The more the gun nuts fight the assualt weapons ban, the more attention it gets

See Johnny that is the problem with people on the left they define freedom in ways that limit freedom nearly exclusively.

 

I'm not buying your opinion merely because you decide to flood the screen with stats you prefer.

I understand that you feel strongly about your position.

It's better now, if we agree to disagree. And certainly, I don't agree that MORE guns or access to the same... will actually make America a 'better' nation; and I WILL VOTE accordingly for the rest of my life.

- - - Updated - - -

That clearly is not true. You are exaggerating; it is obvious.

 

I don't agree

 

Well, it is fairly certain that not all people hold the exact same concept of 'freedom'. Sometimes, the best we can do as individuals... is ensure that others have as much autonomy as is reasonably possible. Where one person's freedoms overlap and infringe upon another's... is usually where we have to impose some form of restriction.

 

Freedom for some means the Piers Morgan response, they need the nanny State. To them freedom means that someone else does their thinking. I guess freedom to be a slug in society instead of an active member.

 

Where does me owning a sporting rifle infringe on your freedoms? I completely understand you want to curb violence. Statistics have shown that violent crimes are on the down turn, regardless of any other stat people want to pull. More to the point, if you want to really curb gun violence, why not look at the cause of it?

I've looked at all of your responses on this thread (Or at least I believe I have) and not once have you stated what we should do. My opinion, let's look at what is causing the gun violence. For starters, you have a ton of gangs & drugs in our country. Marijuana has been known to fund all of their gangs & drug cartels for quite sometime. This money is also funding the other various drugs around the world. How about we advocate to legalize/decriminalize marijuana? Start by allowing folks to grow & sell their own marijuana. This will drive down the costs and the gangs will have less to fight over. Less money, less illegal guns, less deaths.

If we go into the route of universal background checks, how can we be sure that someone isn't going to get denied a gun for any reason our government wishes to give? You want to give full complete control to our government that has been known to be corrupt. You don't think that they would start randomly denying people for any reason?

Call me a gun nut, I have a DPMS Panther. I have a wife, daughter, and my son was just born on Monday. I use it for home protection. You might use a pistol or shotgun, I prefer my sport rifle. I have no intentions of ever using it and I hope I never put any bullets through it unless I'm at the range. However, if someone crosses the threshold and threatens my family, believe me that I will do anything to protect my family from harm.

 

I am not talking about YOU (per se); and I did not make the claim which you suggest above.

And I understand that you don't wish to share in my activism against the same. And I've indicated where my votes will be directed.

That DOES NOT prove that we cannot DO MORE to improve things. And that... is where you and I will likely continue to disagree; at least upon HOW we tackle the task anyway.

I have my ideas and other expert in sociology, law enforcement and other groups have stated such solutions. But what do you say is the solution? I'm not holding your fingers/lips... got something? Share it.

Here, right now in America, we have NRA proponents arguing AGAINST full, comprehensive background checks and registering of guns. Please, if you aren't FOR that (despite any of my other posts), then of course, you realize the main reason that you and I will disagree upon this into the future.

Okay, consider this:
Although we invest in extensive research on automobile safety... we still check people out when they get a driver's license, buy a car and register the machines we put on the road. This GUN thing, has not that equivalent; and it is something that needs to happen, pronto!!

Separate issue. Law enforcement needs to be bolstered; not to mention boosting the economic status of most Americans overall. I am FOR policing and enforcing existing laws... but I think it is foolish to say that our laws concerning the proliferation of (even) legal firearms in this society are absolutely sufficient... given the very things you mention above.

Another fairly separate issue. But are you FOR decriminalizing marijuana and some other substances? (It's a topic worthy of generating many other threads.)

You/I don't have all of the answers and we won't touch upon them here. We both know the issues are complex, and that is why 'I' will not pretend that I have all the answers. But still, I WILL tell you that what you mention below, is a start. If you essentially throw up your stats, wave your hands around protesting my concerns, trying to tell me that NOTHING substantial should be looked into or attempted USING LAWS... then I am almost certain to ignore your commentary here. Yeah, I know that the intricacies of the issues can be debated and legislated upon, but as I have already implied... throwing stats around on such a complex matter, does not make you an expert or perfectly correct. It just doesn't.

Now, we're back to the philosophical, IMO. For example, how do we ensure that our justice system does not lead to false imprisonment or execution of its citizens? For one, we IMPROVE checks and balances. And what I'm hearing from the extremist on the pro-gun side... is that status quo is generally 'okay'. Maybe that's NOT what you're hearing?

You made that claim; I did not.

Implement a reasonable system of checks and balances; be realistic and KNOW that it won't be perfect. The way we proliferate weapons in this society today, SURELY IS IMPERFECT!!

I'm a career military man; and a marksman. I understand self defense... but I am willing and ready to EXAMINE and affect how our society integrates firearms into the population. As I said before, anyone who tries to convince me that (virtually) NOTHING should be done... will be someone that I disagree with (out of hand). Something DOES need to be done; and we should honor the 2nd Amendment in as reasonable a manner as possible.

And I have ZERO problem with you being able to defend yourself and yours. Policy for the WHOLE of society though... we are going to argue about that, and I think that we must (generally speaking).

Well, you might be taking some of this personally, but I never was talking about 'you' per se. I will grant you the benefit of the doubt and call your intentions and practices reasonable. But where it relates to policies we must all abide as citizens... I'm virtually certain that we need to 'tighten' things up to a substantial degree.

To tell or suggest to me that what we're thinking and doing about guns in America is somehow sufficient/correct... is something I intend to reject for a good amount of time looking forward.

 

You continue to ignore the reality that crime is down and the vast, vast, vast majority of legal gun owners harm no one. Those two items go directly counter to your argument that we need to do something about guns. Clearly we are fine where we are at. Rather than look at guns, we need to look at the cause of violence. The drug war is one of those causes. Continuing to ignore reality, ignore facts, and ignore causes will help your issue, but it will not sway anyone. Rather it will just make you look like a fool. Open your eyes and actually look at the issue. Don't go all emotional, don't yell about how me owning an AK-47 supports child murder or some crazy bull (*)(*)(*)(*) like that, look at the actual facts, then come back and tell me why I can't own that rifle or whatever other weapons you have decided I cannot own because I'm somehow a threat to everyone around me by owning one.

 

My question was directed to your statement of 'Where one person's freedoms overlap and infringe upon another's... is usually where we have to impose some form of restriction'. In which, I was merely asking where does my right to bear a sporting rifle infringe on your freedoms.

Maybe so but I do believe the ultimate goal is to curb violence. Regardless if one feels one way or the other.

Did I say there was nothing more left to be done? All I said was crime was on the downturn. Where, according to the FBI statistics report, we're more likely to be raped or robbed than murdered. If that's the case, why are the symptoms/causes of those two? Are they directly related to gun violence? No one knows because all we keep talking about is universal background checks and banning guns (Not you directly, but people in general).

Mental health & gang violence are the biggest contributors to gun violence. The folks who have done the most recent mass shootings have had some form of mental illness. Our healthcare system has failed us and our war on drugs has failed us. In yet, because of the system that has been built around us, the law-abiding citizens who just want to left the eff alone are subject to the bureaucracy of the folks we put into office. All the while they are getting their pockets stuffed, we're all down here dying from there lack of sympathy.

Please, gun violence is the least of my concerns. If we want any type of reform, it starts by getting folks into politics that know there is a very serious problem. I'm not going to tell you stop bending your finger if it hurts, you need to get it checked out by a doctor to figure out what's going on. Universal background checks and banning of guns is far from a start. They want to push this first so we can get this jammed down our throats. Then, thereafter when it's proven that murders are still being committed, we'll need to jam the next thing down people's throats. It's a never ending cycle of more bs that we don't need. If we want to fix the problem, then let's fix the damn problem. Guns aren't the issue, it's the people using the weapons that are.

If the consensus is universal background checks, fine. I still say there are other underlying issues that no one is talking about and the politicians in power could careless. We're dying while they're all getting richer from our misery. Funny how that works, isn't it?

And more murders occur on the American highway than anywhere else in the US. Why do we need to be subject to having our information on a database as if we're some sort of child sex offender? To me, that's a pointless argument as even if I had a whole arsenal of weapons, what harm am I doing anyone? All you're doing is openly inviting all of the criminals to target those who don't have guns. I can easily go onto a website, find out who doesn't own a registered gun, and they've now become an easy target.

It's not a separate issue. If you're concerned with curbing gun violence, it needs to be addressed. Universal background checks, banning weapons, and registering guns is a make shift law. All you're doing is continuing to push us closer to being a nanny state. While we're at, why don't we write all of our politicians and tell them to create a stimulus package to build a giant bubble for everyone so we can live inside of it. We can fund NASA to start looking into this technology so we can never have harm done onto ourselves.

If you say that's ridiculous, then I'll say not as ridiculous as expecting our government to enforce gun laws on us while selling guns to criminals (IE: Fast & Furious).

I'm 100% for decriminalizing any and all drugs. However, today's society isn't ready for such a drastic measure. I'd start with marijuana. This will help bring down the costs of marijuana and stop funding drug organizations that are propping up other drugs. We should see a significant decrease in illegal guns and gang related drug killings. We are propping them all up by keeping marijuana illegal, as the price of marijuana is going through the roof. Legalize/decriminalize it, allow whomever to buy & sell it as they wish, gang & drug cartels effectively lose majority of their money. Thus, less money to buy illegal guns.

I never claimed to be an expert, I don't know everything and will never know everything even when I'm long gone from this earth. What I do know is that marijuana has statistically proven to be propping up drug cartels & organizations around the world. This exorbitant amount of money can help fund them for generations to come. Then, to make matters worse, they use children to become their drug mules. They know most of them won't be committed as an adult so they use them to do all of their bad deeds, while the real bad guys are way behind the scenes and we'll never catch them. All I'm advocating is stop giving them a way to make money off of us. Further to the point, our healthcare system is absolutely horrendous as well as a jail system. We have a revolving door in our jails, no wonder folks continue to do crimes, there's no incentive not to. Do a crime, go to jail, stay for a month or so, get released, do it all over again until you're caught.

What I'm ultimately advocating is looking at breaking down the mold the system has gotten onto society. We've become nothing more than a nanny state where we believe that the government will scoop us up and save us from any harm. I don't trust our government when all of them have proven to be as crooked as the criminals who are doing the bad things we all hate. What I don't feel like doing is having more of the same rhetoric, more of the same legislation, and nothing ever change. I wish I could magically wish that everyone would just leave everyone alone in perfect harmony, that'll never happen.

The status quo is fine with them because they're sitting high and pretty. What about those who have to suffer from the bs they pass down to us? I hate status quo, I think the status quo we've dealing with needs to stop. Our justice system is horrible and I have no faith in our justice system. Folks walk who've cleared committed crimes, folks get locked up who didn't even commit a crime. The judges we put into place are just as crooked as the politicians that put them there. In yet, I'm expected to put my faith in that system? No sir, I beg to differ.

Then whose going to determine who should be able to own a gun or not? Are you going to leave it up to me, you, or the government?

Again, this is assuming that the government will ensure that these checks and balances are met. I'm all for universal background checks, what I do want to get stated is that question marks need to remain on our government. Just be simply going with the 'surely it's imperfect' theory is only going to make us state 'mistakes are going to happen'. If it comes down to someone being able to own a gun to protect themselves as a 'mistake' they couldn't get it, I have a problem with that. Just like Obama states that if we can protect one child, we should try. Well, if the government prevents one family from protecting their child, we have a problem.

I thank you for your time & service as a military personnel. I have high respect for the men/women who've put their lives at risk for whatever the cause may be.

I've never advocated nothing should be done. On the contrary, I've given examples on where we should start. My issue is when people (Not saying you) want me to fall in line with the governments decision when we have Senators, like Feinstein, stated the following:

“The Senators feel the best course of action is to remove all weapons from law enforcement and private citizens so no one else gets hurt. When the gunman realizes that nobody else is armed, he will lay down his weapons and turn himself in…. that’s just human nature.”

In yet, Chris Dorner shot and killed a woman & her husband in their driveway. Both of which had no guns. I'm supposed to buy into this non-sense and accept the proposals they make. Moreover, I'm supposed to believe that any system they make, while not perfect, will ensure my safety and that guns won't get into criminals hands? Then I read about stories of the US government selling arms to Taiwan and drug cartels. Sorry sir, I respect you and you're system, I resent all of that and I will continue to question it.

Again, I believe universal background checks is a good start. Banning weapons isn't a start, it's an end to the beginning of disarming law-abiding citizens. I also believe there are a lot of other issues that need to be tackled as well and I have zero faith in our government even remotely coming close to trying to do something about it. That's why you see a lot of gun nuts coming out. It has nothing to do with them and their love for guns. It's the fact that's all politicians ever talk about. Then once they are able to pass such legislation, do you really believe they will allow us to own those guns again? Of course not because they will then say 'statistics have shown that because of us banning these weapons and a combination of other things, we've drastically seen a drop in violent crimes'. Then, from there, we can basically chalk that up as another lose to freedom.

I agree policies need to be set for the whole of society. My only concern is some folks believe these guns need to go away and never return. That call is a resounding call. Universal background checks is a good start, if the system that is implemented is about as near perfect as possible. From there, we need to ensure that there is some governing body that will regularly monitor and update the system. More to the point, open it up to private individuals. If I wanted to sell my gun to you, allow me to run a background check against you and ensure you're 'OK' to have a gun. If the issue is concerning 'straw man' or 'gun show loopholes', let private individuals run background checks as well. There's no harm, no foul for granting me a read-only access to a database. If states give permission to have data displayed to the public, at large, in regards to who owns guns, I don't see why folks can't run background checks either.

I was trying to make it seem personal, I merely wanted to express to the fact that I am no gun nut or lunatic. I do honor the 2nd amendment and don't believe it was solely made as for hunting purposes. Moreover, I don't believe we should be freely able to own nuclear bombs, but that's a completely different thread/topic altogether.

I simply wanted to make sure that you understood that I'm thinking very reasonable and very methodically. I want the same thing as you do, I simply want to make sure we get there in the best means possible. We do have an issue in society. Is it a violent/gun nut culture? Maybe to a degree. Is it a messed up society that, I believe, can be accredited mostly to the system that's been built around us? I tend to believe so.

I never said what we're currently doing is sufficient enough. My only concern is if we're allowing ourselves to allow this government to ensure guns don't get into the hands of criminals, we shouldn't have to see reports coming out about them supplying arms to drug cartels or other nations. Even if it's indirectly (IE: Syria), if you know it's occurring, you would think they would stop. Mixed in with that, if we allow the government to freely sell fully automatic weapons to criminals, why should we buy into the notion that we should have our semi-automatic weapons taken away? Are we giving a background check to the drug cartel or Rebel Army? Probably not, so why is the government giving them these weapons?

Obviously unanswerable questions, but hopefully you get my point. Something needs to be done, it's just into what degree is the question.

 

Say what you want... I know that things are NOT good enough.

I won't be 'resting' upon what you're saying.

 

Unanswerable for now, it seems.

And despite the positions that anyone takes in these arguments... I DO want as many people as possible to openly voice their opinions.

 

A lesson about rights and the law.

Rights are unalienable, you are born with them. You do not have the "right" to infringe other people's rights and we wrote that into law limiting government (the people) from infringing other people's rights.

The law does not limit anything but only provides a guide to punishment if a sometimes arbitrary limit is exceeded. Some limits are true punishment for infringing other people's rights, some are arbitrary like speed limits and gun control.

When government begins to infringe on rights, then it is no longer a legitimate government of the people.

 

As measured how? Murder rates are the lowest they've ever been, and I mean ever, since 1776. And they are continuing to fall. What statistic do you feel is "not good enough", and what would "good enough" look like?

 

Revolutions never happen without the support of large sections of military anyway. Regular citizens would never be able to win against the US military even if they had guns, trust me.

 

Like Vietnam or Afghanistan, right?

 

You have no clue what youre talking about.

The US military is less than 1% of the population, they would never beable to contain a large scale insurgency in the United States.

 

It's not about the number of heads, it's about the military equipment and training. You'd be surprised how many battles have been won by a tiny force with a good strategy/equipment against a huge untrained mass.

And in the US it would hardly be a black and white conflict between the military and the civillians, there'd be a large faction siding with the military and an even larger one of people not actively siding with either group.

 

Why would you assume they are untrained? There are more ex-military then there are military.

 

Funny, because we almost lost Iraq, and we had all the good gear and training to boot. Sorry, but history proves time and time again, that you can have the best military possible, and you still get bogged down by an insurgency. You're also grasping at straws by saying who would side with who.

 

When,exactly,did we 'almost lose Iraq'?

 

The better answer is that we would never "win" Iraq no matter how much we tromped the insurgency.

 

Johnny boy, you can disagree that water runs down hill 99% of the time all you want but that doesn't change the fact that it runs down hill. If you don't like the stats I posted then post some that will dispute them but be sure of your source. All we are asking of you is to prove us wrong with reliable evidence. So far you one the left can't even define what an assault weapon is let alone post real stats. And IF you would bother reading the bottom of the page I sent you on disastercenter.com you would find that; Source: FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, is the source I am going by. Now, are you going to sit there and tell me that the FBI's not a reasonable source to use?? Is it a reliable source to use???

 

we didn't treat Iraq like the british did yearsago, and our goal WAS met

 

But your rights stop where mine begin, or did you forget that little idea, Johnny??? For the last 222 years the Second Amendment says your wrong in your out look on weapons.

 

And here we have the liberal "UTOPIA can be achived in our lifetime", nonsense!! Talk about an unrealistic view of life. Hey, Johnny, I gave that idea up when I was 12 years old.