Are the pro-gun people really this irrational? (Illinois, states, gun control)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You are right some are much more violent. Why don't you post a list of those more violent. Care to guess where most of them are?
How bout this, is Germany, Spain, England, Ireland, France, etc more violent than the US? You know, those socialist failed states you right wingers love to go on about.
Well, I may not be a weapon expert, but I sure do know more than the average person about them. The same cannot be said about mental illness issues. What I do know is that some people are too looney tunes crazy to be trusted with even holding a loaded weapon, much less owning one.
I'll leave defining that, and determining how to implement it to someone more knowledgeable than I.
I actually like that, under one condition. That the license allows concealed carry in all 50 states.
That's easy. Each license has a unique ID number, and the seller, at the time of sale, has to go to a website to ensure it's both legit and valid. Problem solved.
Re the debate between you and Konraden. I hope you both realize that the NRA, and their enabler politicians will NEVER agree to any licensing whatsoever. As they claim, "do you need a license for free speech?".
Basically the 2nd amendment blocks any attemp at licensing in the eyes of the NRA and their political stooges. It won't happen.
Do any other amendments of the Bill of Rights require a license?
Yes, but that's not what I'm hearing coming out of Washington. All I hear is "ban assault weapons", "we must get these weapons of war off the streets", and plans to require (all?) semi-automatic weapons to be listed in the NFA, which means they'll literally be as heavily regulated as machineguns, and now I'm hearing rumors of compulsory buybacks.
That is not reasonable debate or compromise, that is grandstanding, and if they really try it, could quite literally lead to a civil war. A LOT of people mean it quite literally when they say you can have it when you take it out of my cold, dead hands.
I've said many times in the past week that I have no problem with that in principal. However, there currently exists no mechanism to make it happen.
Well, personally I think that that three issues in the coming year are going to rip the country apart anyway. The Gay Marriage verdict by the Supreme Court, the fiscal cliff tax increases, and finally the new gun laws.
I believe that sooner rather than later a majority of voters in places like Texas, Alaska, the South will feel that they have no stake in the country anymore and will walk away. I really feel it is inevitable and I think that if we can get it to happen peacefully and in a gradual way it will be good for all of us. I'd love to see my region and New England get together in a more Western European type state.
I very much doubt anyone anymore would fight to keep this country together at this point. Never.
Yes, [the Columbine armed guard] was eating lunch nearby and showed up after the shooting started. He was a "community resource officer", not a guard.
To me, the Columbine situation illustrates another ridiculous point about having armed guards as the schools. How many? Where will they be? Would not a student with half a brain be able to figure out the habits of the armed guard(s) and be able to sneak around them if they wanted to bring in a gun? Don't you think the Columbine killers KNEW when the guard ate lunch?
It's a superficial "solution" about as useful as putting a gate at the entrance to a subdivision. I agree that it's a straw-man argument chosen by the NRA to deflect our attention from the real topics that need to be debated. It's a time-honored political strategy: don't like the argument? change the argument.
Do any other amendments of the Bill of Rights require a license?
And that is a fair point. But I think we all agree that certain persons should not have a firearm. A guy who just spent the past 20 years in prison for murdering his wife. One who literally hears voices in his head instructing him to kill people. Those sorts.
Ergo, the question becomes, what reasonable methods can be put into place that prevent them from getting one, at least legally (someone determined enough to get one illegally enough eventually will), without infringing on the rights of people who don't have such baggage.
I am open to any reasonable suggestions.
Banning rifles because they look scary is not reasonable, and will accomplish nothing.
To me, the Columbine situation illustrates another ridiculous point about having armed guards as the schools. How many? Where will they be? Would not a student with half a brain be able to figure out the habits of the armed guard(s) and be able to sneak around them if they wanted to bring in a gun? Don't you think the Columbine killers KNEW when the guard ate lunch?
No solution is perfect, nor would any situation guarantee a positive outcome.
The cop shot at one of the Columbine killers. He missed. Things might have ended better if he hadn't. Likewise, if the Principal in Newtown had a pistol in her purse, she might have been able to take out whatshisname (I will not give him fame), and if so, he would have been the only casualty. It's true that she may have missed, too, and the result would have been the same.
Or maybe, miss or not, just getting shot at would have caused him to flee.
We'll never know. However, the chances of a better outcome are vastly improved when the nutjob shooter is not the only person on campus with a firearm.
To me, the Columbine situation illustrates another ridiculous point about having armed guards as the schools. How many? Where will they be? Would not a student with half a brain be able to figure out the habits of the armed guard(s) and be able to sneak around them if they wanted to bring in a gun? Don't you think the Columbine killers KNEW when the guard ate lunch?
How about we look at this case rationally? How did the presence of this armed guard hurt? Is it possible this guard was able to call for backup and get a quicker response and provide them with initial intelligence that led to resolving the situation at 12 dead instead of 32?
Do you require a solution to be 100% effective or else it is worthless? Armed guards often fail to prevent banks from getting robbed and armore trucks from getting ambushed. Shall they declare armed guards worthless and dispense of them?
Rather than throwing out guards as a solution because of times they failed, would it be perhaps be better to examine how we can make them more effective and fail less?
And that is a fair point. But I think we all agree that certain persons should not have a firearm. A guy who just spent the past 20 years in prison for murdering his wife. One who literally hears voices in his head instructing him to kill people. Those sorts.
Ergo, the question becomes, what reasonable methods can be put into place that prevent them from getting one, at least legally (someone determined enough to get one illegally enough eventually will), without infringing on the rights of people who don't have such baggage.
I am open to any reasonable suggestions.
Banning rifles because they look scary is not reasonable, and will accomplish nothing.
Well maybe I missed that, but I don't recall the NRA saying anything about mentally ill people and guns in their press conferences since the Newtown shooting. They just want more guns, as do most of the right wing gun owners. Re gun sales going thru the roof since Newtown.
So, no, I doubt very much you will get anywhere with anything. I give up, and hope for much more dramatic changes down the road as US society falls apart.
Well maybe I missed that, but I don't recall the NRA saying anything about mentally ill people and guns in their press conferences since the Newtown shooting.
Well, I'm not a member of the NRA, nor did I watch the press conference. That said, I'd be shocked if they were on the record as being in favor of mentally ill people having access to firearms. In fact, the fact that every once in awhile a mentally ill nutjob gets their hands on a firearm and goes on a shooting spree is why we're having this debate in the first place.
Quote:
Re gun sales going thru the roof since Newtown.
Well, since Marie Antoinette AKA Diane Feinstein went on the record saying she was going to once again try to ban them, and has introduced a bill so over the top that it would almost certainly never pass the constitutionality smell test, trying to get now while the getting is good does seem to make some sense, no?
Quote:
So, no, I doubt very much you will get anywhere with anything. I give up, and hope for much more dramatic changes down the road as US society falls apart.
When the aforementioned Senator (who has armed protection at all times) gives up, then we've got something. Until then, our rights are in jeopardy. She has her protection, I guess the rest of us can just eat cake.
PS... Society is not falling apart. The murder rate is almost at the lowest rate in all of history. The sky is not falling. Fewer than 400 people a year are killed by so-called "assault weapons". Out of 300,000,000. You have better odds of winning the lottery.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
