Why do you think guns rights have been restricted in the recent years? (Obama, terrorist)

[green_mariner]

Originally Posted by Eastern Roamer

To answer the question "why" I'd guess that there have been more restrictions in the 20th century because America is a relatively young country. Most nations were well established when guns were either invented or became prolific. With towns and established law and order the citizenry in other countries had less need for guns than the Americans did while settling the frontiers, facing native's, and the "wild" west. Our country was founded with guns in hand and we have been a gun culture ever since.

Some progressive thinking, overly-optimistic people think that we can undo all that by restricting gun ownership. Ideally, we wouldn't need guns. But we've had them for so long that to take them away feels like we're losing rights. I wish we could be more like those countries that neither had gun rights nor a need for them, but I'm not giving up my pistols and I don't expect anyone else to.

What's ironic is that those governments fear their unarmed citizens and bend to their will, whereas we armed citizens fear our government.

With that said, there has been increasing leniency recently towards concealed carry rights. In that respect, we're getting less restrictive.

Not necessarily. Look at Russia and the former Eastern bloc.

[ryanek9freak]

Originally Posted by Bideshi

So why would we have to defend the other three?

That's a reasonable number. Right now only one in every 20 people is armed.

[rifleman]

First, to the original OP (isn't that sort of the rule here, Tricky?). I.e.: Why increasing gun legislation recently?

Society continues to evolve. Unfortunately due to increasing population, resource consumption, the iPodding of our youth's thinking and ever-increasing socialist thinking as "The Simple Solution", the Bleating Sheeple want it all, easily, with minimum thinking on their part. Simple rules for politically lazy and simple-minded people. The elected guys are supposed to "take care of it all" while we go visit McDonalds. When it doesn't (can't, actually...) work out, they then are easily manipulated further, as they have been in Europe, into conceding that increasing government management of human behavior through vast, invasive legislation, is the best and final answer. See Russia, Georgia, Britain, France, yes, even Holland. TD's answers just confirm that this has already happened to him.

Second: TrickyD has successfully hijacked this entire thread, as is his inflamatory irrational style. Dutchmen are known, historically, to be incredibly hard-headed and stubborn. Who else, after all, would stand there all day and night with their finger in a leaking waterdyke, where we Yanks would go get a Bobcat and fix it properly once and for all?

Several of you have asked him why he doesn't just answer your direct questions. You've said his tone is inflamatory, that it's not worth continuing debate with him. You've got to honestly ask yourselves:

What is his history in other threads?

Will your oh-so-logical thoughtful inquiries and entreaties to him EVER result in a change in his mind?

Will he EVER concede anything?
Are his hostile combative comebacks a positive contribution to this thread?

Is it worth it arguing with a wooden post?

Just asking. No conclusions on my part.

I haven't even seen his responses here because he's on my "ignore" list, but I have seen your selection of his more egregious post quotes, and the degree that it inflames you and clogs up the thread. When he tries to blast my thoughts here, I won't be able to see them. Which will be the last laugh on him. Don't much want to expose my mind to his anyways; I'd just like to see this post proceed in a positive and productive tone.

I'd suggest you might consider doing what I did. Assign him to the dung heap of "Ignore" and return to a much more productive and more friendly thread debate. He's just fussin' you guys, and laughing at all of you!

Absent his purposefully inflamatory strategy, yes, we CAN all just get along. Just sayin...

[texdav]

Originally Posted by pirate_lafitte

I am not a conservative, but I do believe in the right to own a gun. I notice that guns rights were no restricted until the 20th century starting with restricting what kind of gun you can own. It then went to other things. Some people believe curtailing gun ownership would keep murder rates down. I don't see that working too well. Atfer Washington D.C. restricted handgun access, DC went into a severe crimewave. Look at Moscow,Russia. One of the most violent cities in the world and you can't get a gun if you need to protect yourself. Tell me your opinions.

I just think people too often want to find a answer that does not involve punishing peole.Too many violent offenders have a violent past before they kill someone ;no matter the means. Too often all this does is restrict the freedoms of lawbidding citizens.

[Bideshi]

The first murder was done with a rock.

[rifleman]

Originally Posted by texdav

I just think people too often want to find a answer that does not involve punishing peole.

and...

Too often all this does is restrict the freedoms of lawbidding citizens.

More than "too often", texdave! More like "always".

To your first point, I'm more and more convinced by their sheepish actions and words that a lot of legislators are very afraid of being labelled as "harsh", ""knee-jerk" or "uncaring". The perps are also often portrayed, esp. in big city gang situations, as themselves being just victims of a bad youth, bad parents, only one parent, etc. etc. All probably true, but hardly an excuse for them murdering someone. And what about some sympathy for the true victims?

The gangs are very convincing in their new caring role as father figures to these unfortunate kids. The role of education in freeing up the inner city folks from their "entitlement nightmare" would go a long ways to changing the culture of violence, and hence the changing ever-more-restrictive array of gun legislation in America. As Bill Cosby so controversially noted, the black boy-men who impregnate their girlfriends ("But... I LOVE you, honey!" ) and then disappear should probably be actively prosecuted and then held accountable. That's legislation aimed directly at errant human behavior that I and many others could really get on board with, rather than the false promises of cultural safety through ever more gun control. With appropriate social education, the girls would probably be less easily hoodwinked into pregnancies as well!

Fortunately, in this apparently horrid country, we have true freedom of expression (ooops...sorry, gotta answer that pounding on my front and back doors... wonder why that black helicopter's landed in my pasture?).

And we're fond of debating and navel-gazing and slowly but surely improving our society. Just watch!

[Eastern Roamer]

Originally Posted by pirate_lafitte

Not necessarily. Look at Russia and the former Eastern bloc.

That's true. And China had weapons control before there were even guns, that's why we have chop sticks today... and they're not exactly the beacon of hope for democracy. I stand corrected.

[green_mariner]

Originally Posted by Bideshi

The first murder was done with a rock.

If more people thought of that, there would be less willingness to take away the right to own a gun. The first murder was committed with a gun. Mankind has been committing murders for ages. The only thing guns have really done is make killing quicker. People have been using knives, and rocks, and even aminals to kill other humans. Taking away the right to own a gun won't change a person's capacity for killing.

[green_mariner]

Originally Posted by Eastern Roamer

That's true. And China had weapons control before there were even guns, that's why we have chop sticks today... and they're not exactly the beacon of hope for democracy. I stand corrected.

What I was saying is that sometimes when governments have citizens who aren't armed, that is more the reason to inflict more harm.

I didn't know China had weapons control before guns were invented.
China has had its insurrections. The reason democracy hasn't come to China is because most citizens aren't armed. Example: Tiananmen Square Massacre. The government came in and cracked down on the demonstration. The government showed no control.

The former Soviet Union was the same way. The only people who had guns were the police and the army. After the Communists took over, gun rights were taken away and the people were subject to any and all cruelties. Few people protested because they knew jail and/or death was certain. Alot of people eventually stopped putting up with it and began protesting. The USSR is no more, but gun control is still in place. Has it helped to deter crime? No it hasn't. Moscow is one of the most violent cities in the world as far as murder rates go. Detroit, St. Louis, and New Orleans are violent cities, but even the murder capital of America, Chicago, couldn't compare to Moscow. Yes, the police in that city are cruel and corrupt. Does it keep the crime down? No way. Switzerland's gun solution is relatively nice considering in most countries in Europe, gun ownership is very difficult to get, if not impossible.(I don't like the conscription part): When able-bodied, sound of mind males in Switzerland turn 18, they are required to undergo training in the army for a certain amount of time(I think it is between three weeks and three months). After you undergo the training, the gun issued to you in the army is yours for the keeping. It beats not having a gun, though I would liek to be able to just buy a gun.

[rifleman]

Originally Posted by pirate_lafitte

The first murder was committed with a gun. Mankind has been committing murders for ages.

I'm confused... You can't have meant this... the FIRST murder was committed with a GUN? Not a sharp stick? You mean the first murder of 2008? In Los Angeles?

I don't get it....