Gun Control needs to be instituted

well my motives are this-I took =twice=an oath to support and defend the constitution. I have been a serious competitive shooter before I could drive. and I find that gun banners are invariably big government, freedom killing collectivists. hence I aggressively support the rights of lawful people to keep , bear, use lawfully, acquire, sell, buy etc any and all firearm types that civilian law enforcement agencies have access to

 

Both you and the clerk are correct!

All one has to do is exercise good common sense to see what's really going on in the country. The gun control hysteria is nothing but a wedge issue to further divide us politically. It's an issue that is used to pander for votes. IF some really cared about increased gun violence, as they say, they certainly would go after the actual criminals with guns harder than they have instead of coddling them. Instead, they pander by misplacing the blame.

 

Oh, I don't disagree. As I said, it would be political suicide if they were to actually ACT on the same anti-gun hysteria they helped to promote across the country.

 

You are not thinking this out farther than your nose.

The minute you give public citizens the ability and the right to get involved in a dangerous situation where other people are involved (for example, not defending your own home but the school in the area you live in), you are opening the door for wrong decisions to be made by people that are untrained. That is opening pandora's box.

Arming teachers and giving the public the ability to buy automatic weapons of great destruction and putting them out there to defend against attacks is trying to solve one problem by creating new problems. That is not the way to do things.

You mention the Constitution and law enforcement, which is really what we should be doing to begin with. My whole aim with this OP is that increasing gun possession among the public, especially without some good gun control being in place is inviting more problems (not less). You can give me examples over and over again where a person having a gun did something good but the bottom line is that multiplying that example of putting guns in the hands of millions brings more negatives than positives.

Gun control is needed. What guidelines should be in it is something for discussion but as it is now, it is not good.

 

Yes, people do have a right to defend themselves but it is easy to take that to extremes and extremes are bad. There will always be exceptions but what must be followed are not the exceptions but the rule. The rule is that more guns mean more gun deaths. End of story

 

we have far more gun control than the constitution properly allows. and we have it mainly because left-wingers figure it is a good weapon to attack people who don't believe in the leftwing bullshit that only the government can be trusted with firearms and that self defense is not something ordinary citizens are capable of doing.

 

More absolutely wrong claims. IN the last 30 years, the USA has added more than ONE HUNDRED MILLION FIREARMS to its supply and a great deal of those are semi automatic handguns (which have totally eclipsed the dominant revolver style) and semi auto rifles which are now by far the most popular rifle style in the USA-and the rate of gun violence has gone DOWN. if you were correct, adding 25% more firearms-especially the ones that you lefties are trying to ban-would have resulted in a massive increase in firearms deaths. IT DID NOT

 

Said by you, the guy who referred to self-defense as vigilantism.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-be-instituted.607617/page-21#post-1073997006

 

What the above poster described is not extreme or as you put it in post 510, "vigilantism"
Nobody mentioned extremes but you. Self-defense is a right, not an extreme.
End of story.

 

Not thinking this farther than my nose... and that's essentially all you have to say in reply?! Obviously, you reject everything I have said to try to explain a plausible point of view from a person who only wants to be able to DEFEND himself and his loved ones from the murderous ravages of criminal creatures who have no respect for "life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness".

We may agree on the necessity to keep weapons of ALL kinds out of the hands of what I call "criminals and crazies", but I doubt that we agree on how this can and should be done. My view, simply put, is LOCK THE BASTARDS UP AND THROW AWAY THE KEY!

<Mod Edit>

 

Armed police take violence to extremes as well and they cannot keep the peace. An armed general public can keep the peace and deal with individuals who go to "extremes" -- instantly.

You should know that there is no way to prevent criminals from obtaining guns.
Disarming the general public creates a police state where only armed police and criminals have the power to effectively defend themselves from violent attacks.

You can see how that kind of system works in any of our many crime ridden urban hell holes where only the police and the criminals are armed and where the police are at least as afraid as the helpless innocents they cannot protect.

 

I am 77 years of age and I have lived a full life, meaning my life has been full of good thing AND bad things, good decisions and bad decisions, and danger as well as safety. I was a policeman for 4 years when young. I have shot at people been shot at. I was a gambler in my youth and won big and also lost big. The most important thing from my youth growing up is the fact that I did not like myself in my teens and to change I had to look outside of myself for guidelines for change and look inward to uncover what I was doing wrong.

What that did to me is give me the ability to evaluate people and evaluate situations as they are and not as I would like them to be.

I have NEVER been hyper anything. I have never looked for extremes as I always looked for solutions and not for more problems.

In addition, I became a commodity and the a stock analyst 47 years ago and if there was ever anything that taught me to see things as they are in order to be successful, it was being in that industry. I lost a lot of money when young but then I learned what were the right guidelines to be successful and for the past 35 years, I have been successful "consistently".

As such and allow me to apologize in advance for what I am about to say: you are wrong and in ways that are worrisome as they prevent you from analyzing facts as they are.

 

In fact, the first gun control laws were passed after the Civil War in the DP ruled South to disarm and disenfranchise freed black Americans.

The Black Panthers asserted their 2nd amendment rights to the benefit of all Americans.

 

I don't live in a fantasy world where I expect perfect conditions to be possible.

Anything and everything is found in life and it will never be eradicated, meaning that you can find examples to prove your point all the time. Nonetheless, the difference between me and you is in the fact that I look at solutions that make things better overall and not just things to solve this problem or that problem.

There has always been criminals and there will always be. There has always been police to attempt to stop the criminals and there always be. Causing actions that try to reduce the problem but actually make the problem worse is not a solution. The people buying guns could mean you are arming more criminals (rather than less). You are giving more people the chances to kill. We need gun control that prevents (as much as possible) who can buy guns and what type of guns they can buy. Right now, most anyone that wants to buy a gun can buy a gun and they can buy any gun, meaning they can buy guns that kill a lot of people.

Gun control is a necessity.

 

That is called vigilantism and it is a return to the past and not a step to the future.

 

Americans are doing just fine. But we could use a few more guns in the hands of the good citizens.

I hadn't realized your "admission" wasn't merely "justification".

My bad, "kudos" to you.

 

9000.

 

as long as you seem to think the southern CONSERVATIVE democrats of the civil war period are the same party as to days democrats, there is not much to add here, in the 1960s ronald reagan proposed gun control in responce to black panthers with guns, i was around then i dont remember the whorlwing of support from all 2nd amendment people for the panthers, before 1977 the NRA was an outdoors-man supporter, and not a gun manufacture supporter

 

It should be easy for people to exercise their rights
The huge majority if guns can be used to kill a lot of people.
Gun control is not a necessity.

 

I have to laugh when you say Americans are doing just fine. Our INNOCENT dead children would say otherwise:



and then, there is this additional fact, which is totally blamed on GUNS! being available to all (no gun controls in place)

 

I suggest you look at the post just below this one of yours that I am replying to. See if you can reply to that post the same way you replied to my previous post to you.

 

Just remember the Progressives are not Liberals, they are Authoritarians. With this understanding you can more accurately predict them. They always want government to have MORE power and people to be more helpless before that power. They are the opposite of our Constitutional Liberal Democracy where ALL legitimate power flows from the consent of We The People.

 

CNN is fake news. That's why nearly no one watches them. If you think that your school children are safer in Mexico than in the US, then send your children there.

 

Deaths by suicide or accident involving guns ARE NOT the fault of the gun; each and every one is the fault of the weapons adult owner, period.

 

Call your Congressional Rep and Senators and let them know you'd like to have them propose a Constitutional Amendment.

Oh, wait. You can't. Because you're not from here, so it's none of your business, and you have no Congressional reps, at least not in the US Congress. But what are you going to do about all the animals that can kill you down under? Pass a law??