key question, which any 'freedom of gun ownership' supporter can not honestly answer.The whole registry idea even upsets some.  As Max said, not to point fingers but purely as example, he wouldn't feel comfortable with the serials of his guns being kept in a central registry by the government.  It's completely understandable that one would feel almost violated and sharing similar information makes a person uneasy.  I've felt the same way about other issues with government knowledge of my activities.  Nobody seems to mind them having a record of your vehicle registration though.  What's the difference with guns? They are just as lethal, if not more, than a car?I understand there are over 5000 THOUSAND gun shows in the US each year!  It's simply a staggering number, more than car shows, electronics shows, boat shows, home shows etc. and I mean a LOT more.LOL, without even reading it, I had replied to the registration comment with the same view as yourself.As for your newly found political status, I wouldn't worry about it.  I'm tagged as a left wing, tree hugging , commie, socialist.  In reality I am none of the above though.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/103-401241-3745163]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[aidemzo_adanac]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 05 Feb 2013 12:41:35 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Thanks James]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/103-401241-3745136]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[That;s the way I see it.  Clearly many Americans fear that if they give an inch the government takes a mile.  I know I have seen some changes and proposals here too that many, including myself, saw as a start with more to come.  I can understand that mindset but it seems SO ingrained into so many US minds that one has to wonder if they trust government at all or if they feel its a crooked operation that needs to be either fixed by noncompliance or replaced entirely.  I think again the whole left vs right issue comes into play.  the right will oppose Obama, no matter what, no matter how valid and no matter the reasons. He's left and must be opposed without consideration.  If a right wing president were in office, I think it might play out similar though.  Either he would be a visionary and everyone accepted change but it is more likely they'd see him a s flip-flopper or a democrat in a republican's clothing.I know some actually feel that there should be no government at all, free reign for all etc.  But I think that's seen as pretty radical by most. I honestly don't see the US government trying to take it to great lengths, even if people agreed to more stringent checks and longer wait times.  the ONLY benefit I see from that is reduced, random killing sprees and fewer guns landing in irresponsible hands. Granted, it won't stop all gun violence nor is it be proposed to do so, but ANY life saved is still one life saved. As I said before, how many lives saved does it need to be deemed a worthy solution, 1, 15, 50?The fear of a slippery slope is somewhat valid, if the government has been proven to do so in the past, but I honestly don't see it being taken to that extreme.  Any elected leader in power at such a time would never see reelection, it just wouldn't make sense politically either.I think it's the common fear, uncertainty and doubt.Fear of change.  Uncertainty on how it will take effect and who it will effect. Doubt toward the effectiveness of dramatic change or the seemingly inevitable slippery slope.I don't see any of those reasons as a valid excuse to not save more lives; even if just a few, it's a valid change.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/103-401241-3745136]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[aidemzo_adanac]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 05 Feb 2013 10:44:54 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Actually.....]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/103-401241-3745082]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Long guns in Canada were required to be registered since 1993, but that part of the law was thrown out by the Conservative government last year. Handguns have been registered in Canada since the 1930s.There have been restrictions on automatic weapons, clip sizes, regulations around safe storage etc. mandatory safety training, for decades.So it is entirely possible to implement some controls, but not slide down some slippery slope into a ban.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/103-401241-3745082]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[JamesRL]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 05 Feb 2013 08:02:14 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[You're asking the wrong guy.]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/103-401241-3745023]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I don't buy into that theory myself.  I don't distrust our government as much as regard it as too incompetent to pull off something like total weapons ban.  Even if such a proposed amendment would get through Congress, it would never get past the state legislatures.  Anyway, the alcohol prohibition demonstrated that total bans are unenforceable.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/103-401241-3745023]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[CharlieSpencer_Palmetto]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 05 Feb 2013 05:03:49 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Inevitable prohibition]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/103-401241-3744927]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Surely if that was their aim, they'd just do it right off the bat.  No need to piddle around.  I think the US knows very well just how poorly their attempts at prohibition have been (drugs and booze? c'mon, there are more guns in the US than drugs, I'd think). Why do so many Americans not trust the government and yet state it's the best place on the planet to live?There's got to be SOME association there, one would think that feeling you live in the best nation would go hand in hand with feeling you had the best government too.It seems that most people want to stop irresponsible use of guns, especially those who are properly trained and practice for sport.  The bad ones always make it worse for the good ones.  But those same people fear that the government will strip them of their rights.  They want more control but don't want more control?!Is it that people feel the PEOPLE committing crimes need to be corrected and not the laws themselves?How can that possibly work?  If we could determine people's mental weaknesses that closely, there would be no crime and no plea of insanity.I just don't get it.  It seems the focus is that if each side argues about ridiculous fallacies, then nothing gets done and everyone carries on as usual, except the problem continues to escalate.   For a nation full of forward thinking people, how do those, who are stuck in the dark ages and simply won't accept that change is needed, have such a voice?Seriously, I just don't see how its even an issue of debate, especially one that constantly results in a stalemate.  I might say Americans are gullible consumers or that they can be lead like sheep but seriously, this can't just be a matter of people's blind ignorance, or is it?]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/103-401241-3744927]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[aidemzo_adanac]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 04 Feb 2013 13:06:28 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Responses]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/103-401241-3744878]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[&quot;England thought I was Canadian, Canada thought I was British,...&quot;Are you sure it wasn't just that neither wanted you? And yes, some people view gun registration as the first step down an increasingly steep slope that leads to restriction and inevitably prohibition.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/103-401241-3744878]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[CharlieSpencer_Palmetto]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 04 Feb 2013 08:32:03 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[A fresh perspective anyway]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/103-401241-3744857]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I think I follow Palmetto's lead on this and I also wonder how changing how guns are registered actually infringes on the right to bear arms.As far as I can tell, nobody has removed rights, they are just keeping a registry of who, what and when. I light of the current out of control situation, is it really so impeding ?Secondly, and I see both views to this again, why would registering your guns with the Federal government be an issue? Do you oppose having your licence plate number being held in a central database ? If not, is the difference simply the fact that you don't have a right to drive noted in the Constitution?I know, 'they know enough about me already, too much in fact, why do they need to micromanage my affairs?I completely agree with that view point too, in fact I simply didn't exist about  5 years ago, England thought I was Canadian, Canada thought I was British, income tax didn't know where I was etc.  It felt pretty nice for a few years but I really don't care now and am tracked like a bear in the woods.What is the actual issue with respect to the 2nd amendment though?Is it a feeling that the loss of SOME rights will lead to the loss of others too?Is it even an actual loss of rights?  Control, not removal?Is it that American rights get trampled on enough and people are just fed up now?Is it that the information they want to collect is seen as useless and just a reason to collect personal data?I just don't get how it's an issue or why people are so enraged over the whole matter.  If it was me, I don't know how I would oppose it, not being American of course. Living in Canada, I thought it was pretty easy to go and get a permit, I didn't find a mandatory wait time to be an inconvenience of any sort.    As long as you are not a criminal or psycho, you can have a gun, that basis seems pretty fair and acceptable to me, in fact I'm glad someone IS keeping tabs on guns.Perhaps this really is one of those things that, unless you are American, you just don't understand it.or is it one of those things where, you FEEL, that unless someone is American they wouldn't understand freedoms and liberties?How its even a topic of discussion that lasted more than 5 minutes baffles me.  To me its like saying &quot;The number of deaths due to guns is going through the roof in our country.  Let's put together a together registry and REALLY check people out before issuing a permit.&quot;To me that would be, 'I second the motion', 'motion carried, next order of business...'Seems like such a no brainer, I just don't get it. I THINK what Americans see is:'okay, I second the motion''motion carried''next order of business, taking guns away from women under 40''motion carried''next order of business, taking guns away from white msales living in populated aread''motion carried' etc?Is that the fear, one allowance will lead to others, give them an inch and they take a mile?]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/103-401241-3744857]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[aidemzo_adanac]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 04 Feb 2013 08:26:08 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[I know EXACTLY what you mean, Max]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/103-401241-3744493]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I really do, in fact I feel the same way quite often, when I do I find it best to give my head a shake and not care about people begging for help.Much like yourself, I prefer to help people when I see a need to help them, not when I'm told to or asked to.  Before you bring it up, I don't get the same feeling from having welfare take my tax dollars to help others.  I just don't and I know you see it as the same thing and perhaps I should too but I accept it as a necessary evil.I really do relate to that mindset though, 'who am I to resolve your screw ups?'  Not a great example but playing on the same mindset, there's a guy at the track who ALWAYS asks you to buy him a pop when you turn up.  As soon as you walk in the door its &quot;Hey, see the Canucks game last night?  Buy me a pop?&quot;  Okay, in his defense he is a bit slow, actually he's quite slow, I'm not sure what actual mental issues he has but he's surely not on par with the rest of us.I'm patient for that simple fact of course and I'll always buy him a pop because, well, because he's 'an old face at the track, in his mid 50's now and there are worse people I have to deal with.It has gotten to the point now though where he EXPECTS you to buy him a pop.  HE -&quot;It's Chinese New Year, you gonna buy me a pop for Chinese New Year?&quot;  I - 'Sure man, I'll get you a pop when I buy my next beer.'HE - &quot;When are you getting your next beer?&quot;I - 'Not sure buddy, but I won't forget okay?'At this point I haven't even checked in, bought a voucher, taken off my coat or found my seat at the bar.I - order a beer and a pop. 'Hey buddy, here's that pop you wanted'HE - 'Oh, okay, there's one muffin left, buy me a muffin?'This is where I get ticked. The guy gets disability, welfare or whatever, he practically LIVES at the track (in fact he was all worked up last week because they decided to open an hour later in the morning) He used to have a menial job at some warehouse, flattening boxes or whatever, but he had a job, bottom line.  His sister, who nobody has met, is known to be rather wealthy and it seems that the track has become the place they tell him to hang out all day, like a care home.  So while I have NO PROBLEM buying a guy a pop, and in his case he does have some issues where he doesn't comprehend courtesy, it is STILL that sense that he is entitled to something and expects a handout that gets to me.  To be fair, I try not to encourage it but I do always by him a pop, as does everyone else he knows there.  But I have also told him before that I'll buy him a pop if I feel like it and that it's not good to just walk around asking everyone for a pop.It's getting to the point now though that I think, 'why does your family just expect you to come and beg here all day?  If your family is wealthy, then why aren't THEY being responsible for your well being?'I think they actually do give him a bit of money each day for food etc. but he'll just drop it on a horse and then ask someone to buy him food or drink.  I don't see it as HIS fault but more so his family's fault.  It's like they have just put him out to pasture, please forgive the pun.I work all day and stop in for a beer and a bite after work, see a few old familiar faces and place a few bets while waiting out rush hour.  Why is it MY issue to take care of him?  If you don't 'help him out' then someone else will offer up handout and you get dirty looks for saying no to him or telling him to wait a while.Then it's a matter of I'm an a$$hole for not cowtowing to his pleas, which is also encouraging it.Note: This is also a guy who can drink gallon after gallon of pop. He'll take a large pop and drink it all without stopping for a breath.Perhaps a poor example but it was just last night that I was thinking about it, 'why am I a bad guy for not offering a hand out EVERY TIME I SEE THE GUY?&quot; And I see him several times a week.Buying him a pop doesn't have any financial impact on me, if he is hungry and wants a muffin, NO PROBLEM!  It's not the money, it's just the expectation that I have money and so I should be offering handouts every time. Rant over, sorry, i tried to stay somewhat on track but it was a bug in my ear that I had to clear out.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/103-401241-3744493]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[aidemzo_adanac]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 01 Feb 2013 09:52:19 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
    </channel>
</rss>

