Daylife/Getty Images used by permission
In his most extensive comments on gun control since the tragic Aurora theater shooting, President Obama called for tighter gun control measures in a speech at the Urban League in New Orleans…
“I, like most Americans, believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to bear arms. And we recognize the traditions of gun ownership that passed on from generation to generation -– that hunting and shooting are part of a cherished national heritage.
“But I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals –– that they belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities. I believe the majority of gun owners would agree that we should do everything possible to prevent criminals and fugitives from purchasing weapons; that we should check someone’s criminal record before they can check out a gun seller; that a mentally unbalanced individual should not be able to get his hands on a gun so easily. These steps shouldn’t be controversial. They should be common sense.”
Noting that lax gun control is only one part of the problem, Obama also touched on the historic new agreement between the New Orleans police department and the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division to reduce crime and corruption, as well as government programs in Boston, Chicago, and Detroit meant to steer young people away from gangs and street violence…
In his speech Wednesday night, Obama acknowledged that it has been difficult to get stricter gun control laws through Congress; the NRA and other gun rights lobbyists outspent gun control advocates 17 to 1 in Washington just last year. But a new poll found that gun-owning Americans, including NRA members, overwhelmingly support gun control regulations, with 87 percent of NRA members agreeing that “support for the Second Amendment goes hand-in-hand with keeping illegal guns out of the hands of criminals.”
Overdue.
Blah blah blah. Anything to increase government ccntrol over people’s liberty
I understand your concern. Americans are terrified on government control over peoples liberty as long as they are not harmed by one of the controls the government didnt enforce.
Here in Sweden we have very strict gun controls and dont take us as a good thing. Ask the Germs and Japs if they have hilly billies runnin’ an’ shootin’ sprees in cinema theaters.
Dont you agree that losing this “control” is overdue? it is not the wild west anymore so lets not keep up with that mentality
In Sweden you do not have Constitutional right to “bear arms”. So, whatever Government manages through ordinary lawmaking sessions of elected representatives can go. In USA ideas President Obama has about gun control are UNCONSTITUTIONAL. On par with execution without trial (hey, he did that too even on American citizens abroad) and such. Here any gun control without first amending the Constitution is strictly speaking illegal for Federal Government (and the extent to which local Governments can do it is also limited, but not to same extent). So much for legal issues people abroad usually do not understand.
Now to other question – should Constitution be amended and weapons controlled. There we go directly to the roots of USA. From related writings of the founders it is 100% clear that guns were not a human right for hunting or such. Government is seen as a potential threat and the only way to guarantee perpetual freedom from oppressive Government was to have armed citizenry able to construct a militia without Government need to help or obstruct such process. Such militia is to protect fundamental human rights. Hence, same as with the free speech enshrined in USA Constitution, ability to be armed and ready is one of grantors of long lasting freedom in general. Also, same as with e free speech, with benefit come consequences. In USA you can’t block hateful (say, Nazi, racist,…) speech because fundamental right would not be fundamental anymore. With free speech for all comes hateful speech. With right to bear arms comes responsibility that some hateful individual will abuse it, but it is more important to have fundamental freedom and risk for all than not to have ability to protect such fundamental right which in turn protects other rights.
What an idiot. Of course gun owners support keeping “illegal” guns out of the hands of “criminals”. That has to be the dumbest thing short of calling what the asshat in Colorado used an “assault weapon”. Assault weapon has a very specific meaning in the eyes (and regulations) of the BATFE and it does not include semi-automatic rifles.
And before someone corrects me I posted Assault Weapon, not semi-automatic assault weapon.
Common sense is one thing.
Commonsense (adjective) gun control would be one word.
You’re welcome.
Hey — its been a good week on thishere ((not this here)) forum. We got global warming, legalized prostitution, and now a double shot (sic!) of gun control. All we need for a perfect week is legalized drugs and something stupid about religion ….. which really is anything about religion. I miss Alfies longer rants.
Having a few days to think about it—yes—its time to realize America is no longer a back woods wildereness of the 1700’s. If Obama had any balls, rather than meaningless lip service, he would “educate” Americans that a militia is no longer part of American society==we have moved on to an organized, standing, professional ARMY, Navy–and all the rest. All mother loving gun toting individuals.
You need some squirrel meat to round out your diet? Go buy it at a delicatessen. ALL GUNS in private ownership should be outlawed. Only special squads in the Police should have arms. Radio’s and tasers is all a good cop needs.
Yeap. Thats what thinking about the subject for just a little while will lead anyone not mentally defective will conclude.
“But Cars kill more people.” ==yea, but cars provide a greater offsetting benefit to society. Guns don’t. Retards who get off on gun ownership can be given coupons for a flesh flashlight. That should keep them equally satisfied without the irredeemable damage to the rest of society.
We won’t do it. ….. Not for a while. Does the arc of progress lean towards not being self destructive? Ha, ha. sometimes yes, sometimes no.
So—once again==lets just make guns incredibly expensive and hobble manufacturers with easy to bring lawsuits for lack of safety mechanisms like iris identification before the gun can fire and so forth.
Only knuckle draggers and baby killers can be against this….ok, and those who were taught how to kill animals as part of bonding with their fathers. Like peeing outdoors. 30,000 killed per year for that is certainly a worthwhile tradeoff.
Silly Hoomans. Can’t tell shit from shinola.
17,352 (55.6%) of the total 31,224 firearm-related deaths in 2007 due to suicide, while 12,632 (40.5%) were homicide deaths.
Please don’t let facts get in Bobbo’s way.
You are a fool.
I do not need Professor Obama to educate me on anything. Hopefully someone will educate him on how many states there are in this country. Hint: Its not 57.
Buy meat at a delicatessen? Who kills those animals, or do they let the animals throw themselves onto knives? I guess being a shithead precludes thinking about where your food comes from.
Iris scanner on a gun? Do you live in Batman world?
I am glad to see that you are against baby killers though. 1.2 million abortions every year. Hows that for paying a price for a “right”?
Silly fucktard.
Hey George–you snuck in there what with the selected format of this forum. some think it sucks. Lets move your comments to the bottom where people interested in the subject might read them?
Chicago has the strictest gun laws and the most shooting. The State of Illinois has all kind of restrictions on buying ammo and guns. But other states that have less restrictions have less shootings.
Stop blaming the guns and start blaming the people using them illegally.
By the way it’s been illegal to murder someone like forever but still doesn’t stop them.
Say Jetfire–do you agree or not that people should have the right to own bazookas or guided missles?
Now—just apply that position to lesser and included anomalies.
IF private ownership of guns protected citizens from an overreaching government, I would be for them. But thinking that is nothing more than an abscess. Our government AND private corporations are taking more and more of our liberties every year. Guns don’t stop that. Armed groups of citizens cannot stand up to tanks, well trained squads of coordinated ground and air attacks with well restes reserves on call. Look at New Orleans. Owning a gun in that morass just got you shot.
Guns===a lie to keep you stupid.
“Guns don’t stop that. Armed groups of citizens cannot stand up to tanks, well trained squads of coordinated ground and air attacks with well restes reserves on call.”
LOL, ROLMA. Tell that to Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Egypt, Syria and others.
Tell that to the Americans who fought the British in the Revolution War.
I think we have been in Afghanistan for 11 years now.
“Say Jetfire–do you agree or not that people should have the right to own bazookas or guided missles?
Rolls Eyes and lifts left leg to fart.
“Armed groups of citizens cannot stand up to tanks, well trained squads of coordinated ground and air attacks with well restes reserves on call.”
Like Afganistan vs. Soviets, oh and then America?
Rolls Eyes and lifts right leg to fart.
Gee whiz McCullough. Once again–years to think about your position and you come up with another witless loser? You might actually read this forum and see which arguments work and which don’t? You are remembering the wrong ones—-ha, ha.
Did Afghanistan stand up to the Ruskies because of their private ownership of firearms -OR- because they were used as (substituted troops==whats the term?) by America and provided intel, weapons, training, and all other forms of support by the USA?
The analogy is such a misfit as to admit the argument.
Very poorly done.
Lets see bobbo, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan. But hey we DID kick Grenadas butt. Saw it in a movie with…. Clint Eastwood I think.
I believe that if it ever comes to an armed revolution, at least half of the armed services will NOT kill their own countrymen, but defect and return home to protect their own. as they are sworn by oath to do, as I would do if I were in that position.
I still fart in your general direction
During this time period American intel in the region was the kind of thing that justified our attacking Iraq because it had weapons of mass destruction. In other words total crap.
The Saudi’s were providing most of the cash. We did provide surface to air missiles and some mercs took part. Soldier of Fortune had some really interesting articles about what was actually going on at the time if you can dig up old copies. Most of the weapons used were communist block though the Afghans and Pakistans were and are really good at making working copies of communist block weapons. They were buying old movie film, chopping it fine and putting it into cases as gun powder (nitrocellulose) and using part of match heads under reshaped primers, and hand filing sections of brass rod to reload for bolt action British rifles among other interesting tricks. Sounds wonkey but these things actually normally worked.
rolls eyes
“that we should check someone’s criminal record before they can check out a gun seller; that a mentally unbalanced individual should not be able to get his hands on a gun so easily. These steps shouldn’t be controversial. They should be common sense.”
Why is this new this is already being done. I have been checked everytime I have ever bought a gun. You cannot stop blackmarket sales look at the war on drugs.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=1GNu7ldL1LM&feature=related
bobbo, telling shit from shinola with every wipe says:
ALL GUNS in private ownership should be outlawed. Only special squads in the Police should have arms. Radio’s and tasers is all a good cop needs.
Thanks for handing over my Constitutional rights to special squads in the Police. It is comforting to know that you trust special squads in the Police to enforce Constitutional laws.
Your judicious rationalizations are amusing.
So when a burglar enters my house with an illegally acquired gun, you expect me to call a special squad in the Police to hurry right over and defend me from a criminal that is threatening my life. I will be sure to tell the burglar to hang on for a few minutes, the special squad in the Police has been notified and they are on their way to defend my property and my life.
I suppose I should offer the burglar a bologna sandwich and a glass of milk while we chat at the kitchen table and exchange stories of our criminal exploits while the special squad in the Police get geared up and rolling.
What a wonderful world you live in, bobbo.
Keep smoking that dope, it messes with your mind.
Orchi==thank you for a rational argument. YES it will take some time to generally remove guns from the criminal element. But how are things looking now? 30K killed by guns per year. Take it down to 13K (courtesy of Birddog) if you think suicide doesn’t count ((I don’t, so that was a fair call)).
The police/courts/legal system primarily protects society by catching criminals, keeping records on them, prosecuting them, criminal labs, and so forth. I’ll even grant there might be an uptick in home burglary during any transistion phase to a new more rational normal. Its my judgment that the status quo is not working. Even you thinking you are safer at home with a gun to protect yourself is not true: more homeowners killed by their own guns than by intruders. Doesn’t that suck? So, if the status quo is unacceptable…. what ya gonna do?? More guns? Less guns???
Logically–you need a person and a gun to have a killer who uses a gun. I say, lets work on both elements of that reality: more mental health services for those that need guns, and fewer guns available in society in general. If you don’t have a gun–you can’t use it.
“But then only criminals will have guns” /// Exactly. Making them easier to catch and prosecute and for the pro-gun mentality to countered.
Lots of variables and things could get worse for a while thats true. I’m just being RATIONAL. You don’t fix a moisquitoe infested swamp by adding more moisquitoes.
Just that simply. Who knew the real sheep weren’t out in the fields eating grass, but rather were at home counting their bullets.
C’mon people==how about some common sense?
Sorry bud. Only 12,632 were from homicides. So .00004% of the polulation?
On average it takes 15 minutes for the cops to show up. That isn’t long if you are watching a ball game but it is a very long time if you are watching somebody smash/kill your kids and rape your wife.
A lot of people are stashing a blunt object instead but here’s the problem. A few days before the famous shooting two guys, one with a gun and the other with a bat entered an internet cafe. One guy smashed a high priced monitor while the other was waving the gun. Looked like a robbery and maybe worse was about to go down. A seventy something with a carry permit pulled a gun and shot at them. These guys left as fast as they could move with non life threatening bullet wounds. I think you can find the video on YouTube.
God did not make all men equal. Sam Colt did.
I think you can find the video right here on DU.
http://dvorak.org/blog/2012/07/22/71-year-old-shoots-armed-teens-internet-cafe/
Its funny how everyone blames the rifle for everything but the most effective weapon that the theater shooter had was the shotgun. During WWI shotguns proved effective enough at short combat ranges to elicit a diplomatic protest from the German government, claiming the shotguns caused excessive injury, and that any troops found in possession of them would be subject to execution. The US Government rejected the claims, and threatened reprisals in kind if any US troops were executed for possession of a shotgun.
During the trench warfare of the Gallipoli Campaign, Major Stephen Midgley of the Australian 5th Light Horse Regiment was widely known to use a sawn-off double barrelled shotgun while leading his troops, the weapon’s effectiveness resulting in Turkish officers complaining that it was not a ‘weapon of war’ under international law after Midgley took one Turkish soldier’s head “clean off his shoulders”. Midgley was ordered by an Australian general to cease using his shotgun and switch to a conventional rifle and bayonet, to which the Major was “bitterly peeved”
I keep an 870 shotgun by my bed loaded with 7 rounds of #4 buckshot that has 26 balls per shell 26×7=182 projectiles that can be sent downrange in about 5 seconds with a good shooter and the reload time can be about 10 seconds as you can see the shotgun can be nasty, I would much rather have my shotgun.
It’s important we don’t let common sense take hold. This may lead to a slippery slope of widespread rethinking of traditional values.
Without traditional values we’d be like animals!
Birddog above links to http://youtube.com/watch?v=1GNu7ldL1LM&feature=related which is Penn and Teller analyzing the Second Amendment. It is well done and logical. Of course, language of the Constitution is screwed up in several well known places, but that is not the point.
Under the wording Penn and Teller support–why can’t people own bazookas, tanks, machine guns, missles, and all the other armament? Why for 200 years were common sense restrictions imposed? ===all to the point of what “should be” our regulated state of affairs.
any court could use my rational: we now have a standing professional Army. No more need for militia. Or–if we ever get around to changing the Bill of Rights, that might be up for change along with corporate personhood ((which is a court made right not in the Const or BoR. Activists courts can do as they please pretty much. Look at Bush v Gore)).
What is — is.
What should be — is debatable.
So now Obama says he believes in an individual right to bear arms? Why didn’t he have his Solicitor General file a brief to the Supreme Court expressing that argument? And why did he nominate justices to the Supreme Court who disagreed with that view?
Anytime you here someone talking about hunting and shooting, you know they are not supportive of gun rights even for hunters and shooters.
You can still own a machine gun if you are willing to pay the price and fill out the proper paper work but the law abiding people are not the ones causing the problem, the majority of murders in the US are commited by Black and Hispanic gangs. The criminal element has caused the majority of the problems and we cannot even stop people from crossing the border with drugs, guns would be no different the criminals will get them no matter what.
I agree they will …. but only for a while absent some Sci-Fi scenarios. “Have a gun — go to jail.” There are pros and cons to all we do. One pro–no more mass shootings like in Colorado==or should I say fewer during the transition period?
Why don’t people have bazookas? BECAUSE society frowns on it. Over time, society could be re-socialized to provide the same stigma against firearms.
Put them on the same social scale as cooties–you know, not cool.
bobbo, telling shit from shinola with every wipe says:
Logically–you need a person and a gun to have a killer who uses a gun. I say, lets work on both elements of that reality: more mental health services for those that need guns, and fewer guns available in society in general. If you don’t have a gun–you can’t use it.
“But then only criminals will have guns” /// Exactly. Making them easier to catch and prosecute and for the pro-gun mentality to countered.
I think LSD is a better fit for your mentality.
Reality is not your strong suit anyway.
Let’s confiscate all guns and then we are better able to distinguish the criminals that have them.
I will admit, that is hilarious.
It does take that argument away. None of the arguments used by gun advocates work though.
Why do civilized people need guns? …… and the answer is >>>>> we don’t. And the analysis goes downhill from there.
Do honest responsible people enjoy their legal gun use? Of course. Is that enjoyment worth the 13K deaths per year? Thats a value judgment. I say “no.”
Anachronistic rural self centered pleasures vs sound rational judgement for the majority. Which on balance should inform social policy?
Everyone in Irag and Af/Pak has automatic weapons. You can get an AK for $50 bucks. Seems like its working out well for them and advancing society at a great pace.
So great we have to go over there and sort it out.
Yes …. but they are ….. “free.”
Being pragmatic is a burden/blessing all at once.
Why do I hate dogma? Unthinking dogma. A series of words that like a switch, turns the brain off, releases one from common sense.
Guns………
Kill ………..
People………
common sense.
http://dailypicksandflicks.com/2012/05/10/daily-picdump-454/spoons-made-me-fat-gun-sellers-sign/
If you move your camera angle to the left you can get obamas halo in you photo.
From the Massacre at Lari ( part of The Mau Mau Upraising 1952-1960 ) to white farmers being killed in Zimbabwe and Christians killing Muslims in Nigeria ( Dec 2010 ). The Machete as a weapon has surfaced as a cheap and available weapon of choice in Africa. The Simbas used them in the rebellion in The Belgian Congo in 64. In the cross border raids into Rhodesia, in the township wars of the 80’s and 90’s in South Africa. In Sierra Leone’s civil war ( 1991-2002 ) villagers where asked if they wanted long sleeves or short sleeves before there arms where hacked off. In Rwanda 581,000 machetes where imported after the 93 peace agreement and handed out to the Hutu for killing Tutsi’s. They killed 800,000 + in 100 day’s of blood letting.
That killer didn’t kill those people by himself. Somebody else did that.
You know, soon now this new format not allowing for the development of the issue posted will be an old format? But whether new or old, it will suck until it changes back.
George says:
7/26/2012 at 10:58 am
You are a fool. /// Ha, ha. The criteria being I suppose that I ask for cogent arguments? Lets see by what follows?
I do not need Professor Obama to educate me on anything. Hopefully someone will educate him on how many states there are in this country. Hint: Its not 57. /// Going with the 57 huh? Yes, very telling on the issue of gun control. Quite honest of you????? Tell us George, do you think calling someone out for misspeaking – – – is that HONEST in your world? Can you even be honest about that?
Buy meat at a delicatessen? Who kills those animals, or do they let the animals throw themselves onto knives? /// A joke son–although I don’t think much native wild game is sold in stores of any type. I enjoy my moose, bear, salmon when I get it. So–how many innocent human being killed are worth you getting to eat squirrel? Please round out your number to the nearest thousand will ya?
I guess being a shithead precludes thinking about where your food comes from. /// Comes from cattle ranches, pig farms, chicken ranches and other non-gun shot sources. You seem to not understand where your food comes from. Milk, cheese, bread===do you shoot yours in the woods? Where do you shoot a loaf of bread so that it stays edible?
Iris scanner on a gun? Do you live in Batman world? /// Technology marches on. We already have thumbprint triggers. I’m just trying to make it even more expensive and inconvenient while complying with the Constitution.
I am glad to see that you are against baby killers though. 1.2 million abortions every year. Hows that for paying a price for a “right”? /// Aborted fetuses are not babies. I know vocabulary and meaning above high school drop out levels is a stretch for you but give it a try: the same constitutional rights you want to have 13K people die per year to protect is the same constitution that allows women to choose their own family planning. Its offensive and typical you confuse the two.
Silly fucktard. /// Glad to be of service. ((Puts full length mirror away!)) Haw. Haw. C’mon George. You didn’t address a single argument made. You only vomited forth your “opinion.” Now–try again and link your emotions to a rational argument that is responsive to a line of thought that leads somewhere. We’ll wait.
Of course we need to have tighter gun control law to keep guns away for the criminals like Obama administration!! We citizens need to have all weapons to defend our rights from the crocks organizations like the DHS and all the 3 letters agencies!!!
Derek says:
7/26/2012 at 11:57 am
Sorry bud. Only 12,632 were from homicides. So .00004% of the polulation? //// Just to be clear: how many lives is the right to bear arms worth in your book?
Here’s another line of analysis that really doesn’t quite fit yet, but I’m starting to get thirsty so probably won’t be hanging in here too much longer.
http://npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/07/25/157387600/farewell-buckyballs-consumer-agency-files-suit-against-magnetic-toys
I like my buckyballs. Fun to play with. I don’t hurt anyone else with my recreational opportunities. But it appears to be the judgment of the society I live in that the number of little kiddies killed by ingesting these toys make them on balance not worth the tradeoffs. So they are or will be illegal.
One guy almost but doesn’t kill some people by having a shoe bomb and now we spend Millions of Dollars and Hours of lost productivity in useless airport security. Not what I would do, but that is what society thinks best.
Now–we have 12+ people killed each year so that rural Rambo’s can kill their food and that is OK? Doesn’t seem consistent with the other examples. something “else” at play==and not some mezmerizing constitutional provision==no, something in the guts.
C’mon gun nuts–why are you so hung up on gun ownership? Give the rational and reasonable ones of us who disagree with you, infact who can’t even fathom your disproportionate interest in these fire sticks, and tell us what gives?
I gave up buckey balls.
Ha, ha. I still have a set of lawn darts in the garage somewhere.
Maybe “modern guns” could be called toys and outlawed as being too dangerous?
Then let bore loaded muskets protect our Constitution.
I love your line, “Maybe ‘modern guns’ could be called toys and outlawed as being too dangerous?”. It IS pretty funny when you think about it that way – that as a society we have an instinct towards tighter regulations on toys than on firearms.
Thanks Chris. I think the natural response is to recognize guns as more dangerous—but the court has stepped in to interfere with their interpretation of the Second amendment to whit: that gun technology is allowed to increase over time becoming as lethal as it has.
The “Original Intent” of our Founding Fathers was obviously that it was ok for citizens to have a slow to load inaccurate weapon to use for various reasons. Its only the Court that thinks rifled bores, manufactured bullets, and clips is honkey dorey.
Given the government can do as it pleases, I really do think guns being loose in our society is just another tool of overreaching government oppression to keep the people fighting, insecure, uninited amongst themselves so they can rape us as they please.
funny how often the popular beliefs in PRAGMATIC OPERATION are just the opposite.
Yea, verily.
I loved playing Jarts at family reunions. They were as dangerous as horseshoes, but you haven’t seen anyone try to ban those.
From the earlier post on that 71 yo shooting at armed youth, Guyver has provided this painful real world experience:
http://reasonorforce.com/2010/08/australian-gun-ban-facts-statistics.html
After guns were turned in, the murder/burglary rates are the same or worse. Seems “only the criminals have guns.” I do wonder if the Aussies are doing enough to get the guns. And that makes me wonder what the USA’s NRA has been using its massive slush fund for? ….. but that would be demonic.
Hey–something to google==the Australian experience. Assuming the numbers are real, we still need some analysis==or simply more time? It takes time for a culture to change.
http://snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp
Its a one year experience analysis but goes to the root defect in the statistics. When your position is so bad its been Snoped, not much more to say. Updated in 2011 without modification. A truly defective situation.
Typical!
I can accept handguns for self-defense. I can accept rifles for hunting. But what is the legitimate use for an assault rifle or huge magazines for these guns? Those sort of weapons should be in the hands of the police and military, not Joe Public. We have a right to bear arms, not a right to bear any and all arms that can be invented. There has to be some reasonable limit to my right to bear arms. Do I have a right to a shoulder-fired surface-to-air missile?
Chris – can you accept its more life threatening to your family to have a gun in the house than not?
Can you accept that the best self defense is a phone call to an effective police force?
Can you accept Alfie thinks your handgun, or Birddogs sawedoff, can protect you from an overreaching government?
All fun things to consider. ALL SIDES considered and balanced for a considered opinion. Dogma for those who can’t.
Woof, woof.
I think there are two issues here.
1. Do we have a right to bear arms? This is a clear yes. I don’t personally own a gun right now, but I’m OK with other people owning one and I might like to own one in the future for kicks shooting bottles and cans. I don’t think many are arguing against this point.
2. Do we have a right to unrestricted arms? This I would argue should be a no. We should not have access to any kind of personal weapon that has ever been invented – some are just too powerful to be in the hands of amateurs (and this was something unforeseen by the founders). Also, there are certain people who should not have arms, such as those that are mentally unstable or have a proven violent criminal history.
I don’t see how this second part can be effectively argued against. Is anyone in favor or crazy people owning guns? Come on! Should I be allowed to own a bazooka? Hell no. This seems to me to be common sense. Somehow though any time there is a discussion of reasonable restrictions, the NRA turns it into an argument about personal protection. You can own all the personal protection weapons you want. I just don’t see you needing an AK-47 for “personal protection”.
I sense your goodwill Chris. You don’t need a gun for target practice. Use paint guns or hunting bows, or as I did for years: darts.
Years ago I hear the front door to my apartment open at 400AM. I got up, went into the hallway and found someone as tall as me in my front hallway. I said as manly as I could: “Get the hell out of my house.” The guy turned and left. I called the police and made a report. They said they had many complaints in my neighborhood. A few weeks later, it was reported that a retard had been caught going into people’s houses at night and looking around.
I am so f*cking happy I did not have a gun, cause I would have shot him for the slightest failure to follow my commands. I am so f*cking happy HE did not have a gun too.
guns.=======ONLY an idiots delight.
I’m not commenting on whether gun ownership is a good idea (in fact, I think it is a bad idea for the vast majority of people). I’m just saying it is clearly legal in this country and not up for debate (save for a change in the constitution, and good luck with that!).
Given that gun ownership is legal, it now comes down to how do we rationally regulate it?
I’m thinking this will just lead to more “theater” of some kind. In this case, gun purchasing theater. They can’t afford to greatly inhibit sales in quantity and firepower. That would super upset the gun manufacturing lobby. Not to mention the NRA. Who’s mostly looking out for the dealers. And whatever they do, it won’t stop the next moron from going postal somewhere else. Because then they’d have no more reason to “tighten” up gun sales and ownership again. Eventually, they’re going to be confiscating them. Probably some time in the future. But they’ll drum up some justification for it. And by then, all the gun makers and major dealers, will have cashed in on sales, and retired and/or diversified. While the customer losses whatever they invested in the product. Because the govt has got the cash to buy back these weapons. So you’ll just have to hand them over, or the Army will flatten your ass.
While money always plays its role, I’m happy to accept the notion that our gun problem is just a bad idea that has been watered and fertilized by the shit for brains Supreme Court that we have and for the reasons referenced above, too many people honestly equate guns with some notion of freedom. Our politicians have equated taking a stand for common sense with losing elections so the NRA has them pants down over a barrel.
SURVEYS SHOW: even 70% of NRA members are against extended clips and automatic weapons.
No—its the power of dogmatism and fuzzy thinking.
A hooman problem.
Silly Hoomans.
Twice in the last three weeks local homeowners in my community thwarted armed burglars with their firearms. http://peninsuladailynews.com/article/20120726/NEWS/307269989/two-accused-in-home-invasions-appear-in-court
YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And last week I stuck my head into my refrigerator thereby proving global warming is false.
Well done stoopid Hooman.
Head in the refrigerator explains a lot bobbo.
Good one. I actually read your link. ((copy and paste the Url and delete the www.))
http://peninsuladailynews.com/article/20120726/NEWS/307269989/two-accused-in-home-invasions-appear-in-court
Not clear how these “men” are ex-vets and yet minors at the same time? These burglars stole the guns the first home owners had? The second home owners could have simply kept the door locked???
Whole bunch of misery not clearly helped by guns one way or the other.
Vague/ambiguous. something really sick and rotten at the core of our society.
Hey Canine==is this your first post? You are new. Post On!!!!! I like your ability to link. Most retards here only vomit their opinions and feelings with no support at all.
You are already 3 steps ahead.
Even as it stands, the Home Guard could only exist in a country where men feel themselves free. The totalitarian states can do great things, but there is one thing they cannot do: they cannot give the factory-worker a rifle and tell him to take it home and keep it in his bedroom. That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer’s cottage, is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.
George Orwell
How do you explain democracy in countries with much more restrictive gun ownership?
So let’s ban fully automatic AK47s and pass a law that says mentally ill people can’t own guns. Now move on, right?
Basically yes. In my ideal scenario, there would be 3 main points:
1. There would be certain weapons you couldn’t have (like assault rifles, machine guns, RPGs and other, clearly military weapons)
2. There would be certain people who could not own guns (like the mentally ill you mention). I might also like to include certain classes of proven dangerous criminals, but the details would have to be debated.
3. The person wanting to buy the firearm would need to have passed some sort of basic safety test. This wouldn’t necessarily have to be odious (or a backdoor way for the government to prevent almost all gun sales). I’m just saying it doesn’t seem unreasonable that if you have to pass a small test to drive a car, why not have to pass a small test to own a gun. Basic stuff like how to load it, how a safety works, and how to store it.
I suspect point number 3 would provoke the most debate as to the details of how it would be administered.
Well Chris–you have bought into the general insanity. You recognize that when you know that allowing people to own bazookas, tanks, and missiles doesn’t make any sense. BUT IT DOESN’T MAKE ANY SENSE for a modern hooman to own/have any modern firearm either.
What “made sense” with normal assumptions in the 1700’s doesn’t make sense in 2000.
Quit buying into the dogma of the day.
Gun Owners = Retards.
I think you have a mistaken impression of my opinion, I probably agree with you more than you think.
I do not think it makes sense for modern humans to own guns and I’m not arguing that it is a good idea to own a gun. I’m just accepting the reality that in this country it is legal for people to do so.
Given that reality, my above comment is how I would regulate it. If you want to imagine setting up an ideal country from scratch, then that’s a different case.
Well argued, but: “I’m just accepting the reality that in this country it is legal for people to do so. /// Yes, legal but how and why–or under what interpretation of the constitution? The Sup Ct has been ACTIVIST in allowing for technological increases in the lethality of “arms.” No reason not to go in that direction and require the safety technology advancements to be applied as well. Yes, you are trying to balance, but you hobble yourself at the get go by accepting the common garblefarb.
Given that reality, my above comment is how I would regulate it. If you want to imagine setting up an ideal country from scratch, then that’s a different case. /// Yes that would be different. Half the retards dead based on genetic testing–but thats a different thread. Just think a bit more widely, for the additional options you are foregoing. EG–why not single shot weapons===just like at the signing of the Constitution PLUS 100 years?
Don’t give those a**sholes an inch.
People who wish to pass gun control laws, need to be able to answer one question- If you take away our guns, how will we shoot liberals?
The majority of Americans are liberal. Not by “name” but issue by issue. Like 70% of NRA member support bans on assault weapons and extended clips.
Why would you want to shoot an arms carrying NRA dues paying member?
Surely, even with humor, you make no sense at all?
“♫ Kumbaya my friends, ….Kumbaya!…..♫”
Heck no. If they’re anything, they’re mostly Libertarian.
Liberals are too weak to do much on their own which explains why they have a herd mentality like lemmings.
As in most things political======you are trapped in the lazy thinking of 20 years ago.=== about the same time you dedicated yourself to making money and stopped thinking.
Obvious.