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.
I continually hear this nonsense about how Obama stripped American's right to bear arms. Please state the laws Obama changed. Last I checked, he changed nothing. Most states control their own laws regarding guns. I am tired of the gun nuts thinking Democrats are more against guns. Plenty of Democrats hunt you know. TONS of them.
I think gun owners should have a background check. I don't think that is asking too much. Owning a gun is a big responsibility. There are one heck of a lot of accidents involving guns. If you buy a car and license it to be on the road, you need to pass some basic skills to take that car on the road because someone might get killed as a result of no training. Same should be with guns. Just basic training. That isn't the same as, "he is taking our guns"!
I wish gun nuts could understand the difference, but man are many of them totally blind. Really to the point of sounding dumb. Yes, DUMB! Of course they will say, that is the start of the government taking our guns. What a crock of crap. Just moronic. Do you know how many hunters are in government? TONS! Stop being so idiotic.
ahh, the term "gun nut" using that pretty much renders anything you have to say null and void. It is if I would have started my reply with calling you a liberal A_$$hat you would have pretty much ignored what I had to say.
Oh and for the record, any new purchase of a firearm requires a background check. And in some states, not all secondary sales also requires a purchase permit (which a background check is done) or in cases where the buyer and seller have CPL's , background checks have already been done.
I have heard this before "The OP should concentrate on the murders which occur every day in every major city, most of which are committed with "illegal" guns and by people who are not mentally ill. " and I have to say it is bunk. The reason those cities have outlawed the guns is because the gun violence got too high with them legal in the past so then after years of rising crime rates they made them illegal, look at Chicago's history, etc.
And look what those laws have done... seems to be working huh ?
I continually hear this nonsense about how Obama stripped American's right to bear arms. Please state the laws Obama changed. Last I checked, he changed nothing. Most states control their own laws regarding guns. I am tired of the gun nuts thinking Democrats are more against guns. Plenty of Democrats hunt you know. TONS of them.
I think gun owners should have a background check. I don't think that is asking too much. Owning a gun is a big responsibility. There are one heck of a lot of accidents involving guns. If you buy a car and license it to be on the road, you need to pass some basic skills to take that car on the road because someone might get killed as a result of no training. Same should be with guns. Just basic training. That isn't the same as, "he is taking our guns"!
I wish gun nuts could understand the difference, but man are many of them totally blind. Really to the point of sounding dumb. Yes, DUMB! Of course they will say, that is the start of the government taking our guns. What a crock of crap. Just moronic. Do you know how many hunters are in government? TONS! Stop being so idiotic.
I wish people could understand the difference and not try to match owning a car, which is not a right in the Constitution with owning guns, which is a right in the Constitution.
I wish gun nuts could understand the difference, but man are many of them totally blind. Really to the point of sounding dumb. Yes, DUMB! Of course they will say, that is the start of the government taking our guns. What a crock of crap. Just moronic. Do you know how many hunters are in government? TONS! Stop being so idiotic.
This is why it's difficult to have a meaningful conversation with gun control advocates. You stoop to name calling by calling us gun nuts. I'm not a nut, I'm pretty sane.
The problem with things such as registration is that government will take your guns. Look at the Hitler, Mao and other communist and dictator regimes. An unarmed populace is a victim rich populace.
Do you know why gun advocates are opposed to gun control? Because when things are taken away, they're taken away quickly yet our rights are given by slowly.
I'm also tired of the "the government has tanks and helicopters so what are you going to do with your guns" argument. We're all aware of that. I've met a couple thousand people in the military and trust me, we all know what an unlawful order is and I doubt very many would willingly use force against American civilians.
Why do we blame the gun when a crime involving a gun happens? Do we blame the car when someone commits a DUI? Do we blame religion when an extremist commits an act of terror? No, we ask for understanding and knowledge yet some of us are ignorant enough to blame an inanimate object.
A gun levels the playing field. Imagine if your mother had to defend herself from a break in. Average police response time is maybe 15 minutes. Is your mother going to use hand to hand combat or logic/reasoning to defend herself from an attacker who is more aggressive, younger, stronger and determined.
Also, the police are not obligated to protect you:
The drumbeat of opposition to ANY sort of restriction on gun ownership, use or availability means that there is a HUGE market for guns, new and used, legal and illegal. Qui bono? Gun makers, gun dealers and gun "consumers" all benefit. SOME of these consumers and dealers store, resell and use these guns irresponsibly. This causes great damage to our society in the form of death, injury, criminality and a state of fear and mistrust.
While no one is questioning the 2nd amendment, many question the sanity of our failure to limit the amount of guns "sloshing" around our country these days. The republic has stood for over 200 years but I don't think we've ever had guns so widely spread amongst the general populace, many of whom are just too impulsive and irresponsible to have guns near to hand, sorry to say. But it's a fact of human nature and we live in a crowded world.
The "Chicago" meme always seems a bit false to me. The city can have all the gun laws it likes, but if all any bad actor has to do is to step outside the city limits and buy guns from willing sellers unencumbered from dealing with who they're selling to, then the city's laws are meaningless. The rest of the Chicago lesson is pretty clear: urban areas don't benefit from having so many guns around that anyone, no matter how anti-social, can get a gun quickly, cheaply and anonymously.
It's almost as if the country needs one law for responsible, adult, rural dwelling gun owners and another for everyone else. People who really want them for home protection in a city (of questionable value according to many studies) should be under more restrictive requirements than we now have almost everywhere. And that's not any violation of the 2nd amendment.
If you place a loaded firearm on a table, if no one ever touches it; that firearm will not go off. Every time a gun gets fired, there was a person at the other end pulling the trigger. I will concede that a firearm can go off without human intervention, like it was dropped from a certain height, or some other type of impact, but in all of those cases and they are on the rare side, there is something mechanical wrong with the firearm in the first place.
Gun Violence is just violence against a human being, and people have been killing other people for thousands of years; and that is where the real problem lies.
A gun is a highly effective tool to kill yourself or others if you mix that in with stupidity then it is a potentially deadly situation.
The same can be said for cars, drugs, alcohol, a backyard swimming pool, all kinds of things can be deadly if not used properly.
If we didn't have guns there would be other tools people would use to kill each other.
I just watched a video of a guy who can shoot 3 aimed arrows from his bow in 2 seconds.
Where there is a will to kill there is a way to do it.
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson
Whatever you think of this country today, remember this: it would be 100 times worse than it is, if it were not for the 2nd Amendment. Guns - whether you love 'em or hate 'em - are the one thing that stops any politician, banker, corporatist, or oligarch from doing with us whatever he'd wish.
Mental health testing is just another vector for gun control pretending that it is going to actually save lives by removing one tool from a nut job's bottomless tool box. If there isn't a disorder, the mental health profession will gradually be pressured to shift or invent disorders and rearrange thresholds and criteria until there exists a mental health disorder to classify all people who would ever want to own a gun. When gun control people are given an inch, they take a light year.
All mental health testing does, is attempt to limit gun sales, without addressing the underlying issue or preventing the very same person from leveling a building, for example.
As far as mental health testing goes, perhaps "it's time" (the favorite phrase of confiscators of any right or liberty) to evaluate everyone's mental health, allowing only the healthy to proceed into polite society, while restricting anyone who is found to be outside of "normal", such as anyone who takes psych meds of any sort, aspergers people, depressed people, attention deficient people, hyperactive people, or anyone who qualifies as not playing with a full deck for any other reason.
All of these not-normal people could be forced to wear ankle bracelets or get implants for tracking and monitoring, so that the half of society who is actually considered normal, could be forewarned, and those who were potentially a danger to society, could be prevented from doing anything that might just potentially be dangerous to someone, somewhere, at some point.
I'm in favor of that solution for the usual hit parade of reasons: To save children and protect heroes, if it saves one life it's all worthwhile, desperate times call for desperate measures, it's not the 1800s anymore, it takes a village, we're not cavemen, and all of that.
Last edited by 43north87west; 02-05-2015 at 10:31 AM..
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.
