I have noticed over the past forty years that amateur problem solvers fail to identify the problem correctly before they attempt to solve the problem causing more problems than they solved. They taught me in college to identify the problem, and then identify the problem further, and then identify the problem further etc. And when the problem is properly identified the solution to the problem will be self-evident. The problem with present, past and proposed Gun Control legislation is as above; the problem was not properly identified. The properly identified problem with Gun Control is Safety and Security of the weapons not the control of the weapons or the ammunition to the weapons. We are not talking about hunting rifles, but assault weapons that may be necessary to overthrow a tyrannical government, or support the government in defense of our freedom against an outside force. Legislation limiting a magazine for an assault weapon to ten rounds of ammunition is foolish. How can such a restriction help overthrow a tyrannical government? Assault Weapons should only be sold to individuals who can prove they can store the weapon securely in a Gun Vault, or Metal Locking Gun Cabinet. Magazines of high capacity would be necessary to overthrow a tyrannical government, therefore, remove the ten round limit and apply something reasonable like 30 or 50 round limit on magazines for Assault Weapons. No attempt should be made to obtain a list of owners of Assault Weapons or the ammunition for these weapons. These weapons are there to protect our freedom, even from our own government. Handguns are for home protection and should only be sold to individuals that pass a background check and can prove they can use and store the weapon safely in a Gun Safe or Gun Vault and they keep their Handgun Safety Certificate up-to-date or face impoundment and a fine. The problem is not the guns or the ammunition, but the safety and security of the weapons.
I agree with the gun safes - do not agree with the rest, but then I think the whole "overthrow a tyrannical government thing is a real laugh and not even remotely likely to actually happen - more likely you will embroil yourselves in a messy nasty civil war
Sad that mainstream media, CNN cable news actually asked Charlie Sheen his opinion on gun control. Really? Why would they think we are interested in a drug addicts views on gun control? For that matter why should we care about what any other than ourselves think? Especially cable news that pays people to appear on their shows? Give me a break.
he doesn't want to. Logician seems to thing that family protection should be done by government, not the man of the house
Right, because saying you don't need a gun is totally the same as saying you shouldn't protect your family on the rare occasion that there is a need to do so... The fact is that there will always be risks in life, no matter what choices you make. The risk that an offender will pick MY house (very rare), and will not be scared off by anything shy of a firearm (even rarer) is a tiny risk in comparison to the risk of an accidental shooting that harms or kills a member of my family. What's wrong with owning a taser?
..tolf you before, don't own a gun. That's fine with me. There are no children living under my roof, so that is of no concern. Everythhing is locked up anyway, excpt for the one next to the bed. Tasers? You still have to be too close to the threat. Still need a carry conceal permit to have one outside of your house in most states. Still ineffective if the perp has layers on. With some of those tasers, you have to touch them, that means you are too close. TAsers work great against multiple attackers, as often found in gang activities. All you're gonna do is (*)(*)(*)(*) off the rest of them. For me, that is too much like using a muzzle loader. One shot is all you're gonna get. I'll say this again, you protect you family your way. You have that Right. I'll protect mine as I see fit. You have no right to demand that I surrrender my Right, since you desire not to excercise your 2nd Amend. Rights, you do not have that Right, anymore...what Right will you chose to surrender, Free Speech, search and seizure..which one will you give up?
Hang on... You mentioned that you've had to protect yourself and/or your family twice in your 60+ years... That's (on average) once every 30+ years. You also mentioned that one of those occasions was one guy with a knife... which a taser would have dealt with nicely. Unless the other time was a small army of gang bangers with machine guns, you still have never needed a gun for defense... This matches the AVERAGE person. The AVERAGE person also DOES have kids around the house periodically (if not full time). The AVERAGE person does risk having their gun stolen, thereby making them part of the problem by providing guns to criminals. Laws have to be made for the AVERAGE person. By the way, I'm not talking about the tasers available in the 1980s where you had to touch your target... And if you have to get the same permit to carry one as a gun, what's the difference? Here's a link to a taser that can fire 3 shots... http://www.gizmag.com/taser-x3/12395/
A taser can kill if not used properly and they still have to get within a certain distance for it to be effective. I assume automatically that a "bad guy" is in my house, he becomes an iminent threat and has been and will be dealt with accordingly. Just how in the hell is that an act of terrorism on my part?
aaaaaaaaaaah...a failure on your part.............so answer the question, what Right are you going to surrender since you've obviously turned your back on the 2nd Amendment?
Are you seriously going to claim that a taser is as lethal as a firearm? That's just ridiculous. As for dealing with an "imminent threat", I believe that (depending on the state) you still have to have "reasonable" reason to believe your life is endangered before using lethal force. You'd have a hard time making this case about a guy who breaks in to steal some stuff and didn't realize you were home. Me saying that - while I was in service - I would have followed orders to end "domestic terrorism" has nothing to do with you or your ownership of a firearm... unless you chose to use it unlawfully.
Really? Starting a war that cost approx 4500 American lives and wounded an additional 32,000 Americans is not as damaging to the United States as "Giving Israel the cold shoulder, and appeasing the Muslim world"? What do we need Israel for again? Why do we need to be enemies with all Muslims again?
The prez is an interloper, and you may be a fool for following him, that has yet to be seen. Before the Patriot Act, before the NDAA, killing US Citizens was abominable to US troops and would never be considered...... your own mother, maybe your own wife could now be called a domestic terrorist. It is entirely possible under his guide lines, which he and he alone establishes. Any order to fire upon US citizens would be akin to murder and unlawful. He is a megalo-maniac and you see us as targets. What's the difference?
The president is a democratically elected representative. The majority of Americans made the decision to put him in office, get over it. This forum is not about the President. The NDAA is signed EVERY YEAR, it wasn't a one-off program. Do some frickin' research... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act I believe you and I both took an oath to "...against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States...." What do you think domestic enemies are?
Then maybe you won't be so tired in reading Supreme Court decisions District of Columbia v Heller or McDonald v. Chicago IL. The former decision remarked: "The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. You may be further surprised that when Chicago banned handguns, as the Supreme Court noted in their decision, the crime rate did go up.
...at this point, it would appear that our government is an enemy to the BoR. Dude, the ink wasn't dry on the Constitution when the big bankers started to flex their muscles. I do believe, cautiously, that the muslims would like nothing better than to replace Constitutional Law with Sharia Law. Socialists would like nothing better than to delete our Constitution. We have at least 12 million(I think 20 million is more likely) illegals in this country consuming it from the inside out. We have people like you who would gladly kill Americans (lawful orders, yeah, right) Our own government is giving guns to drug lords in Mexico then demanding we give ours up to ensure this country's safety, and you don't see an issue with this. Nope, you'd rather start shooting Americans then justify your sin with a "they told me to". Are you muslim, by some chance? Just curious..................... Lawful orders? From an illegal alien? A lying facist pig? He's a wanna be dictator with delusions of grandure. He has said he can rule without Congress. He has packed the SCOTUS to further the Liberal agenda. Everything in this forum is relevent, including that azzwipe...............and since this is about the gun grab/control per his plan, he is most relevent. What, don't like me taking pokes at yer boy?
Wow, that's just more ignorance than I can handle all at once... Let's start from the beginning: A) The BoR is an integral part of our government.... The 2A is no more under attack by gun control than the 5A was by Gitmo. B) So you believe the government has been compromised since a time when "the ink wasn't dry on the Constitution"? What do you think America is? Do you believe it's a group of people, a patch of land with an imaginary line (border) around it, or do you think it's a concept represented by our political history? C) Would you be happier with individuals in the military who refused to obey orders? Maybe you would have spared Lanza, Kaczynski, Rudolph or McVeigh because they happened to be born American? D) Because the gun laws in the USA are so weak, a group of 18 year olds was able to legally buy a ton of weapons.... They didn't actually commit a crime until those guns were delivered to the cartels in Mexico... Given what a crusader you are for the BoR, what action would you have the government take BEFORE a crime is committed? E) At what point did I indicate that I am a fan of the version of gun control that the current administration is proposing? You become increasingly irrational in the above post, eventually exposing yourself as a paranoid and irrational birther. Seriously, I can understand not liking Obama for a number of reasons; but try to pick one that isn't a laughable fabrication that even Donald Trump has run away from.
First of all, Israel is our biggest ally in the ME. We need good ties with them. Second, if you haven't noticed, appeasing the Muslim world just makes one look weak, and the ME is in turmoil. Sure, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq cost lives and money, but don't forget that Congress (bipartisan) authorized it.
Israel is our biggest ally in the Middle East because we have historically not made any effort to make alliances with anyone else in the middle east, unless it was to get them to work on our behalf. To whom do we look weak by extending an olive branch to countries in the Middle East? The wars you speak of were approved by Congress based on fraudulent information generated so that a President could be seen to do something "useful" in response to a tradgedy. Those wars killed more Americans than 9-11, and (because they were unbudgeted) did more damage to economy as well...
There are a couple of other good Arab sayings: "Anger is the first sign of helplessness" "Befriend the good and flatter the bad" "If people were fair, judges would have nothing to do"
Actually, an atheist - not that my lack of religion has anything to do with gun control... But, as usual, you have a bizarre fascination with ME, rather than the issue. It's getting a little weird.
as in you have no religious moral compass. So you're just guessing what is right and wrong Humanism is worse than no religion.............
LOL... So now YOU'RE an expert on moralism and religion... I'd happily debate that with you, but this is not the forum for it.
