How can millions of gun owners be the problem because of one killer? (Mexican, 18 year old)
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.
Sooner or later that "...protection against tyranny" argument gets trotted out along with the "tree of liberty...." one. It is just a fantasy. Your gun is more likely to be stolen and used in commission of a crime that it is to be used for self-defense.
Good luck defending yourself against a drone or F16 or armored vehicle or even a real M16 fired in concert with an attack from small heavily armed government unit. You can own a full auto AK47 in both Syria and Lebanon and those weapons don't seem to be much help in maintaining their defense against tyranny.
So basically, the citizen already lost the arms race to Leviathan, may as well take them all, since we're screwed either way? That the point of this particular red herring?
Don't feel so singularly persecuted. Watch what will happen the first time a hobby drone takes down an aircraft. Too many dopes out there for much of anything to be self-regulated if large groups of people can be quickly harmed. Obviously peer pressure and self-policing by the NRA and others don't work. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
and how many of the killers have been NRA members?
Quote:
Originally Posted by middle-aged mom
The NRA and the ACLU joined forces to repeal the Obama Admin's intent to prevent those recieving SSDI due to their mental health condition, from legally buying a gun. It also included an appeal process.
They argued that SSDI attributed to mental health should not infringe on a person's right to own/ carry a gun.
thats because the law in question wasnt directed at people with real mental health issues, but more to people that had problems handling their own finances. it doesnt end any laws preventing those with mental illnesses from owning firearms though. but again it still requires due process.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilyflower3191981
This is something I disagree with the NRA.
I have a friend who is a combat veteran. He suffers from PTSD but his symptoms are manageable by meds and therapy. I know for a fact that he did not want to own guns anymore because the sound of it is "triggering" to him.
Couple of years ago, he took me to Colorado to see his combat friend. We took my little Godson with us, and at the time, my Godson was only four years old. At night, this friend put a gun in my Godson's hands, so the four year old "could guard the window." I have to admit this is one of the most scariest moment of my life. In the morning, this friend was "normal". He is really a very pleasant guy.
I've never seen my friend cry, but at that moment, I saw tears in his eyes because he knew his friend was gone...
In my humble opinion, his friend shouldn't own a gun. I don't care he is a combat vet. what he needs it therapy, a lot of therapy, and maybe meds. The last thing he needs is a gun.
lily, i agree that there are people that should not own firearms, including those that suffer from PTSD. and i also agree that it was very wrong to put a gun in the hands of a four year old without proper supervision.he needs to be put through the courts and be properly adjudicated as mentally defective, and that would keep him from owning firearms, even to the point of removing the ones he now owns.
but until this happens, he will be another person slipping through the cracks, and if he does something evil using those guns, you are going to kick yourself for not doing something earlier to prevent that issue.
lily, i agree that there are people that should not own firearms, including those that suffer from PTSD. and i also agree that it was very wrong to put a gun in the hands of a four year old without proper supervision.he needs to be put through the courts and be properly adjudicated as mentally defective, and that would keep him from owning firearms, even to the point of removing the ones he now owns.
but until this happens, he will be another person slipping through the cracks, and if he does something evil using those guns, you are going to kick yourself for not doing something earlier to prevent that issue.
Oh yeah!
My friend told his dad what happened, and his dad took the guns away. Now, he is living with his mom and dad. I don't know if they get him some help. He is living in a small town and everybody knows he is a little "off". I can't help but thinking, what if he is living in a big city? Then what? what if he has no loving parents, then what?
So basically, the citizen already lost the arms race to Leviathan, may as well take them all, since we're screwed either way? That the point of this particular red herring?
Nowhere do I say "...may as well take them all..." Why is any regulation such a threat ? You accept them when you hunt, you accept them when you go the range, you accept them when you drive or engage in almost any public behavior with a gun. They are already there. What does the law-abiding gun owner have to fear from greater regulations?
My grandfather used to own a Thompson and he turned it in when they were outlawed in the 1930s. There was probably more unrest then than now. I would like to repeat - Obama did not come for your legal weapon and neither will Trump.
............your post shows you dont know much about guns overall my friend.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stiffnecked
I have 33 round magazines for my Glock 17. I have no problem hitting the center of the target at 50 yards................Ban the gun, ban the knife, ban the automobiles, ban everything that evil men can possibly use as a weapon of mass destruction...........
rbohm:
Same stupid arguments, all the time. If one has an opposing opinion, he "must not know anything about guns".
OK. I don't own an assault rifle. And I never used one in Viet Nam. But I did use a M1919 30 cal, and I am pretty good with a 1911. Can't say as I could break down an Uzi, though.
stiffnecked:
You will not have a 33 round mag for your Glock if I have my way. It has nothing to do with self defense and nothing to do with home defense. Hopefully, someone will ban it and fine you "Bigly" if you have one.
The subject is banning assault rifles. All this talk of automobiles, knives, poisoned birthday cakes or whatever else people come up with is just nonsense.
Nowhere do I say "...may as well take them all..." Why is any regulation such a threat ? You accept them when you hunt, you accept them when you go the range, you accept them when you drive or engage in almost any public behavior with a gun. They are already there. What does the law-abiding gun owner have to fear from greater regulations?
I was replying to your red herring about "good luck standing up against the military" which you threw into te discussion because I correctly point out the reasoning behind the Founders explicitly mentioning the natural right to keep and bear arms in the Bill of Rights. It's one of the two most common:
1) Good luck vs the already much more powerful oppressor, so give me your semiauto rifle.
2) You can't have nuclear weapons, so give me your semiauto rifle.
And the answer to why any regulation is a threat is because every law that weakens the citizen while strengthening the government is a threat to a free state. Every...single...one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vacanegro
My grandfather used to own a Thompson and he turned it in when they were outlawed in the 1930s. There was probably more unrest then than now. I would like to repeat - Obama did not come for your legal weapon and neither will Trump.
Good for your grandfather surrendering his rights, but that doesn't mean I should or will. I never said the President will come for anything. The faceless thugocracy will do that because politicians are cowards who appoint people to do dirty, dangerous things. I also know they won't do an obvious all-at-once grab, but will go for the chip-away strategy favored by utilitarian thugocrats.
Today, it's the semiautomatic rifle. Tomorrow, the bolt action in anything higher than .223 caliber. The day after that, shotguns of any type. Etc etc. Chip away until nothing remains and nobody noticed being boiled because the heat increase was gradual.
I think this issue is not liberal vs conservative. I think we are all in this together.
I wish I have a solution, but I don't. It is a sad situation.
It kind of is. hard core gun worshippers are largely hard right wingers. We are awash with guns because of them and the situation cannot change because of them.
I'm not talking about the guy who goes deer hunting once a year and has a couple of hunting rifles. The guys who go around the internet all day invading discussion forums and rarely talk about anything other than 2nd amendment rights are militant survivalist/race war/anti-government right that wants it's military weapons, or wannabes who follow that ideology. The kind of guy who posts a picture of a kid shooting an AR-15 with a caption "try and come and get our guns"..that kind of person.
Nobody is arguing the "advantages of being armed," which is all that quote says. I'm not in favor of taking all guns, or even most guns, and most people are perfectly capable of having a gun. 1. But nobody has yet presented a convincing argument as to why citizens need to own weapons of war. And, quite frankly, if the only reason you can come up with is to 2. "kill duh gubermint," that's not only a terrible reason but an impossibility anyway.
3. It amazes me how the far-right gun-lovers wave their flags around, but when pressed on WHY they need absurd firepower, destroying the nation they supposedly love is always at the top of that list. I think they have no understanding of how badly most revolutions end for the people and how the American Revolution was an extreme exception to the rule. Any backward, theocratic government installed by the "kill duh gubermint!" types would be on par with the worst ones we see in the Middle East.
4. The right to bear arms does NOT translate into "the right to bear ANY arms you want, regardless of your past, mental state, criminal background, etc." I'm very tired of the right pretending that is the case.
1. I don't have to convince you of anything. I am a law abiding American citizen and have a right via the Constitution to bear arms.
2. I know how to spell "government". So do most other gun owners.
3. I don't have to give you reasons why I want to own guns. Refer back to #1 (above)
4. You know better than that. If you don't, you have no business arguing anything related to firearms.
Nowhere do I say "...may as well take them all..." Why is any regulation such a threat ? You accept them when you hunt, you accept them when you go the range, you accept them when you drive or engage in almost any public behavior with a gun. They are already there. What does the law-abiding gun owner have to fear from greater regulations?
My grandfather used to own a Thompson and he turned it in when they were outlawed in the 1930s. There was probably more unrest then than now. I would like to repeat - Obama did not come for your legal weapon and neither will Trump.
Because only the law abiding will be affected by those regulations. In the case of certain proposed weapons or magazine bans they will be forced to turn over their previously owned lawful property or face the possibility of criminal prosecution for failing to comply. Not too hard to figure out now is it?
Do you really think that criminals or the mentally deranged will be affected by greater regulations? Then I've got a bridge to nowhere for sale, you can PM me and I'll tell you where to send your check.
Quote:
“But to ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow. … For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding.”
“A law which restricts the liberty of the innocent because of the behavior of the guilty, that rests on the principle that the conduct of criminals [or psychos] dictates the scope of liberty for the rest of society, in no sense ‘fights’ crime.” For society has permitted its fear of crime, and craving for safety, to turn the force of law against the innocent and law-abiding. Far from fighting crime, the criminalization of otherwise innocent activities represents a society in retreat from crime. This is a society desperately accommodating itself to crime.” — Jeff Snyder
As far as Obama or Trump goes, no president can make laws with the stroke of a pen. It's up to congress and the senate to pass the laws. The president has the option of signing or vetoing any legislation that comes out of both houses of congress. To pass a bill over the president's objections requires a two-thirds vote in each chamber. Same for overriding a veto. If Obama had the power of a dictator I have no doubt that he would have banned and attempted to confiscate every civilian held firearm in America.
Obviously the president can issue executive orders but they have to be in line with laws already passed by congress. According to a Supreme Court decision in 1952, when the court overturned an executive order issued by Harry S. Truman.
Obama contrary to his supposed support for the 2nd Amendment as president, filled out a questionnaire while running for state senate in 1996. Do you support state legislation to:
a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.
b. ban assault weapons? Yes.
c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes.
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.
