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.
They don't care. Firearms are evil and the scourge of our country, that is all they see. No statistic, no facts , nothing will change their minds.
As Freud pointed out, a deep seated fear of firearms is simply a manifestation of a deep seated fear of the penis. Personally, I don't see why I should turn in my sporting arms because of some repressed liberal's sexual hang-ups.
This is why it is a complete waste of time debating with antis. They are misguided fanatics who seem to think that murder never existed prior to the invention of gunpowder. They may as well be debating that the world is flat, vaccines cause autism or Hooch wasn't the dog in Turner and Hooch.
An even better proposition to a country-wide firearms ban would be to offer those who wish to ban said firearms a one-way ticket to Australia or some other jurisdiction where guns have been banned so they can finally live in their violence-free utopia.
Sigh. This has been gone over in supreme court. Obviously there needs to be some regulation on them, and THERE IS. There are 20,000 laws on the books doing so, so why don't you just relax. If legislation could eradicate gun crime it would've done so already. People are people, if they really want to kill someone with a gun they are going to do it.
Felons can't legally own guns (yet they still have them, why don't they listen to and obey our laws that say they cant?? hmm, maybe because they are criminals and by definition do not follow laws). You can't bring a loaded gun in a airplane (if you put a bullet through the skin of a plane at altitude you risk killing everyone on board).
What people have a problem with is when there is unjust and over the top infringement. Like, banning all law abiding citizens in good mental health from owning the most popular sporting rifle in the country simply because one mentally unhinged person stole one and shot a handful of kids with it.
The problem is it isn't just one act by one person, it's about four per year. In 2011, you had the attempt at Gabby Giffords' life as well as the death of a federal judge at a town hall she conducted in a parking lot which caused a brief uptick in the gun debate. In 2012, you had both the Aurora theater shooting during the midnight premier of The Dark Knight in July which brought back to light the debate from the Gabby Gifford's incident and then the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting in December which has continued to be used as the lightning rod in the debate.
.. In 2011, you had the attempt at Gabby Giffords' life as well as the death of a federal judge at a town hall she conducted in a parking lot which caused a brief uptick in the gun debate. ...
Gifford's killer was stopped by a guy with a CCW permit who was carrying his own gun at the time. (though he did not fire the weapon).
In all of these cases, the gunman could have been stopped by people carrying their own guns.
The problem is it isn't just one act by one person, it's about four per year. In 2011, you had the attempt at Gabby Giffords' life as well as the death of a federal judge at a town hall she conducted in a parking lot which caused a brief uptick in the gun debate. In 2012, you had both the Aurora theater shooting during the midnight premier of The Dark Knight in July which brought back to light the debate from the Gabby Gifford's incident and then the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting in December which has continued to be used as the lightning rod in the debate.
No, it is the fact that the sickos who commit these crimes are cowards and want either to be killed by the police, or get their names engrained into history. These events would go away if the press quit posting the names of the idiot and covering his worthless life for weeks after a event. All that should be reported is that the suspect killed himself, or the police killed him, if captured, he is given a number and referred to only by it with no way for the media to track it to a name.
The right to keep and bear arms is a natural right, not one granted by Gov't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pop251808
If the 2nd amendment doesn't grant us a right (with a qualifier), then why is it there? Was it to be like a grocery list, sort of a "reminder?" Of course it grants us a right.
I don't know who taught you American history, but that person was a failure as a teacher.
Read The Federalist Papers, read Locke, look for "Natural rights". Read the history of how the "Bill of Rights" came to be, and why the bill of rights was controversial at the time. The US Constitution is a contract, in which we, the people, cede certain of our natural rights for the benefits an organized system of government should bring. The bill of rights enumerates certain natural rights explicitly retained by the individual citizens, which is why the 10th amendment reads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amendment 10
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people
Nothing in the constitution grants people rights. If any, the constitution is about giving up or delegating certain rights, not granting new ones.
Gifford's killer was stopped by a guy with a CCW permit who was carrying his own gun at the time. (though he did not fire the weapon).
In all of these cases, the gunman could have been stopped by people carrying their own guns.
But they WEREN'T and are irrelevant. The concealed carry holder didn't use his gun so saying he could have is irrelevant. The Aurora shooter was stopped by police who didn't need to shoot because he surrendered so that too is irrelevant. The Sandy Hook shooter shot himself so that too is irrelevant.
Hi there! I'm new here and i don't know what do you think about gun-usage.
Hope that it will be good thread and somebody will tell me why i'm wrong or why i'm right!
First problem, as I see it: You are approaching this as though it were a binary, This OR That, situation.
Second problem, as I see it: You have not considered the impact/reality of the Second Amendment.
Third problem, as I see it: You are discounting the very-real probability that a major contributing factor to gun violence in the good-ol' US of A is mental illness.
There are any number of other contributing factors which, for the purpose of brevity in this thread, I will not raise.
Here's the deal. (a) Gun violence in the 'Good ol' US of A' is abso-danged-lutely real. (b) Gun Violence in the 'Good ol' US of A' is abso-danged-lutely intolerable. (c) Most of the perpetrators of Gun-Violence in the Good-ol' US of A are, or should have been, diagnosably mentally ill. (d) 'good-ol' Ronald Reagan completely eviscerated the American Mental Health System back in the 1980s, (e) the damage Reagan triggered is not only ongoing, but cumulative.
I can go on in considerable detail. Instead I think I'll stop now to allow the teeth-gnashers and Reagan Apologists to have their say.
-- Nighteyes (who has "more degrees than a thermometer" and who knows his hat from third base about what happened to the American mental health system from 1981 until today)
Truly amazing that you can't read your own post and realize how contradictory you are to the very values you claim to understand.
What I understand is that no state in the U.S. has proposed ANY laws that put my ownership of a gun at risk. But I am at least willing to discuss moderate gun control as an option rather than wrap myself in the flag of the 2nd amendment and say "take it from my cold dead hands" which is not helpful at all when we have 26 dead first graders.
What I'm saying is that what Connecticut did and Colorado attempted to do was completely appropriate and called for. I'm not calling for very many hard bans, but more importantly an extensive paper trail. Most of the weapons used in these spree shootings would have still been available even under the strictest gun control laws like what San Francisco has.
It's all or nothing with some people. We can't have reasonable conversations because people act like their damn gun is the symbol of their freedom, the one ring, the precious.
Gun control needs to be part of the solution - but I would focus more on liability for guardians of minors or mentally disabled persons who get their hands on their guardians' weapons. I would also focus on crazy person control. We used to lock crazy people up and we had 1 rampage every 5 years. Now we medicate them and trust their family members to monitor their meds and what happens is that they spaz out and shoot up people about three or four times a year now.
Last edited by redguard57; 02-09-2015 at 12:59 PM..
What I understand is that no state in the U.S. has proposed ANY laws that put my ownership of a gun at risk. But I am at least willing to discuss moderate gun control as an option rather than wrap myself in the flag of the 2nd amendment and say "take it from my cold dead hands" which is not helpful at all when we have 26 dead first graders.
What I'm saying is that what Connecticut did and Colorado attempted to do was completely appropriate and called for. I'm not calling for very many hard bans, but more importantly an extensive paper trail. Most of the weapons used in these spree shootings would have still been available even under the strictest gun control laws like what San Francisco has.
It's all or nothing with some people. We can't have reasonable conversations because people act like their damn gun is the symbol of their freedom, the one ring, the precious.
Gun control needs to be part of the solution - but I would focus more on liability for guardians of minors or mentally disabled persons who get their hands on their guardians' weapons. I would also focus on crazy person control. We used to lock crazy people up and we had 1 rampage every 5 years. Now we medicate them and trust their family members to monitor their meds and what happens is that they spaz out and shoot up people about three or four times a year now.
I am from Michigan. We have to have our handguns registered and can only sell them thru and FFL or if both buyer and seller have a current CPL. As far as long guns/shotguns when purchased new there is a paper trail thru the FFL. Now they aren't registered like a hand gun. I'm fine with this. Add the long guns to the registration if you must. That is the only compromise I would do.
Anything else just won't solve the problems. I see you've brought up Sandy Hook , which was tragic but also shows me you've come to your current opinion due to how emotional it was. But what about the 410 homicides in Chicago last year ? Or the 300 in Detroit ? People going off their rocker is a small percentage compared to what happens in the inner cities. Your feel good restrictions and do-good registrations will do nothing for the majority of the homicides. That is why we push back so hard.
Let's start seriously enforcing the laws we currently have, then we can talk about other solutions. Here in Detroit on a daily basis I hear of convicted felons with firearms, 13 year olds with firearms... come on, lets take care of that and go from there. We have to go after the root cause first.
Now I agree with you on the mental health issue. We now trust these people to continue to take their meds and if they don't then what ? That is a HUGE issue that needs to be resolved but in todays PC world we can't violate their rights now can we ?
Location: "Silicon Valley" (part of San Francisco Bay Area, California, USA)
4,375 posts, read 4,067,341 times
Reputation: 2158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garthur
Where I live EVERYONE has firearms. I'll repeat this EVERYONE has firearms! Yet in the 30 years I have lived here there have been NO murders by firearms.
And you live in Nebraska according to your profile. Low population usually means low violence.
Let's look at a denser place where everyone has guns, like Somalia. How many firearms murders have they seen?
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.
The right to keep and bear arms is a natural right, not one granted by Gov't.
