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.
It is true that those who support the most restrictive gun controls also own guns.
Why then do all those people not simply turn in their guns and go on record as having done so? Shouldn't they participate in a national "I am unarmed" registry to demonstrate their "I do as I say" attitudes?
Gun owners are not a monolithic block of people. Likewise, supporting some forms of gun control does not make the person somehow ineligible to own weapons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101
I have never heard a gun control advocate attempt to restrict the rights of others while reserving these rights for themselves. That sounds absurd.
I have.
Take CNN for example. Pro gun control is a constant theme of both their news stories and their editorials. Yet when CNN sent their all star reporters (as opposed to the far more expendable temporary contractors) to Fergurson to cover the protests that were rapidly turning into riots, they were protected by high quality armed body guards who undoubtably had the same weapons permits that CNN advocates should be restricted.
Likewise, when covering the much glorified Arab Spring in Cairo (which was rapidly turning into Arab Anarchy and the nasty gang rape of a western reporter by a mob supporting one faction or the other), CNN's all star reporters were said to have been protected by very well armed "Al Black Water 'abab" from Lebanon level security and travelled in armoured SUVs convoys or chartered helicopters.
I feel out of place in gun debates as my views on weapons would make me unwelcome at both the NRA and Gun control groups.
While I understand what you are saying, many a scenario you list occurs without firearms. Knives kill more people than the gun control crowd ever cares to admit. Yet you do not hear them clamoring for a prohibition of knives. A knife/cutting instrument is a tool just like a gun. Both can be used for good and evil, depending on the person using them.
In regards to suicide, pain pills, tall buildings, a running car, etc. are all ways people take their own lives.
Disturbed people, whether it be those who wish to kill themselves or others will do so with or without guns.
So that is no reason to take a fundamental right away from American citizens because some of these deranged people might use a gun in place of something else to commit evil deeds.
If we were to prohibit things based on how many lives are lost because of their existence, using that criteria alone, we should start banning things that are not constitutional rights to own, such as cars, swimming pools, etc.
`
There's no question that there are many ways to do harm.
The thing about a gun, however, is that it makes so fast and easy. You don't have to get your hands dirty, get close to the victim or even work up a sweat. Just move your finger. You can get several people in a matter of seconds.
Personally I don't believe in banning guns or anything of that nature. Just get folks to learn and practice safe storage and handling and keep them out of the hands of lunatics, hotheads and bad guys.
While I understand what you are saying, many a scenario you list occurs without firearms. Knives kill more people than the gun control crowd ever cares to admit. Yet you do not hear them clamoring for a prohibition of knives. A knife/cutting instrument is a tool just like a gun. Both can be used for good and evil, depending on the person using them.
In regards to suicide, pain pills, tall buildings, a running car, etc. are all ways people take their own lives.
Disturbed people, whether it be those who wish to kill themselves or others will do so with or without guns.
So that is no reason to take a fundamental right away from American citizens because some of these deranged people might use a gun in place of something else to commit evil deeds.
If we were to prohibit things based on how many lives are lost because of their existence, using that criteria alone, we should start banning things that are not constitutional rights to own, such as cars, swimming pools, etc.
`
Again …
Reasonable sensible gun control laws and regulations are not about a "prohibition of guns" … anymore than licensing and regulating vehicles are drivers are about "prohibition of driving" …
Conservatives like to talk about two different kinds of hypocrites: people who are against things they do, and people who are against things they don't do. E.g., rich people aren't allowed to complain about the 1%, because they themselves are part of the 1%. Also, poor people can't complain about the 1%, because they don't know anything about the 1%. Gun owners don't have the right to espouse gun control. People who don't own guns also don't have the right to support gun control.
In short, nobody is allowed to disagree with conservatism, because if you do you're a hypocrite (somehow).
Well then you explain how liberals can rail against environmental abuse for example, yet be a bigger abuser than most of the people they are lecturing?
Also you comment doesn't make sense to me on a certain level because many people own guns for protection of themselves and loved ones.
Presumably that is the reason liberals who own guns do as well. So how does an average liberal justify gun control measures without being a total hypocrite?
Lastly, do you understand that the Founding Father's did not enshrine as a constitutional right our ability to own firearms for hunting, sport, or self protection. Instead it was to insure that every citizen was responsible for protecting all our constitutional rights against enemies, BOTH foreign & domestic?
That visual has a message that only homophobes and gun nuts would find humorous.
Ha, ha. If you don't like guns you must be a gay dude. If you don't like guns the women are going to leave you for a "strong" guy; cause we all know desirable women love ignorant redneck gun nuts...
What I've heard people say is not that they are afraid of guns per se but that they are concerned about how they make violent or dangerous conduct so accessible. As we know, even toddlers can blow people away with a gun. Husbands sometimes fly into a rage and wipe out their families, depressed people can grab a gun and commit suicide, and on occasion people are shot through just plain carelessness.
So maybe it's not that they are afraid of guns per se but of what guns make it so easy to do.
Your statement is true. My issue, when do you hear them speak about ending gang gun violence.......they only want citizens and hunters to lose them. The American gun owner is the ONLY people they ever make fun of!
Take CNN for example. Pro gun control is a constant theme of both their news stories and their editorials. Yet when CNN sent their all star reporters (as opposed to the far more expendable temporary contractors) to Fergurson to cover the protests that were rapidly turning into riots, they were protected by high quality armed body guards who undoubtably had the same weapons permits that CNN advocates should be restricted.
Bull. I have never heard CNN talking heads saying that guns should banned, and that there should be no legal way to have bodyguards or security personnel.
I don't even get the premise. Armed bodyguards are legal, right now. It's hardly hypocritical to support making something illegal while still utilizing it while legal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cryptic
Likewise, when covering the much glorified Arab Spring in Cairo (which was rapidly turning into Arab Anarchy and the nasty gang rape of a western reporter by a mob supporting one faction or the other), CNN's all star reporters were said to have been protected by very well armed "Al Black Water 'abab" from Lebanon level security and travelled in armoured SUVs convoys or chartered helicopters.
What does this have to do with anything? I don't know the gun laws in Egypt and I suspect neither do you. Who gives a crap? What relevance does it have for the gun control debate in the U.S.? Nutcases should be allowed to blow away American children with machine guns because Egypt uses security personnel with foreign emissaries? Huh?
Your statement is true. My issue, when do you hear them speak about ending gang gun violence.......they only want citizens and hunters to lose them. The American gun owner is the ONLY people they ever make fun of!
It's a valid point. A lot of gun violence occurs as the result of gang violence and other bad guys and there should be more focus on stopping that.
It's a valid point. A lot of gun violence occurs as the result of gang violence and other bad guys and there should be more focus on stopping that.
That's what Bloomberg has been doing for the last 10 years, but the NRA and the other gun crazies claim that Bloomberg is evil and wants to "take away their guns".
Bloomberg is pretty much 100% concerned with stopping the flow of illegal firearms to criminals but the NRA have twisted it to claim that he wants to ban guns and stop hunters and law abiding citizens from having access to guns.
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.
