Well if there ever is a gun ban. I will just mine from the government through a fast and furious program. I will just pretend I'm a Mexican murdering drug lord. Yea free guns.
That's naive to the point of stupidity. "Ninety percent of Americans and 74 percent of National Rifle Association members support universal background checks" http://www.politifact.com/texas/sta...ffingwell-says-polls-show-90-percent-america/ Are you seriously suggesting that the US has less gun crime than other first-world democracies?! Ad hominem much? I suppose that's your only option when you can't refute what's being said... Yeah, it used to be the tobacco industry... another bunch of good guys, I'm sure. Once again, naivety to the point of stupidity... http://www.channel4.com/news/gun-control-nra-obama-lobby-powerful http://www.businessinsider.com/nra-lobbying-money-national-rifle-association-washington-2012-12 http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/295715-nra-ups-lobbying-spending-as-gun-politics-grip-capitol http://financesonline.com/the-nra-is-lobbying-and-the-gun-companies-are-paying-the-bills/ As much as I appreciate you believing I'm some form of world leader, I'm not... Don't really know what this snarky response is about. What you find disturbing has nothing to do with reality. As I said, there are examples of first-world democracies implementing registration and NOT confiscating (even though they don’t have our 2A and SCOTUS), so your assertion that it is “inevitable” is clearly flawed. What does that have to do with SCOTUS? Are you even vaguely aware of how our government works? Criminals wouldn’t attempt to purchase firearms if they were registered, that’s my whole point. Currently, they purchase them freely in private sales from friends or family who can purchase legally. I’m talking about making it more difficult for criminals to arm themselves with the tools they need to commit crime. Really? It’s pretty easy to find examples of people injuring themselves or others with a firearm due to negligence on behalf of the owner... Would it be equally easy to find examples of those people being charged? So, since you believe it should be “all or nothing”, I take it you believe that we shouldn’t require safety courses for ANY object that could potentially cause death and injury to citizens... Let’s see how well the average 16 year old drives when they don’t have to undertake driver training or pass a test...
LOL you haven't figured it out yet....Here let me splain...your opinion don't matter about any of the bull crude you posted. None of your thoughts or beliefs or arguments matter because the law of the land stands contrary...if it were the will of the people your opinions would have serious consideration. As of this posting that simply isn't true. Other than that your long winded bloviating means squat to me because it has been repudiated on numerous occasions...you simply see fit to continue bloviating in spite of proof. Carry on old chap!!!
Let me get this straight... I provide evidence (which you obviously don't bother to look at), while you provide nothing (because there is no evidence that supports your position), and somehow I'm the one who needs something explained by a poster who does nothing but from evidence?! Pathetic.
What are you advocating for? I stated the United States, which is a first world democracy, took the guns away from the Indians and then slaughtered them. What do you think Wounded Knee was? Germany is a first world democracy and was before the Nazis took over in 1933. The Weimar Republic started registering guns and then when the Nazis took over and used them to confiscate weapons from it citizens. It is relevant to the topic. SCOTUS once called prohibition legal, then they called it legal again. It depends on what President appoints them to do the job. FDR tried to force the Republican members of SCOTUS out because they called his legislation unconstitutional. If you control healthcare, you control the people. If you take away guns, you control the people. If you tax them to death, you control the people. It is about control. The South during the reconstruction period made gun laws that prevented Blacks from getting guns or owning them. Why? So they could control them. The NRA was founded by abolitionist to ensure that the blacks could get a gun. You just proved my point in your statement. Criminal will always have guns, therefore, gun control like those in major cities will not work.
I think the laws we have now are adequate, any more like those suggested in the 'assault weapons ban', would have changed nothing in those mass shootings.
My position is that the facts are that the law, the courts and society doesn't agree with you, the ignorance is that a person would continue to argue in spite of this overwhelming evidence and want to call someone else pathetic. Bloviating is the proper word here. You are dismissed!
I learned recently that it's actually easy (well, relatively) to get a background check done on private sales. But it's up to the legislatures to make it mandatory. I see no reason for them not to. You might call it overstating, but in the history of humanity, EVERY modern society that has started a registry, ultimately ended up confiscating. Except the US. Until recently. It is actively happening RIGHT NOW in CA and NY. I hope your prediction will prove to be correct, sadly it's probably going to require somebody willing to be a test case and risk a felony record if SCOTUS doesn't go their way. But you see, these are NOT regular events. They're incredibly rare events that make huge headlines. There are 330,000,000 people living in this country. Sometimes, (*)(*)(*)(*) happens. Now there I agree with you, though the devil is in the details. Someone who buys a firearm, and sticks it in a drawer until he (or she) needs to use it for reals is a fool. Carrying a firearm using a proper holster is not inherently risky. Owning a firearm you don't know how to use, and are not intimately familiar with is foolish. Standing in front of a mirror and practicing drawing your weapon is not acting like Dirty Harry. It's smart. It's training your muscle memory. Because if you ever need to use it for reals, you're going to be suffering severe fear, anxiety, and a huge adrenalin spike all at the same time.
As previously stated in this same thread (post #135). Are you seriously suggesting that we're going to have another Wounded Knee? Do you really believe that politicians (who are elected by the public) are going to go to war against the very public that supports them enough to vote for them in the first place? How exactly does that get them reelected? So you're saying that Germany was not a first world democracy under the Nazi regime. Unless you can illustrate there is a probability that this will happen in the US at any point, this is irrelevant. Prohibition of alcohol was not explicitly forbidden by the Constitution. False analogy. If you control transportation, you control the people... Look at us all suffering under the yoke of vehicle and road controls. What does that have to do with contemporary America or the contemporary NRA? Hardly. Whereas I agree that limiting the availability of guns in a specific city (without any control of what gets transported in or out) doesn't work, this does not mean that no form of national gun control will work. Similarly, the bumper-sticker slogan "criminals will always have guns" is a copout. How do they get their guns? That's the point at which prevention is possible.
I've clearly provided evidence that "society" agrees that background checks should be implemented for all purchases, and you have provided no evidence (much less "overwhelming evidence") to the contrary. Similarly, I've provided a rational explanation as to why this societal agreement did not get implemented into law, backed up with evidence. Once again, you provided no evidence to the contrary (much less "overwhelming evidence"). The notion that I'm the one arguing in spite of evidence is simply delusional.
I shall read it, then comment on it soon. It has happened before, it can happen again. History repeats itself and it does not matter who is in office. The Nazis were elected into office as well in Germany. Politicians massacred people at Wounded Knee, made them walk the Trail of Tears. Politicians put the Japanese in internment camps. Who is to say that it cannot happen again? History is my proof. It has happened here already, and Russia, Germany and all those nations I stated before. It is relevant to the topic. It was amended to the Bill of Rights in the Constitution. If it was not explicitly forbidden by the constitution, then neither is the amendment that abolished slavery. Look at New Jersey and Bridgegate....yeah you are really helping your point there. What does that have to do with contemporary America or the contemporary NRA? It shows that if guns are removed, people of power can take control. How would you control the flow of illegal guns into and out of metropolitan areas? If guns still got through, should people still be allowed to defend themselves with guns? How is it a copout? It really does not seem preventable. Criminals will always commit crime regardless of the tool used to commit that crime.
Agreed. If someone from Colorado took legally obtained marijuana into Kansas (where the state laws are different), they wouldn't get to whine about not getting to keep their pot. That being said, it seems people are being given the option of making their firearm fit within the legal standard, so it's not just being taken from them. Accidental/negligent shootings ARE an everyday event. Even if you were right, when we can prevent "(*)(*)(*)(*)" from happening, we have an obligation to do so. For example, it's not often someone gets in a car wreck and is killed by the steering column either, but driver airbags are now mandatory in all new cars. Ok, so we seem to at least agree on background checks and training... Both of which would be considered "gun control" (and therefore somehow equivalent to a ban) by many of the more extreme folks on here.
Well, I would argue that there is no Constitutional authority to allow government to ban marijuana, but that's a whole different conversation. No, they're not. Their choice is to send it out of State or surrender it. It's a complete abuse of authority. More children, by a LARGE margin, drown in pools and other recreational bodies of water, than are killed by firearms on an annual basis. Should we start registering and/or confiscating pools?
I have to agree, while any accident resulting in a death is tragic. Accidental deaths attributed to firearms are but a tiny footnote next to: Choking (Approx, 2,500 annually) Fires (Approx, 2,700 annually) Falling (Approx, 25,000 annually) Poisoning (Approx, 39,000 annually) Motor Vehicle Incidents (Approx, 42,000 annually) Drowning (Approx, 2,000 annually) Accidental Shootings (Approx, 600 annually) I just don't think new laws and regulations forcing gun owners to train is the answer. Training is readily available for gun owners and children alike. We have all been training to walk / run / climb stairs our entire lives yet we manage to rack-up an impressive body count by falling down. http://www.listosaur.com/miscellaneous/top-5-causes-of-accidental-death-in-the-united-states.html
Derailing the thread? I'm clearly pointing out that the "Angst Over Firearms" should instead be directed to angst over criminal gangs that are responisble for at least half the murders in this country. Street and prision gangs are racist. That is a fact. The Aryan Brotherhood does not allow non-Whites in anymore than the Mexican Mafia lets non-Hispanics in, or the Crips or Bloods lets non-Blacks in. All of these gang members have dedicated their lives to assaulting and killing their enemies, to beating- and raping-in new young gang members (children if you like) and to selling dangerous and addictive narcotics---than don't even have FDA warning labels on them. I blame each and every one of the gang members for their actions. I also blame the liberals, like you, who want them mollycoddled and sheilded from justice. All violent street/prison gangs deserve the same mercy now as they would have been afforded by the Founders back 200 years ago. Obviously criminals over the last 50 years have been allowed to form these large gangs in and out of prison, to be allowed to lounge around inside prison walls instead of working on chain gangs, and worst of all, get endless appeals. Recidivism rates are around 67% for violent criminals. The modern US prison system is a failure. As are your liberal gun control measures. You prevent crimes by punishing the felons, and hanging the worst after a fair and SPEEDY trial (remeber that one?). Your gun control ideas are as useless here as they are in Mexico and South Africa. Epic failures.
Agreed. Really? I found the below conservative link, which shows the actual notice being sent out to the gun owners... Feel free to look at option 3. http://www.davidicke.com/headlines/proof-gun-registration-leads-to-confiscation/ That's the typical strawman. Obviously, the more exposure a person has to any particular activity, the more likely they are to be injured while undertaking that activity. For example, a person who plays football is more likely to be injured playing football than someone who's never played. On a national level, kids spend a hell of a lot more time in aquatic recreation than they do shooting. The only effective measure would be to calculate the frequency of injury in relation to the level/frequency of exposure.
Criminal gangs are more likely to occur in poor areas, because this type of criminality is generally linked to poverty. The fact that these areas are over three times as likely to be populated by minorities explains why those minority groups are more likely to be involved in criminal gangs. It's not a function of race, it's a function of socio-economics. http://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/96natyouthgangsrvy/surv_6c.html http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/acsbr11-17.pdf BTW, Crips and Bloods on the west coast tend to be hispanic - so your concept that this is a "black thing" is flawed. Now, rather than whining about wanting to hang minorities, how about coming up with some ideas from preventing criminal gangs (of any color) from easily accessing firearms in the first place? Yup, because we're exactly the same as a third-world country with no inherent checks and balances in their political system Your refusal to compare us solely to first-world democracies, and insistance on comparing us to third-world countries, is the most epic failure I've seen in some time.
Most kids in history didn't die from guns owned by common citizens, but the propaganda let you believe. Gun control has a political reason, that it leads to resistance in millions of gun owners, and that resistance leads to their organisation via either pro gun organisations and/or via politics. The media kept spewing the gun control propaganda for months (started in januari 2013) and politics gained from it.
NO.. how about holding those responsible for their actions. What a pipe dream.... it is impossible to keep guns out of the hands of criminals without infringing on the rights of the law abiding. There are 300 million guns in America. The black market for guns is as large as the black market for drugs. Except drugs are consumable and guns are not. Each of those guns in America are reusable for many generations. You want more guns laws? I mean beside the 20,000 there already are...... How about "commit a gun crime, do the time".... Like mandatory 25 years. Do you think that might be a deterrent? Let the first new "sensible" gun control law crack down on the individuals responsible.
I wonder how many of the 80,000 - 100,000 people denied a firearm each year due to the current background checks are later arrested for a violent crime with a gun? http://www.politifact.com/new-hamps...eople-trying-buy-gun-illegally-us-senator-ke/ In the link above it claims 80k were denied and a mere 44 prosecuted in 2012? Perhaps at the very least we could follow up a denial to make sure the denied isn't already in possession of an illegal firearm? If the reason for denial is prior criminal conviction, restraining order / domestic dispute......etc, I would think some kind of investigation would be healthy? How many other current gun laws go largely unenforced? Why even consider more laws or regulations until we make proper use of what we have?
"Poverty" is a bogus concept. Why didn't the dirt poor European pioneers in Amreica form into violent gangs during the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries? Why didn't the Okies and other desperately poor Americans during the Great Depression who had almost nothing, form into large criminal gangs with thousands of members? They all had easy access to guns---and virtually no gun control laws to stop them. Unfortunately, there is more to race than skin color. All but the most fanatical liberals understand this and can easily see why crime is so high in so many parts of the world with the same ethnic groups living in them. You like to compare places (all with Whites and East Asain majorities) like Japan and Italy with lower crime and gun ownership numbers to boost your silly ideas. You refuse to notice so many 3rd world ****holes BECAUSE of their ethnic makeup. You also have a deck of race cards you play from. It doesn't matter what laws or what types of governments are in place on paper if the people themselves won't obey laws or moral codes. Talk in circles all you want, but I don't see anyone in here supporting your views on more gun control laws and less punishment for violent felons.
Look at the school shooting cases. Mass school shootings (like Columbine or Connecticut) happen in affluent suburbs, and the killers are products of those suburbs.
You need none of those to operate a vehicle on your own property. If my 13 yr old son had the money to buy a car, he could buy one an operate it on my property without the need of registration, insurance or training.
