NOT ANOTHER GUN CONTROL THREAD

[mimartin]

Actually mimartin, I was saying it. And actually, I say DISARM OUR GOVERNMENT! If we cannot have it, the government shouldn't either. And that would include Nukes. And heck, if someone wants to buy a $5 billion nuclear powered submarine(I could see Larry Ellison wanting one)

You lost me...this has gone from what I thought was serious discussion, to nonsensical. If I want to be exposed to these types of arguments I will just listen to Rush, Hanity, or foxnews...sounds like their talking points.

 

I never said a pistol was better than a AR-15. I said in my opinion a assualt weapon is crap for home defense. I have three pistols, but that isn't what I will grab if someone breaks into my home.

[Totenkopf]

The problem with this debate in the end is symbolism over substance. NY just passed a very restrictive gun control law that limits the number of bullets per mag/clip to be only 7. How many criminals are gonna give a rat's ass what these laws say? Those who'd trade their liberty for false promises of security deserve neither and will lose both. FTR, lest my position be twisted out of context, I'm fine with certain regulations (reqs to take gun safety courses, that people have to safely store their guns, etc..). I just recognize that creating laws that often go unenforced/are unenforceable is symbolic bs meant to appeal to emotion and little else. Btw, I'm less worried about some militia guy shooting me in a gun free zone like the post office than I am about a drunken illegal hitting me when I'm on the road.

[Tommycat]

You lost me...this has gone from what I thought was serious discussion, to nonsensical. If I want to be exposed to these types of arguments I will just listen to Rush, Hanity, or foxnews...sounds like their talking points.

 

I never said a pistol was better than a AR-15. I said in my opinion a assualt weapon is crap for home defense. I have three pistols, but that isn't what I will grab if someone breaks into my home.

 

Maybe I didn't explain it very well. I do not believe that our government should have things you would not trust the common person with. And that would include nuclear devices. I would not want a person to have one of those, and don't feel that the government should either. Tanks, and jets, why not? Heck, we have all those aging A-10's that might actually be fun to fly(It could also help with our budget:D ). Look at the people in our government. Would you really call them smart? Who's finger would you trust on the trigger, yours or GW?

 

I personally prefer a shotgun for home defense, but it is far easier for my girlfriend to wield the AR than the shotgun. Plus the recoil on it is far less than the shottie. She's WAAAY more accurate. And she doesn't end up with a bruise.

[Q]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/159830/debt-gov-dysfunction-rise-top-americans-issue-list.aspx

 

*whistles innocently*

 

 

Cliffs for the lazy:

Apparently the American people don't give two ****s about gun control, but the politicians sure do. I wonder why. Could this all be an elaborate ruse to distract the citizenry's attention away from the lousy job that they're doing while making yet another blatant power-grab that benefits no one but them (and the criminals, too, but hey, what's the difference )?

/tinfoil

[Tommycat]

NRA says possibly put guards in schools: OHMYGOD EVILS

Obama says maybe put guards in schools: *Cheering fanfare*

 

Feinstein uses tragedy to push antigun legislation she's been trying to push for years: antigunners cheer

NRA says maybe we should look deeper at the causes: OHMYGOD You're politicizing the murder of 20 innocent kids.

 

Sometimes I just wish we could be two separate countries.....

[mimartin]

NRA says lock up those with mental problem (even though they have done nothing wrong, but only a doctor says they could), so we take away someone's freedom on the chance they could be a danger to themselves or others because people, who are really too irresponsible to own a gun, don't want to act like responsible adults and keep their weapons out of the hands of criminals, children and those with mental issues. Oh the inconvenience I have to report something stolen or I have to preform a backgroup check and not be able to sell my gun to this two time loser.

 

To hell with "due process" lock them up.

[Tommycat]

NRA says lock up those with mental problem (even though they have done nothing wrong, but only a doctor says they could), so we take away someone's freedom on the chance they could be a danger to themselves or others because people, who are really too irresponsible to own a gun, don't want to act like responsible adults and keep their weapons out of the hands of criminals, children and those with mental issues. Oh the inconvenience I have to report something stolen or I have to preform a backgroup check and not be able to sell my gun to this two time loser.

 

To hell with "due process" lock them up.

 

That would work a heck of a lot better than getting rid of "Assault Weapons." Of course we both know the NRA did not say that, but whatever. They did say have a database of those that ARE mentally ill and violent. Interestingly the same thing Obama wanted to do(cue fanfare). Maybe you confused the statements the NRA said. They wanted to lock up violent criminals. And they also wanted to get the mentally ill the help they need.

[mimartin]

That would work a heck of a lot better than getting rid of "Assault Weapons." Of course we both know the NRA did not say that, but whatever.

I know for darn sure a idiot representive of the NRA did say that. It was a idiot, but so are most of their talking heads.

 

 

I hadn't thought of this, someone pointed it out to me, 1. I wish someone would have been armed at Fort Hood to stop that mass shooting. 2. There was a armed guard a Columbine....hmmm seems this isn't the rainbow and puppy dog fix the NRA seem to making it out to be. Don't believe me -

[Tommycat]

I know for darn sure a idiot representive of the NRA did say that. It was a idiot, but so are most of their talking heads.

 

 

I hadn't thought of this, someone pointed it out to me, 1. I wish someone would have been armed at Fort Hood to stop that mass shooting. 2. There was a armed guard a Columbine....hmmm seems this isn't the rainbow and puppy dog fix the NRA seem to making it out to be. Don't believe me -

As for the quote, I would like a confirmation of it. Who said to lock up the mentally ill.

 

You ever been on a military base? Ever tried to carry a firearm on a military base? Thanks to the higher ups, only a few people are allowed and only in specific areas for their duties. Military personnel are no better off on a base than most civilians are waiting on the police. Just to be clear on that one.

 

As for Columbine: According to the CNN reports of that day, and official reports, he DID in fact save several dozen lives. even though he started from OFF CAMPUS and had to rush from the "smoker's pit" to the scene of the shooting.

 

But don't worry, it was the AR-15's that they were carrying that made their killing so easy. Just like Cho used his AR-15. wait....

[mimartin]

As for the quote, I would like a confirmation of it. Who said to lock up the mentally ill.

I heard it on the radio...I am not going to look it up. I could careless if you have your confirmation or not.

 

Even if I were to find it you would spin it back to assualt weapons, which I have already said I could careless either way about.

 

Oh and I have been on a miltary base many, many times...as a matter of fact I have been in Fort Hood many times. Best friend was stationed there for about 5 years. I have also seen a armed officer walk up to me and ask me why I was looking at a radio in a Humvee. Was a little scared until he saw that my friend everything was fine. It may be a miltary base, but it is still in the heart of Texas.

[Tommycat]

I heard it on the radio...I am not going to look it up. I could careless if you have your confirmation or not.

 

Even if I were to find it you would spin it back to assualt weapons, which I have already said I could careless either way about.

 

Okay, well I was just trying to see if it was you mistaking what LaPierre said for something else. I know his phrasing was something like "Lock up criminals and get the treatment for the mentally ill." Which I would understand the mistaken association. But since you're not willing to say who it was, nor when, nor provide any kind of verification... whatever.

 

But you were right in your post regarding the only way to get things done is through honest open talks. The problem is(much as I have demonstrated) people are often too heightened and tense to have a rational discussion. Thus far, it's been too much of a blame game. I mean we're just hearing that the Aurora shooter's "High Capacity Magazine" jammed on him(anyone who's used them knows it happens more frequently) so he switched to murdering people with the shotgun. The point is it is not what kind of weapon, but WHO gets the weapon. Blaming the firearm is about the same as LaPierre blaming video games and movies. For some it may trigger something. But we know almost nothing about the causes of the 3(recent) shootings. When we stop pointing the fingers, we might see the truth. I feel that schools SHOULD have someone to protect the children. I mean we have a cop at almost every Walmart all the time. Perhaps we could maybe protect our kids as well as Walmart?

[mimartin]

The point is it is not what kind of weapon, but WHO gets the weapon.

I agree with that...

especially the WHO gets the weapon.

And when the system and the gunowner allows them to get the weapon. They are also responsible for the murders. In the case of Sandy Brook, Virginia Tech shooting and Columbine these could have been limited had somone acted like responsible gun owners.

 

No I need not misunderstand anything. I am not stuid, I heard it on a rightwing nut job talk radio talk show. hanity, rush, savage, michael berry....not sure which one and I am not going to waste my time looking because at least in the case of rush I know they edit their transscripts.

[Tommycat]

I agree with that... And when the system and the gunowner allows them to get the weapon. They are also responsible for the murders. In the case of Sandy Brook, Virginia Tech shooting and Columbine these could have been limited had somone acted like responsible gun owners.

 

No I need not misunderstand anything. I am not stuid, I heard it on a rightwing nut job talk radio talk show. hanity, rush, savage, michael berry....not sure which one and I am not going to waste my time looking because at least in the case of rush I know they edit their transscripts.

 

The quote: Fair enough. That's probably why I never heard it. I don't listen to them.

 

Responsible gun owners: I think that most gun owners would agree that responsible gun ownership saves lives. If you have several firearms in the house, you NEED to have a safe. And that safe NEEDS to be bolted down. So what if you don't have kids. So what if you're the only one that lives there. BREAK IN'S HAPPEN! The problem with it, is enforcement. Adam Lanza's mother COULD have prevented the tragedy by following rule 5 of gun safety... ALWAYS maintain control of your firearm.

 

Actually, most of the accidents involving firearms require a violation of at least one firearm rule.

1 ALL GUNS ARE ALWAYS LOADED. Never believe a firearm is not loaded, check it, and afterwards treat it as though it were loaded.

2 NEVER LET THE MUZZLE COVER ANYTHING YOU SO NOT WANT TO DESTROY. That means don't point it at your friends even in jest.

3 KEEP YOUR FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER UNTIL YOU ARE READY TO FIRE. Really. It's simple. A cop nearly blew the head off a subject because she was keying her mic and had her other finger on the trigger.

4 KNOW YOUR TARGET AND WHAT'S AROUND IT. A buddy of mine was shooting and after he was done, he was cleaning up and that's when the quads raced past on the trail that was between where he was standing and where he set up his targets.

5 ALWAYS MAINTAIN CONTROL OF YOUR FIREARM. If you aren't using or carrying it, LOCK IT UP. I think we covered that.

[Q]

It's more than a little hypocritical that the same administration that thought it was a good idea to "gunwalk" thousands of assault weapons into the hands of Mexican drug cartels wants to prohibit legal ownership of the same type of weapons by law-abiding American citizens.

[Totenkopf]

You know the old saying.....Do as I say, not as I do.

[Tommycat]

It's more than a little hypocritical that the same administration that thought it was a good idea to "gunwalk" thousands of assault weapons into the hands of Mexican drug cartels wants to prohibit legal ownership of the same type of weapons by law-abiding American citizens.

 

No, that actually fits the idea that the firearms were able to be legally purchased here in the US by people who could pass the NICS check. What's hypocritical is that this administration sent Arms to Libyan Rebels but thinks we shouldn't be able to purchase the same arms they GAVE AWAY.

[Xavier1985]

america is a funny place, from an on looers point of view, they have taken their "right to bare arms" far too literal.. it was originally made for local militias in times of war and what have you, then twisted into a more self defense stance and justification to have a "arsenal" of weapons.. silly if you ask me.

 

if america insists on arming their citizens with little control (let's face it, gun control is disgraceful in the states) then make high rate of fire weapons and automatic weaponry illegal (sub machine guns, assault rifles etc) because if you want to defend your home, that is fair play.. but you only need a pistol or shotgun at best, just over kill to have an Uzi or M4 rifle or what ever they are. .

 

Just look at us n the UK, we have very strict laws and we have one of the lowest rates of gun crime in the world. Don't get me wrong, we still have the odd shooting but only once a decade or so and not 3 to 6 massacres a YEAR america seems to have due to poor gun control and poor mindsets to weapons.

[Tommycat]

america is a funny place, from an on looers point of view, they have taken their "right to bare arms" far too literal.. it was originally made for local militias in times of war and what have you, then twisted into a more self defense stance and justification to have a "arsenal" of weapons.. silly if you ask me.

 

if america insists on arming their citizens with little control (let's face it, gun control is disgraceful in the states) then make high rate of fire weapons and automatic weaponry illegal (sub machine guns, assault rifles etc) because if you want to defend your home, that is fair play.. but you only need a pistol or shotgun at best, just over kill to have an Uzi or M4 rifle or what ever they are. .

 

Just look at us n the UK, we have very strict laws and we have one of the lowest rates of gun crime in the world. Don't get me wrong, we still have the odd shooting but only once a decade or so and not 3 to 6 massacres a YEAR america seems to have due to poor gun control and poor mindsets to weapons.

 

You actually have a higher violent crime rate(per capita) than we do. Sure, if you eliminate guns, gun crime should go down. But that doesn't mean the crime stops. In fact according to your own government, rapes have gone up since the ban. Yes, gun crime went down. But you already had a lower gun crime rate than we did in the US. How many school shootings did you have BEFORE your ban. And guess what. Your gun crime went town 30% since your ban. OUR gun crime went down by 30% in the same time period. Your "Violent crime" went up during that time. Ours went down.

 

 

Oh and you are misinterpreting the meaning of the second. Read our supreme court ruling DC V Heller. It holds that the opening portion of the second was not a requisite for the second part. The second was put in for the same reason the third was put in. At the time the British government was preventing those persons from arming themselves, and forcing citizens in the colonies to quarter troops in their homes(and give up their crops, food, daughters etc.). King George was not very nice to the colonies. And the people there decided they had had enough and voiced their opinions. Keep in mind that the cannons used were also owned by private citizens, not connected with the military. So it was NOT specifically requiring militias, and DID cover for self defense... Oh and if you think a shotgun works for everyone, You're a fool. Smaller framed persons have a harder time with a big bore firearm such as a shotgun.

 

And we do have over 20000 laws on the book regarding firearms. Nost of them are useless feel good bans like the ones in CT that did not stop the shooting. Automatic weapons have been illegal to sell any new ones since the Firearm Owner's Protection Act of 1986 which put a stop to new tax stamps being issued for firearms listed on the National Firearms Act of 1934(which included machine guns and automatic firearms, as well as rocket launchers, grenades, and a few other destructive devices). The only ones available for sale are too expensive for criminals to use. They instead use illegally modified firearms like the AK-47's that were used during the North Hollywood Shootout that happened DURING the "Federal Assault Weapons Ban." The ones used in crimes are the illegally obtained ones. Generally stolen from Law Enforcement and the military.

[Q]

america is a funny place, from an on looers point of view, they have taken their "right to bare arms" far too literal.. it was originally made for local militias in times of war and what have you, then twisted into a more self defense stance and justification to have a "arsenal" of weapons.. silly if you ask me.

 

if america insists on arming their citizens with little control (let's face it, gun control is disgraceful in the states) then make high rate of fire weapons and automatic weaponry illegal (sub machine guns, assault rifles etc) because if you want to defend your home, that is fair play.. but you only need a pistol or shotgun at best, just over kill to have an Uzi or M4 rifle or what ever they are. .

 

Just look at us n the UK, we have very strict laws and we have one of the lowest rates of gun crime in the world. Don't get me wrong, we still have the odd shooting but only once a decade or so and not 3 to 6 massacres a YEAR america seems to have due to poor gun control and poor mindsets to weapons.

Aaaand again:

People need to read up on the original intention of the Second Amendment.

The founding fathers wanted us armed to prevent our government from pushing us around like yours does to you.

 

The US is not a socialist nanny state yet, though we seem to be getting closer all the time.

[LDR]

I'll just throw my two cents here.

 

All empirical evidence – as well as plain old common sense – shows that gun control does not prevent violence and only leaves law-abiding citizens defenseless against it, whereas madmen and crooks could still obtain guns (well, most of them already get them illegally).

 

The Second Amendment clearly states: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

And I'll just leave this here.

[Totenkopf]

I think a lot of the problem stems from 2 things: the misbegotten notion that making laws will protect you from those who care nothing for the law AND a desire to use govt to control the populace at some point down the road. If you disarm your populations, govt control becomes much easier.

[Samuel Dravis]

It seems to me that increasing gun ownership restrictions makes a lot more sense for preventing suicides/crimes of passion than it does to prevent rampages.

 

I don't think it's too reasonable to base any laws on things which are so insignificant in terms of life loss as these rampages are. I feel the same about most terrorism; it simply isn't a big enough problem to justify the reaction it has obtained.

 

Mostly, I feel that if you have to reach for rare and emotional events like rampages to justify your political interests regarding gun control, you clearly are not looking in the right places for your reasons. If you want to ban guns to whatever extent, that's a perfectly legitimate goal-- but don't outright manipulate people who are hurting. It's crass and feels like going to someone's funeral so you can sell life insurance.

[mimartin]

While I largely agree with you, I will point out both sides are doing manipulation and fear mongering to advanced their agenda.

 

I also think is disingenuous to point that gun control will does stop all violent crimes, when the same can be said about armed security does not stop these type of rampages. Nothing will stop crazies from killing if their mind is set on mass murder. The best you can hope for is limiting the number of victims while hoping your solution does not put more people in harm’s way.

 

Guns are not going away in this country, no matter what the extremist from either side tell you. Both parties love their gun too much, but that does not mean those in the middle of the debate can’t do things to ensure guns stay out of certain peoples (that are a known danger to themselves and others hands). Personally I would like to see guns take a little more effort to purchase than buying a BigMac. It is not invading someone's rights under the 2nd amendment to force them to be what the already should be in owning a gun, a responsible gun owners, with rights comes responsibilities.

[Tommycat]

Well, I for one am all for background checks on all purchases at gun shows, but since I don't have access to do background checks for a private sale, I have a problem with regulating outside of that. Unless they have a web interface that allows you to do a quick check without having the FFL license, no way. Not that I sell a lot of firearms(in fact I still own nearly every firearm I have ever purchased) but IF I decide to sell my old 30-06 to someone else, I would like the ability to do so without dragging myself down to the gun dealer, waiting in the long line for them to do an NICS check on all the other guys selling the right way(while criminals will simply take money to "lose" their firearm). Keep in mind Lanza actually couldn't get a firearm. So he stole one.

[mimartin]

I agree it should not be overly complicated, what I think should be stopped is people legally buy guns and then selling them to criminals, so a gun owner should be responsible for their gun, if your gun is "stolen" then you should have to report it to the police or face the consequences when it is used by some criminal killing someone in Chicago (or anywhere else). Let face it, people that buy guns for profit to sale to people that can not legally purchase a weapon are not only breaking federal laws today, but are also aiding and abetting for whatever crime their weapon is used for. However, they use their get out of jail card, it was stolen and profit from the blood money. Close that loop hole, but as far as I am concern the NRA is aiding and abetting because they want to protect the criminal activity.

 

Keep in mind Lanza actually couldn't get a firearm. So he stole one.

He took a gun that he had regular access to from his mother. In this case, I would say the mother is responsible for giving easy access to a gun, her punishment did not fit the crime though, she paid with her life for her irresponsibility. Too bad, her irresponsibly gun ownership cost others their lives.