I have noted that people who are very strongly on either side of an issue are usually closed to any thoughts, ideas, or proposals that have even the suggestion of change or compromise. They stick to news and information sources that support their position. Some will even join a group (physically or electronically) that isolates them from any opposing input and could even be in danger of getting "radicalized". If your mind is closed to any hint of conflicting information, compromise, or thought, then don't bother to read this. Anyone who would attempt to take the guns away from the American public is a complete idiot. There would be armed resistance and hell to pay. Anyone who believes that there is any plan to confiscate all guns is either incredibly gullible or equally an idiot. If I lived in a high crime area, I would have bars on my windows, a metal door and door frame, and I would seriously consider owning and carrying a gun. (Fortunately, I live in a zero crime suburb.) Obviously, there are people who need a gun for their safely and the safety of their loved ones. I can not believe how easy it is for gangs, criminals, felons, mentally disturbed persons, and potential terrorists to get assault or automatic weapons, or any weapons at all. Anyone who would block laws or regulations to correct this problem must think that guns are more sacred than the lives of my children and grand children. Any congressman, senator, or legislator that votes against appropriate, reasonable legislation is basically guilty of negligent homicide. If cars existed in 1776, maybe there would be an amendment about the right to drive. Of course, in those days there were no assault or automatic weapons - just single shot muzzle loaders. It would be hard to do a mass shooting with Paul Revere's musket. The only challenge that I see is getting weapons away from the "wrong" people and keeping them away. The right of my children to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is more sacred than their right to bare arms. My accountant is a neat guy and he uses an AR-15 to hunt gophers. He definitely should be able to keep his gun. He is no risk. He is willing to use a licensing process if that would make us safer, but he is concerned about progressive restrictions.So, we have a choice to make. We can choose no or minimal restrictions and continued homicides and mass shootings, or we can choose licensing, some restrictions, and safer conditions. It is a choice - lives or guns - the safely of my children or an excessive attachment to the "right to bare arms" - the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness or the right to any and all guns. I apologize for the length of this thread. I then to over-react when I see the solution to a serious problem blocked by the excess polarization of the two opposing sides of the issue. We are intelligent people and we need to use our brains as well as our passions. So, there is a problem. Can we use our brains and solve it?
I am open to any gun control law that does two things: -Prevent those who cannot legally own a gun from getting one. -Does not infringe on the rights of the law abiding. I am particularly open to these laws when those who seek to implement them offer a compromise when doing so. Have any suggestions?
I would move before I would have bars on my windows--it's a safety hazard, and I would never live in a neighborhood with bars on the windows. Metal door and frame is a good idea. Automatic weapons are only available to either very well off law abiding people who get them legally (only a half dozen legal automatic weapons, since 1934, have been involved in crime--and some of those were by police officers using their duty weapons for armed robbery), or to those who are buying stolen guns from illegal sources, like drug dealers or stolen from the military. So-called "assault rifles" (along with all other types of rifles) are responsible for less than 3% of gun murders (248 in 2014). It's a non-issue. The only reason politicians want to ban these is as the first step to banning all guns. In Paul Revere's time, you could legally own cannons. A cannon can do a mass shooting just as easily as an assault rifle. I guess you also think that the First Amendment should only apply to hand operated printing presses..... So now you want to require me to wear sleeves, as well as take away guns? My right to own a gun is based on my right to life. A gun is the best device for self defense invented up until this time. Again, trying to limit my clothing choices? Our gun homicide rate is at records lows (at least the last complete data that the FBI has made available). It's lower today than it was in 1960. There is no serious situation. We are at record low levels of gun murders since 1960 (when the FBI started systematically gathering data on this). We are at less than half the gun murder rates than there were in the early 1990s.
More Guns = Less Crime. All gun control schemes are irrational unless they are intended to disarm the law abiding.
The best way to keep criminals from doing bad things is make them not want to suffer the consequences of doing bad things. In other words----punish the felons. One would not have to be as drastic as the Romans who would often take escaped slaves or criminals and put them up on crosses or sacrifice them in public games. Simply enough to go back to the fair and speedy justice system of our Founders. They would not give endless appeals or wait very long to hang repeat violent felons. The "Innocence Project" types would argue that even if one person in 100,000 is put to death for the 10th felony he didn't happen to be innocent of---then that would be a real tragedy. I say, so what?! If someone has already been convicted and served time for doing two or more violent felonies already, all that is needed is a majority jury opinion for a death sentence---then carry it out in within 6 months. With rational justice there is no need for gun control.
The question you should be asking yourself is why people that are too dangerous to have access to guns are not where they belong? If they are too dangerous to be allowed to have a gun, they are too dangerous to have access to anything that can harm another human being. The second question to ask yourself is, why does our government not shut down every gang in the country by putting every single one of them behind bars and/or execute those who are to violent to ever be let out of prison? The third question to ask yourself is why the government insists on importing people to our country from countries with incongruent cultures and high incidences of violent people and terrorism, that often don't even speak our language? The only way to prevent dangerous freedoms is to remove the freedom in question from everyone. Now ask yourself the last question: is that what they want?
I'm a bit skeptical of anyone that starts out not knowing the difference between bear and bare. It helps to do some reading so that you have something to go on. First, you should read the following thread so that you know what it is people debate relative to the Second Amendment: http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...5-2nd-amendment-has-changed-since-1789-a.html If you want this to be a long thread and repetitive, we can incorporate many of those posts into this one. For now, I'll be short with you: "The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence." – John Adams, A Defense of the American Constitutions, 1787 Virtually every day the anti-gun lobby comes here rephrasing their rhetoric in different words, but with the same sentiment. If you don't want a compromise on their terms, something is wrong with you. My response is the same: The Bill of Rights is not for sale. Unalienable rights are above the law, according to the earliest court decisions in the United States. Government does not dole out unalienable Rights and, consequently, no man is in a position to give away what is bestowed upon him by a Creator at birth. Anti-gunners are liars, cowards, hypocrites, seditionists, traitors and people in love with a government / God. Offer them a compromise on this issue and they ignore it. They won't consider it and they pretend not to understand that when it comes to unalienable Rights, the government cannot take them and the people are in no position to give them away. So, here is your compromise: When you are afraid that guns may fall into the "wrong hands" then you take the bodies that those "wrong hands" are attached to and you put them into jail or you put them into protective custody... whichever is appropriate. Mass shootings are done by one of two types of people: A) Political extremists like jihadists and white supremacists and B) Those on a schedule of drugs called SSRIs (generally drugs like Prozac, Xanax, Zoloft, and other anti-anxiety drugs.) Virtually nobody else engages in mass shootings. We know the types of people that will become mass shooters, but we allow users of dangerous drugs (SSRIs) to roam about freely. If we advocate a position to advance on political extremists and make it hard on them, the left has a hissy fit. But, the left has no problem with advocating that we abolish the Right to Privacy, the Right to keep and bear Arms, and the presumption of innocence. Oh no, they say. You have to "prove" this and that. Yet any person out there can go to a bar, buy enough booze to get drunk then climb into an automobile and kill umpteen people in a DUI. They can serve their time, get out of jail, go to another bar, buy enough booze to get sloppily drunk, mow down someone else and repeat the process - no questions asked, no background checks, no waiting periods, no limits on how much booze they can buy, and no alcoholic drink ban. OldGuy?wise, the left is leading you down a road to nowhere. I gave you the compromise. I have a sneaking suspicion that you will ignore it - or attempt to attack it with debunked arguments from the left. My words to you will always be the same: "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun." - Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778
While the above holds wisdom, it is undone my a significant portion of the following. Why should it not be believed that there is a plan to confiscate all firearms? What evidence is there to prove conclusively, beyond reasonable doubt, that such a plan simply does not exist, or otherwise will not exist? It is a fact that is readily and easily ignored. And what legislation would effectively stop someone from stealing a firearm, committing a purchase with falsified identification, or simply deciding that they are going to turn a profit by selling a firearm to someone they know is legally prohibited from ownership? What sort of legislation can discourage someone from knowingly committing an illegal activity? There were carts and horses during this time. There would have been no need to specify a right to drive, as there was a recognized right of travel, the freedom of movement. There was also an absence of those who are most inclined to commit mass shootings, such as the mentally ill being allowed to roam freely in society. Such individuals were dealt with swiftly and severely. There was no care for if someone was mentally ill when they committed a crime, just as there was no tolerance. If such individuals were not put to death, they were committed to insane asylums where they would remain for the rest of their lives, away from where they could inflict the most harm. The society of the united states was not nearly as permissive with deviant behavior as it is now, where everything is tolerated and even celebrated. The second amendment was codified into the united states constitution. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is referenced in the declaration of independence, and does not carry the weight of law. There is supposedly a right to life, but this does not stop police officers from killing unarmed suspects because they feel threatened. The right to life has been superseded by the right of a police officer to use deadly force if they feel it is necessary to protect their own lives. The right to liberty has been all but eviscerated by the supreme court, holding numerous times that liberty applies only when it does not place an undue burden on government authority. The right to pursuit of happiness does not mean that you are allowed to actually experience happiness, you are only entitled to seek it out. Firstly, can you explain precisely how any restrictions, such as mandating the acquisition of firearms licenses, and the registration of firearms, would in any way actually make anyone safer? How does licensing and registration actually, physically, prevent someone from taking a particular firearm that they own, and using it commit a mass shooting, such as the San Bernadino incident in the state of California, where such restrictions exist? Give us some examples of how someone who is willing to commit mass murder, would be inhibited or discouraged by paperwork requirements, when so many mass murderers kill themselves rather than face prosecution. Secondly, the number of homicides and other violent crimes is at a historic low in the united states, despite the number of owned firearms being at an all time high according to the FBI. The number of firearms owned has increased, the restrictions on firearms ownership have decreased, and the number of homicides and violent crime has decreased as well. Mass shootings remain isolated incidents and are statistically minute to the point of being insignificant. That remains the question. Can anyone explain how what amounts to paperwork requirements will actually do anything to directly affect criminal activity, when such individuals are never prosecuted for the various firearm-related offenses they already commit?
Where to begin ? The Second Amendment; A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Shall not be infringed, key clause, The Right to keep and bear Arms is guaranteed to us as are Our other Rights. Firearms are the Great Equalizer, they make a frail Person Equal to a much stronger Person or large Predatory Beast ! Gun Control looks and sounds good, but is it effective ? No, Criminals do not obey Laws, Murder is Illegal, so are many Drugs such as Cocaine, Heroin, Methamphetamines, and Illegally obtained Pharmaceuticals, If Criminals Illegally import Drugs, Guns can be smuggled in too. Lately, there has been a trend, People are making their own guns, it is a growing Industry. Liberals somehow want People to believe that Gun control will prevent Criminals from obtaining Guns, this is simply not true, Mexico has strict Gun Control, only one Government run Gun Store in the entire Country that is Mexico, Civilians are restricted to handguns of .22 LR, .25 acp, .380 acp, no Rifles, no Concealed carry, only possesion in the home, basically useless. Every Criminal in Mexico is heavilly Armed in spite of Restrictive Gun Laws, Drug Cartel Criminals have access to Military weapons, machine guns, rocket launchers, Tanks. Those Gun Laws do not apply to CRIMINALS ! Criminals are in the Police, the Military, and other Government Officials that are allowed Arms, Truth is, Gun Control Laws do not apply Equally to Everyone. Where ever you go, any Country, Gun control laws do not restrict Guns from only Criminals or the Mentally Ill, it takes Guns away from everyday Citizens, the ones that need them most, in many Countries, the Police are corrupt and as bad if not worse than the Criminals and their oppresion is Government sponsored and sanctioned, So much for only Police & Military only as those authorized to bear Arms. Here in the U.S. it is the same, in States with restrictive Gun Laws, there is a high Crime rate, this is inversely proportional to the severity of that States Gun Laws, California and New York State, City, and Washington D.C. and Chicago Illinois are great examples of States with both restrictive Gun Laws and very high Crime. So to summarize, it matters not how you restrict Guns, licensing, vetting, Criminals are not hindered from obtaining firearms, or Official permission to bear arms, Gun Control as a Crime prevention method is quite poor, I have a lifetime of experience dealing with such matters and became a Police Officer in various jurisdictions, and assigned temporary duty in other Countries with INTERPOL, and I can tell you, Gun Control is a Liberal's pipe dream.
You have to hand it to some of these anti-gunners. They come here, start a sh!+storm and then exit the thread without debating the merits of their cause OR agreeing to a real compromise as the one I proposed. As predicted my post went unanswered - as usual.
As TOG said I'm for any gun control that (a) actually works and (b) doesn't infringe on the second amendment. I agree with the first part, not so much on the second. It's incremental gun control for precisely the reason you gave. If there was an all out ban there will be a civil war. Two steps forward, one step back. You're still one step closer. I don't like bars on windows because they can be a fire hazard. I would plant thorny bushes as a detterant though and have a metal door. However just because you live in a low crime suburb doesn't mean crime can't seek you out. In fact you are more exposed because now you'll won't expect it. Assault weapons are select fire and are highly regulated and same for automatic. As for the rest criminals get guns by stealing or straw purchase by friend or family. Name a law that actually works and doesn't infringe on the second amendment. They did had horses so there goes the "they only had muskets" argument already and I haven't even finished. Actually they did had multi shot weapons. Not only that but the founding fathers was aware and fans of them. Plus they had full on cannons and battleships. If they wanted to exlude those then they wouldn't said as much. Sure, then will move to knives to kill each other. And by you saying that you admit you're for the outright ban of firearms. I don't see how having sleeveless shirts helps in preserving liberty but the right to keep and bear arms is essential to your children having life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Name some that work and doesn't infringe on the second. Sure. Just list some regulations that actually work.
This is overall a very fair perspective I think. I would criticize you though, on the underlying assumption that the choice is black and white--gun rights or continued death. To an extent that's true, but the group of people that would buy an "assault weapon"(semi-automatic rifle, meaning 1 trigger pull = 1 bullet downrange) with the express purpose of causing harm with it is probably set on doing the violence anyway. If the situation is a mass-shooting at a public venue, it's not like the shooter cares much about legality. He can't buy his semi automatic from the gun store, but he could conceivably acquire one off the books in some obscure alleyway nearby. Then what? He still marches on and pulls that trigger as much as he wants. You're right, he shouldn't have that gun, but there is no way to possibly rid the entire country, even an entire city of all of the "assault weapons" that exist. Which is why, if that guy is even illegally able to possess that firearm, then I want to be able to throw my AR-15 or my AK-47 in the back of my truck in the event that he puts me in his sights. Because I trust myself to stop a threat to my existence more than I trust the police to get there on time. Great post, and its a tough issue, but I just think the solution is more abstract than gun laws. The problem is the shooter and how he became what he is, not his choice of weapon.
The real issue is, you cannot take the guns off the streets, but you could take a lot of the wrong kinds of people off the street. The MSM don't bring that up as an issue so we don't do things at a grass roots level.
Yet the Dems want to give these very same people (felons) the right to vote just as soon as they LMAO get out of jail.
Gun control is unConstitutional and I do not think idiots should have their rights taken away. You could be married for a person for 40 years and wake up one morning with your junk cut off. You can't always tell who's going to do what with a gun or any weapon.
Careful -- you'll give the anti-gun people an excuse to ban guns from everyone -- "you never know that people will do".
And yet they reject such an argument whenever they include legislative exceptions that would allow for retired police officers to continue owning items they wish to prohibit from general ownership.
*********************************************************************************************** Lorena Bobbitt, Woman Who Cut Off Ex-Husband's Penis in 1993, interestingly enough, One of the definitions of bob it, is to cut short or make smaller, as in a bobbed revolver hammer.
