Again with the Hitler references! Hitler was elected to office, he didn't force himself on the German people. As for gun control, Hitler never enacted gun control in Germany. Germany had enacted tough gun control laws in 1928, years before the Nazi rise to power. Instead of banning guns, Hitler instead expanded gun ownership for German citizens (he’d stripped the citizenship of undesirables already) to levels which one cannot even get inside of the United States. The 1938 German Weapons Act actually relaxed all gun ownership restrictions save on pistols. A German citizen could own a fully automatic weapon complete with grenade launcher, legally, under Nazi control. Why was Hitler comfortable doing this, when all common wisdom is that dictators eliminate gun ownership? Because Hitler ruled from a popular standpoint. He had little to fear from German Citizens, and for those who would stand against him, he made sure to strip away their citizenship, therefore their rights to firearms. This left him with a well armed nation who worshiped the ground he walked on. This is one of the reasons why the closing days of World War II were so bloody. The majority of German citizens, however, were untrained, so ineffective on the battlefield against the well trained Allied forces. Kind of like untrained civilians would be against today's military...
Thx for the cut & paste, but after guns the next things that are 'dangerous' and have to go are..books, particularly the Bible. ....... And again...
BTW, 0311, didnt you say that you were a Marine? Then you signed up per: Upon enlisting in the United States Armed Forces, each person enlisting in an armed force (whether a soldier, sailor, guardian, airman, or marine) takes an oath of enlistment required by federal statute in 10 U.S.C. § 502. That section provides the text of the oath and sets out who may administer the oath: Or did you forget...? .
he likes to use that ol' political leverage thingy about children. I wonder how many children have died today in Honduras? To a broken mind, there are no rules, laws, morals, or ethics that even begins to compare to what society terms "normal" or "self-determining" means of coping. In the past twenty years, the government has taken a heavy hand in education. No child left behind, redefining Parental Rights, elimination of political development, elimination of US History, all replaced with feel good resolutions such as Multi-cultural discoveries, and elimination of the Christian faith via education. all common sense has been replace with a pill to "aid" our children in "proper" development. With all this medication offered to all these children, I'm really surprised at the low number of such events such as Colombine and Sandy Hook. The progressives are using our children as a vast experiment using pills to reprogram our offspring. .......then you wonder at the number of juvenile criminal occurances.
I don't believe expressing an opinion relating to controlling an issue that kills thousands of American citizens a year is in violation of that oath. I assume that you believe I should also be up in arms because people aren't allowed to "yell fire in a crowded theater" because it's a violation of 1st Amendment rights? Those responsible for reaping a profit by enabling the death of American citizens could easily be classified as enemies of the state if I used your perspective of absolutes.
Again with the comparison to a third world country rather than a first-world democracy... You still haven't justified your continued use of that tactic. How amazing that the same people who want "personal accountability" rather than government involvement and or movies/video games in relation to gun control are the first ones to blame government rather than poor parental discipline when discussing juvenile delinquency. Hypocrisy at its finest.
you, a US marine. Talk about hypocrisy...............go ahead and sell your Rights down the river.......you are a collaborator at worst, and a socialist at best.........or better yet, frickin' move to Australia and don't look back................ You endear the term, subject.............. Why,pray tell should I even listen to facts and data. they are trolled, directed, some are even made up, and slanted. I guess that means you "feel the pain" ...you have kids in that school? so tell me, how do you feel their pain? Emotionalism and fear-mongering will get you what you deserve.........................
Yeah, that post didn't look like emotionalism at all... As for fear-mongering, that is another example of hypocrisy from someone who would have everyone prepare for a home invasion from "THEM".
Rationalizing your way around the law is common among criminals too! And denial is a great way to live life for 'some' ppl...... I guess the saying "once a Marine always a Marine" is just Semper Fi BS...huh?!
If you consider America to be "We the People", then anything that kills more Americans than it saves is not to be protected. That's why some form of effective limit in relation to access to guns need to be in place. As for your opinion on me as a Marine - or on Marines as a whole - I couldn't care less. You know so little about me or the Corps that caring about your opinion would be like valuing the opinion of a blind painter.
Interesting to see that once the flaws in the arguements of some people are exposed, they have nothing to fall back on other than veiled threats and personal attacks. Pathetic.
Again, there are many effective gun control laws in most states, some more strict than others. And as they say in the military that I was in, "Quit whining!"
My son is a Marine, and he is 100%in favor of tougher gun control laws. Limiting military type weapons and ammunitions to. . .the military and police force IS NOT interfering with the second amendment Assuring that ALL guns are registered and that their owners obtain a license after a thorough background check and a reasonable (a month maybe) delay does NOT interfere with the second amendment, and will save lives Requesting a mental health assessment (either through the requirement that all people applying for a gun get a "release" from their physician, or through a specially designed psychological test, not unlike those administered to people joining the military) is NOT an infringement on the second amendment! Now, allowing anyone to bear the type of firearms that could not even be imagined when our founders wrote the Constitution IS a huge stretch of the true intent of the second amendment! And insulting people who want to at the least increase the chance that the number of killings that happen in this country because of this country love affair with their killing machines, and the growing paranoia that follows the general hysteria of "needing a gun to feel safe" is not only ridiculous and counter productive, it also demonstrates how vey delusional some people are about the FALSE sense of safety guns bring to paranoid people!
"Effective" is a relative term. ANY controls is 'effective' in comparison to none. I still contend that licenses need to be implemented for different classes of weapons, and that the process for obtaining these licenses should be AT LEAST as stringent as the process for obtaining a driver's license - preferably including a psychological evaluation as part of the written test. I further contend that ALL firearms should be registered in the same manner as vehicles, including ALL transfers of ownership stemming from private sales. I further believe in harsher penalties for unlicensed individuals found in possession of firearms and individuals operating firearms while under the influence of drugs or alcohol. I believe that the purchase of ammunition should be AT LEAST as controlled as the purchase of Sudafed. If this was implemented, people would respect their weapons and be more likely to secure them appropriately, resulting in fewer stolen weapons on the streets and fewer accidental shootings. It wouldn't fix all problems, but fixing a percentage of them would be a (*)(*)(*)(*) good start.
And so then, your son is not against responsible gun ownership! And labeling anyone who has a gun as paranoid is your universal copout from responsible gun ownership?! With home breakins on the rise (just chk the daily paper), stalking of women, etc. in what is now a violent society (more ppl killed with clubs etc. than with rifles en total in the US, 4% vs. 2.5%), you would rather effectively defend yourself with ________ rather than a gun?! Your main problem is that you havnt been in that position, as the woman hiding in her attic with her children, and a man seeking out & going after you for______?!! Self-righteousness sounds great until one is in that position... And 'paranoid' is what you are calling planing ahead with an effective defense option in a violent society?!
I firmly believe in securing your firearms. I hope that we eventually find out what the story was with Newtown, the shooter, and his mother. 1st of all, did the mother give in to the son's nagging to get an assault rifle? Cant see a woman with 2 hand guns wanting such a firearm. Was she just trying to teach him self-discipline thru responsible shooting? Btw, I trained my 12 yo son in proper gun safety, and enrolled him in NRA Jr's for both reinforcement of my training as well as letting him target shoot with his peers in 'good, healthy competition.' Then, how did she secure them" Did he break thru the security (which a 20 yo 'man' could do with enuf time)...was it too late when she told someone during her last week of life that she didnt trust turning her back on him?! Lot's of questions to still be answered..but none b4 today's Joe Biden recommendations! But what the heck, we mean well so let's all go crazy!!
Which daily paper? I thought all the gun proliferation advocates were happily telling everyone that violent crime is down? How confusing.... What is the statistic probability that you will experience a home invasion or stalking in your lifetime? How does this risk to the increased chance of someone in your family dying of an accidental shooting just so you can "plan ahead" for something that's unlikely to ever happen. You sound like someone on the verge of drowning themselves because they're afraid they'll spontaneously combust at any moment...
Being raised around 5 uncles, all hunters, with a multitude of cousins, many times bonding in the hunting cabin they owned, shooting, cleaning guns, locking guns in a glass cabinet, etc. NONE of us ever got shot!! Gun safety & responsibility were drilled into our heads at a young age. Which btw was a big advantage for me when I joined the military and went thru fire arms training/qualification. Also, I like some humor in serious discussions....
The fact that you engaged in a gun-based activity and didn't get shot is about as surprising as someone who played a lot of video games (and/or watched a lot of violent movies) and didn't become a psychopath. I've been in several car crashes without injury to myself or anyone else. I didn't mean to imply that EVERYONE who owns a weapon ends up losing a family member to an accidental shooting - or having a weapon stolen for use on the streets... But even if this occurs to one in a thousand gun owners (I'm just using that figure as an example, not citing statistics), this is still a lot of people in a country with so many guns, and it's totally unnecessary.
Reminds me, I never got an answer to my question, "If running with scissors" is dangerous, then when do we ban scissors? Again clubs & blunt instruments (4% of homicides) are more deadly than rifles (all rifles, not just assault types = 2.5%)...and the reason why...ppl acting out with whatever 'weapon' they can find (or afford)! Just as the drunk KC Chiefs football player who shot his GF 9 times, then kissing her b4 he left, with his size being over 200 lbs vs. her petite size, could have easily bashed her with a lamp and/or strangled her in his drunken fit of rage. If someone wants to kill another, they will find a way...the gun wasnt the problem in his case, his mental state influenced by alcohol & drugs was 'the killer!'
Kindly define "military type weapons". TIA. Do you suppose the First Amendment doesn't apply to the Internet?
So comparing ALL blunt instruments (basically anything that can be used to hit someone) to ONE category of firearm seems reasonable to you? Could you make the argument that 11,458 people were killed with hand-held weapons last year, making those weapons equal in effect to firearms? If clubs, knives or cars are really as lethal as guns, why do you want to carry a gun? Wouldn't it be easier to carry a pocket knife or finishing hammer? Are you trying to prove my point? As you said, he COULD HAVE killed this woman any number of ways... He CHOSE a gun. Most murderers do. If someone wants to break into your house, they will. I bet you still lock you front door when you leave though, because there's no point making life easier for criminals. Guns make murder easy. Making them harder to get won't necessarily STOP murders, but there's no point making life easier for murderers.
