jump to last post 1-50 of 125 discussions (577 posts)

Will NRA Leadership Understand That SENSIBLE Gun Control is the GOAL

  1. My Esoteric profile image88
    My Esotericposted 13 months ago

    The NRA leadership (not most of NRA members) currently sees Gun Control as a stark Black and White issue.  The NRA et al think that ANY step to keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them is ipso facto an attempt to keep guns out of the hands of ALL citizens; this is the definition of paranoia when viewed in the light of the very clear wording of the 2A.

    Only 1% of gun control advocates actually think banning guns is a good thing.  The NRA et al refuses to understand they can NEVER win due to the 2A.

    The goal of the other 99% of gun control advocates is to prevent, as best as possible, keeping guns out of the hands of those who are 1) Careless, 2) Irresponsible, 3) Temporarily or permanently mentally disturbed, 4) Criminals, and/or 5) untrained in their safe use.  There goal is NOT TO KEEP GUNS out of the hands of law-abiding, trained, mentally stable citizens. 

    Why then, is the NRA et al hell-bent to make sure all citizens can get a gun at the drop of a hat, regardless of whether they are a danger to themselves of society with a gun in their hands?  When will the NRA come to its senses and help the rest of us reduce the number of fatalities due to the misuse of guns?

    If you're able, please address total deaths; it is already established that there is no statistical correlation between gun control and all violent crime as well as only weak correlation between gun regulations and Homicide and Robberies.  To argue in terms of violent crime is preaching to the choir.

    1. Credence2 profile image86
      Credence2posted 13 months ago in reply to this

      The NRA is the culprit that garbles communication between reasonable people on both sides of this debate.

      I did not appreciate their coming to the Denver area for a convention in 1999, when the entire front range was in mourning over the Columbine shootings.

      Their modus operandi is to advocate for absurd and untenable positions hoping that if they are forced to compromise they still end up with 90 percent of what they had wanted. Contrary to their belief, being willing to give a few inches is not taking a mile.

    2. rhamson profile image75
      rhamsonposted 13 months ago in reply to this

      The opposition to gun control of any kind is a statement of distrust in anything this messed up government does. It is a popular belief in the country by many other groups as well.

      1. My Esoteric profile image88
        My Esotericposted 13 months ago in reply to this

        No, it is a statement of paranoia since the outcome they fear is impossible without a Constitutional Amendment and THAT will never happen.  For sure, btw, at least regarding universal background checks, a huge majority favor it and a large majority of NRA members support it as well.

        Those who oppose such a common sense measure are 1) very much in the minority and 2) promote the certain death of hundreds of people; mainly suicides.

        1. rhamson profile image75
          rhamsonposted 13 months ago in reply to this

          Paranoia based on mistrust. There are a lot of instances where the government in an effort to make things equal and fair have made it anything but equal and fair. Concessions by either side has attained what?

          1. My Esoteric profile image88
            My Esotericposted 13 months ago in reply to this

            The American Constitution, for one thing; it seems like a lot of concessions were made in that process.

            As to mistrust = paranoia, I don't think so.  I mistrust the police and prosecutors to do the right thing in terms of following the spirit and word of the Constitution, but I am not paranoid about it.  Instead, I am senecal, cautious, and watchful

    3. Shyron E Shenko profile image85
      Shyron E Shenkoposted 13 months ago in reply to this

      My Eso, the NRA does not want to hear about any gun control.  That would cut into their profit and the people killing guns (made especially for that purpose) sells for the most money.  And the NRA's "love of money" overrules every thing else.

    4. Matthew Harvey profile image68
      Matthew Harveyposted 12 months ago in reply to this

      I believe we should be aloud to own any fire arm we want except full autos but on that note the only gun control ill agree to is that any gun you are buying you have to be tested and qualified in order to own that fire arm peroid

      1. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 12 months ago in reply to this

        ?? Confusion.  What would you test for and what are the qualifications?

        Mental stability?  Marksmanship?  Intelligence?  Mechanical aptitude (can you load the gun?)?  What would you test for, who would do the testing and at what cost ($1,000 per test per gun?)?

    5. thegecko profile image85
      thegeckoposted 12 months ago in reply to this

      "Why then, is the NRA et al hell-bent to make sure all citizens can get a gun at the drop of a hat, regardless of whether they are a danger to themselves of society with a gun in their hands?"

      Influence & Money.

    6. Rock_nj profile image90
      Rock_njposted 12 months ago in reply to this

      It's all about money for the NRA.  They are little more than a front group for the gun manufacturers.  Any gun control, no matter how sensible (like background checks), is opposed because it could decrease sales.

      1. Learn Things Web profile image91
        Learn Things Webposted 12 months ago in reply to this

        This exactly. Their job is to represent the gun manufacturers and keep sales as high as possible. The main problem is with the politicians beholden to them. Elected officials should in theory be looking out for the interests of the public not a particular industry who's sole motive is to make as much money as possible. But that's not how things work in reality and it's literally killing people.

    7. 0
      Larry Wallposted 12 months ago in reply to this

      I do not think any reasonable person expects a total ban of weapons. I do not. However, I certainly do not agree with the IRA. To drive a car, a person has to be a certain age, pass a driving test, get his driver's license renewed and face the consequences of breaking any traffic law including speeding, reckless driving, driving while intoxicated, etc.

      I do not think it is a violation of the second amendment to require that certain types of guns, just as varioustypes of cars are not allowed on highways, should be allowed for personal use. I am referring to military type weapons.

      Hunting is necessary. In my state, the deer population would die of starvation if the herd was not thinned out every year. Thus hunters get to enjoy the sport, and many people enjoy the deer meat.

      It would not be unreasonable to require every person who purchases a gun to take a safety course. If the gun is a gift, a safety certificate should be obtained before hand, thus allowing the gift to be registered to the correct person. If there is no prior safety report, the recipient gets a coupon until he successfully completes the course.

      When the second amendment was written the weapons of that era were muskets and flintlocks. There were citizen militias that were not paid. The Supreme Court basically ignores that part of the law, because it is not relevant. Therefore, there is a precedent for modifying the interpretation. The law says that Congress "shall pass no law" infringing on the rights of individuals to bear arms. The term arm is not defined. The amendment does not prohibit the enactment of laws dealing with interstate sales, Taken in a broad sense an infant child could have a gun--I think the NRA would even oppose that.

      The NRA is a strong lobbying force. However, most of their money is spent at the state levels, where there are no constitutional restrictions on the states regarding the enactment of gun control laws.

      A doctor can give the wrong medicine. That is why he has to go to med school.

      A driver can kill many people through the reckless operation of a vehicle. That is why he must be trained, have a license and be punished for such acts.

      If you are carrying a gun, and not authorized by a city, state or federal agency, you are not welcome in my home. Do not make any assumptions about me.

      Gun control is needed, and it can be accomplished. If one life is saved, the effort will be worthwhile. That one life may be the person who eventually discovers the cure for Cancer or other diseases. When a life is taken, a considerable amount of knowledge and future potential will be destroyed forever.

      1. ahorseback profile image48
        ahorsebackposted 12 months ago in reply to this

        I can almost hear the trumpets playing !   Sad part is  , There are hundreds [thousands ]of gun laws now . Did they make a difference ?  No and why .   Because of those who have zero regard for any  law  cannot read apparently !     But the real question is the shallow approach   from opinions like this .    What makes you think that most law abiding citizens don't use extreme safety handling guns ?    Why should a gun owner  believing in the second amendment go to classes  when people with opinions like yours  are allowed to speak without knowing of what they speak  ............and without going to free speech classes  so you might use that  first amendment right responsibly !

    8. tirelesstraveler profile image87
      tirelesstravelerposted 11 months ago in reply to this

      When people determine what is best for other people you run the risk of enormous mistakes.  What is a mentally ill person?  The definition of mentally ill has been redefined countless times in the last 50 years, by the American Psychiatric Association .  If you try to commit suicide when you are 14 are you mentally ill all your life? 

      Chicago has strict gun control laws, and high gun assault/ murder  rates.

      If you want to make this political; look at who has run large cities, for the last 50 years, which have high gun murder rates.

    9. DWDavisRSL profile image84
      DWDavisRSLposted 11 months ago in reply to this

      The NRA has seen sensible gun control turn into gun confiscation and the disarming of civilians in Australia and the United Kingdom, and the attempt to do the same in Canada. This is why they take an extreme position. When the Obama administration or most national Democrat leaders say they favor reasonable gun control, they lie. This is their way of incrementally working towards complete civilian disarmament.

      Now, you may agree that civilians should be disarmed or not, but make no mistake, the agenda of the left is gun confiscation, despite their protests to the contrary. Why? Because the agenda of the left requires a population in fear turning to the government for protection rather than a population capable of protecting itself.

      1. Alternative Prime profile image86
        Alternative Primeposted 11 months ago in reply to this

        Only one slight problem with your THEORY  DWDDavisRSL, and that is, we are NOT Australia, nor the United Kingdom, nor Canada, the last time I checked, we are indeed the United States of America ~

        Your other "Fear" Theory is indeed true, however, it's used GENEROUSLY by the Right Wing Nut Jobz like Fox Loser Snooze Channel to Instill "Fear" in all Americans, then they try to convince us that the Republicans will keep us safe and aleviate said "Fear" which we all know is simply FALSE ~

    10. Scotty Davidson profile image80
      Scotty Davidsonposted 6 months ago in reply to this

      I'm commenting here from Australia. It seems that the whole issue is a cultural one. Basically with the second amendment Americans see the ability to have guns as a freedom thing. Looking at the statistics of course fatalities will go down if the guns are taken away. So here in Australia it seems so obvious to ban them. In reality though I don't think it is as black and white as that. There is a cultural element as well as a lot of history that comes into play.

      1. My Esoteric profile image88
        My Esotericposted 6 months ago in reply to this

        Thank you for you spot-on observations, Scotty (from another Scott).

      2. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 6 months ago in reply to this

        Except for one simple thing - fatalities (homicides) do not go down if guns are taken away.  They didn't in Australia when the guns were bought back and there is zero reason to think they will do so in America.

        The old saying that the gun haters so hate to hear is all too true, and is shown true by statistics - that guns don't kill, people do; take the guns away and killers will use something different to do their killing with.

      3. GA Anderson profile image85
        GA Andersonposted 6 months ago in reply to this

        Hello there Scotty Davidson,

        You wrote; "Looking at the statistics of course fatalities will go down if the guns are taken away."

        One of our favorite forum participants, Wilderness, has done a lot of research, and spoken to these gun control threads frequently. I imagine he would probably take issue with your quote.

        His challenge in the past has been that yes, gun-caused fatalities would go down, but not overall fatalities. A point that makes your statement wrong, as stated.

        Given that I have seen his statistics that prove his point, and only common sense proof from his opponents, I am inclined to agree with Wilderness.

        ps. I bet you will find many of his counterpoints in this very thread. Did you read the thread, or just offer a response to the OP?

        pss. Drawing on an admitted jalopy of a memory, I seem to recall that even your own Australia's statistics are not as cut and dried as proof that taking guns reduces overall fatalities.


        GA

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 6 months ago in reply to this

          While I appreciate the plug, you are mistaken, GA.  The Aussie government numbers before and after the Great Gun Buy Back show a steady decline in the homicide rate for some years before the buyback.  After the guns were collected, over the span of a year, the homicide rate continued on the same slow, steady decline with nothing but normal hills and valleys that any graph of human events will show.  No other change for a decade after the guns were taken.

          That's pretty cut and dried.

          1. GA Anderson profile image85
            GA Andersonposted 6 months ago in reply to this

            Glad to see you jump in bud.

            Today must be one of my dense as a rock days. I said the Aussie's stats did not show "cut and dried" proof that removing all the guns reduced overall fatalities. You said I was wrong.

            But then comes your explanation that appears to say the same thing???????

            Deaths declining before gun loss and a similar decline continued for a year after the buy-back... which indicates no great dramatic affect from the removal of guns... Or was the post-buy-back decline significant relative to the pre-buy-back decline?

            I can only hope my reading comprehension will be better on Monday.

            GA

            1. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 6 months ago in reply to this

              Nah - as usual I posted before reading well.  I did catch that you included "proof that removing all the guns reduced overall fatalities", while I did not, but after I made the post.  So it's cut and dried all right, as I said, but it's also NOT cut and dried proof that taking guns reduces homicides (rather, it's the opposite). 

              So guilty as charged - just too lazy to do it right.  But how have you been, GA?  I haven't spent much time on the forums lately - been on "holiday" in Scotland for a few weeks.

              1. GA Anderson profile image85
                GA Andersonposted 6 months ago in reply to this

                I've been good. Your absence was noticed. Your Scotland trip might have an interesting story behind it. I didn't peg you as a Scotland guy.

                GA

  2. ahorseback profile image48
    ahorsebackposted 13 months ago

    I gave up on the NRA years ago out of their relentless  need for constant "dues ".   As a gun owner  I have no hatred for them however ,   They see gun control clearly for what it truly IS !   An attempt to rid us of all guns , period , No matter what they say .  " If you repeat it enough  it becomes truth ......."

    1. PrettyPanther profile image86
      PrettyPantherposted 13 months ago in reply to this

      Kinda like no matter how many times we say we don't want to take away your guns, you tell us we want to take away your guns.

      Kinda like that?  If you say it enough, you think it's true.  You've certainly convinced yourself.

      1. DWDavisRSL profile image84
        DWDavisRSLposted 11 months ago in reply to this

        You can say it all you want, the ultimate agenda of the left is to disarm the populace because the left needs a population in fear in order to further the power of government.

        1. Alternative Prime profile image86
          Alternative Primeposted 11 months ago in reply to this

          We are the United States of America which means we should indeed have an extremely  "Powerful Federal Government" in ALL aspects ~ That's exactly WHY we are *UNITED* ~ I want my Government to be as STRONG & Resilient as Humanly possible ~

          In theory, how would "Disarming" the Populace" further the "Power" of Government" ?? ~ And if you don't want a "Powerful Federal Government"  and you'd prefer it to be much WEAKER like many of our Adversaries throughout the World and many Backward Republicans in Congress Desire, why do you even live in the United States of America ? ~

          Just Curious ~

          1. DWDavisRSL profile image84
            DWDavisRSLposted 11 months ago in reply to this

            You want an all powerful Federal Government who can come into your home, take what they want, tell you that you have to move, force you to take a different job, take your kids and send them to schools to learn trades or professions the government wants them assigned to, can tell you what kind of car to drive, or if you can even have a car or not. You would have been right at home in the old Soviet Union.

            No, I do not want an all powerful Federal Government that can ignore state's and people's rights at a whim. The Federal Government has three jobs: treat with foreign governments on behalf of the states and defend the borders to keep out invaders, build roads for efficient delivery of the mail, and keep peace between the states. The Federal Government now wants to dictate education policy, force us to buy health insurance, regulate what kind of light bulbs we are allowed to use in our own homes, and the list goes on and on.

            How the Federal Government deals with our foreign adversaries has not a thing to do with how intrusive it needs to be into the lives of American Citizens. Evidently, you feel the opposite, and want the Federal Government to be in control of every aspect of a citizen's life.

            1. My Esoteric profile image88
              My Esotericposted 11 months ago in reply to this

              In historical terms, Alternate Prime = Alexander Hamilton
              Will Star =  Patrick Henry (I would have said James Madison, but during his Presidency, he decided there actually were "implied" powers within Article 8.

              There are actually 6 purposes for which the federal gov't was established, not 3.  All are laid out in the Preamble to the Constitution.  (To be clear, the WHOLE document is a legal document and NOT just the part that follows the Preamble; in other words, the Preamble is NOT a separate document.)  This preamble, like any preamble lays out the mission, vision, and goals of what follows it is supposed to accomplish.  In our case, the Federal government, as created by the People via the Constitution, is supposed to:

              1. Form a more perfect Union (referring to the failed prior attempt)
              2. Establish Justice
              3. Insure domestic Tranquility
              4. provide for the common defense
              5. Promote the general Welfare
              6. Secure the Blessings of Liberty

              Together, the above establishes the PURPOSE of a central government.  Will only talked about #3 and #4 (building roads is a small part of #5,  but not its entirety).  Also notice that Justice, Tranquility, Welfare, Blessings, and Liberty were all capitalized for emphasis; defense was relegated to a lower case letter.  And keep in mind, those folks were MUCH better educated in the proper use of grammar than we are today ... by orders of magnitude)  Those of us in the middle and those on the Left take all six missions as Gospel. 

              The more to the Right you are, the more focused you become on #4 to the exclusion of all of the others.

              1. Alternative Prime profile image86
                Alternative Primeposted 11 months ago in reply to this

                And there you have it people ~ WHY DON”T I disagree with anything you’ve said in this post Mr. Esoteric ?? And I must EMPHASIZE the word UNION UINION UNION UNION UNION ~

                The Constitution doesn’t say to “Create a more Perfect SEGREGATION, or Separation of STATES, or ARMS Build Up to POP G. Washington in the ass, or build a larger WALL to Partition the STATES, or FIRE ALL Federal Employees  ~ It says “UNION”, CREATE a TIGHTER, Stronger, Vibrant UNION ~

                P.S. ~ THX for making me Alexander Hamilton, the Good Lookin’ Guy ~ Patrick Henry looks like he drank a Big Pail of what he thought was Ale but it was something ELSE  ~ smile ~

    2. My Esoteric profile image88
      My Esotericposted 13 months ago in reply to this

      Again, you are talking only about the 1% who support a total ban; the rest of us wouldn't stand for it.  Why are you so scared of the 1%?

      1. My Esoteric profile image88
        My Esotericposted 11 months ago in reply to this

        No answer from the anti-gun safety crowd, I see.

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 11 months ago in reply to this

          Your (supposed) aim is at the .005% of the population that might murder with a gun.  The rest of us wouldn't even point a gun in your direction.  Why are you so worried about it?

          Maybe because the potential harm is so far outside of what the bare numbers would seem to predict whether in murders or unnecessary and useless 2A limitations?  Maybe because there are killers out there, just as there are politically strong people that will ban all weapons if possible?  Maybe because the body count continues to climb, just as the proposals to limit 2A rights do? 

          And, just maybe, because the continual claim that "Nobody wants your guns" is so obviously a gross lie - so outrageous that little else said by those that make the claim can be believed, either.  (Can't make a similar claim for the other side as no one has ever said that people never use guns to kill with).

          1. My Esoteric profile image88
            My Esotericposted 11 months ago in reply to this

            You simply don't care about the 32,000 adults and children killed with guns each year, do you?  If you did, you would want to do what is reasonable to reduce those numbers.  But instead, you will do anything in your power to keep that number growing.

            That is a crying shame.

            1. Credence2 profile image86
              Credence2posted 11 months ago in reply to this

              Because the body count is mere collatoral damage relative to the principle that 'gun people' have that keeping the Government's eye away from who owns gun is more important. That means there can be no more impediment to the their purchasing their guns than my buying my Snickers bar.




              If according to the Right all the oversight and restrictions were eliminated, seems to me that the criminal element would be foolish to obtain their weapons underground when they could more easily buy from retail outlets, above ground. There is no procedure in place to trace the purchase, so why not buy there?  Might even get a year's warranty or such to boot.

              But if all these millions of citizens have handguns and other firearms, does the Right really think that it logistically possible for the Government  to collect them all, from everbody? They seem confident that their rag tag numbers are sufficient enough to deal even with the military, what is the fear, then?

      2. DWDavisRSL profile image84
        DWDavisRSLposted 11 months ago in reply to this

        First I would like to know where the 1% figure comes from.

        Second, when that one percent includes the President, numerous Democrat members of the Senate and House, certain Democrat governors, and the deposed Mayor of New York City willing to spend billions of his own money to push for a national gun ban, I'd say those who support the Second Amendment have reason to be wary.

        1. WillStarr profile image84
          WillStarrposted 11 months ago in reply to this

          His 'facts' never seem to be sourced, so you can probably guess where that '1%' figure came from.

          While it is true that not many politicians have publicly proclaimed that they want to violate the Second Amendment of the Constitution and the right of We, the People to keep and bear arms, enough in very powerful positions have said that very thing, including the current Vice President of the United States:

          Banning guns is an idea whose time has come.
          - Joseph Biden

          The real purpose of the Brady Campaign is totally disarming America:

          We must get rid of all the guns.
          - Sarah Brady

          In response to resistance from We, the People:

          If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the government's ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees.
          - Bill Clinton

          So no, I do not accept the false assurances of progressive liars (or their ridicule) that confiscation is not the true goal. Of course it is.

    3. My Esoteric profile image88
      My Esotericposted 13 months ago in reply to this

      Why has virtually every poll since 2004 said that a huge number of American's as well as a huge number of the gun owning subset approve of mandatory background checks for sales (in most cases All sales) of weapons; the figures range from 80% to 95%.  You can find all but the 2014 one here http://smartgunlaws.org/category/gun-st … a-on-guns/

      Why are you part of the 15%?

      1. Pollyannalana profile image78
        Pollyannalanaposted 11 months ago in reply to this

        Well...it seems to work for the left...

    4. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 13 months ago

      "The goal of the other 99% of gun control advocates is to prevent, as best as possible, keeping guns out of the hands of those who are 1) Careless, 2) Irresponsible, 3) Temporarily or permanently mentally disturbed, 4) Criminals, and/or 5) untrained in their safe use.  There goal is NOT TO KEEP GUNS out of the hands of law-abiding, trained, mentally stable citizens. "

      Which of these itemized goals does banning handguns fall under?  Banning guns that hold more than 6 or so cartridges?  Anything with a barrel shroud?  With a hand grip or folding stock?  Any semi-automatic gun?  Are those laws written the keep guns out of careless hands or just the mentally ill?

      The problem isn't that the gun lovers cannot stomach any gun laws at all; it is that so many of the gun laws proposed or already in effect are not written for the purposes you state.  They are written out of fear and to remove guns from the general population.

      1. My Esoteric profile image88
        My Esotericposted 13 months ago in reply to this

        None of them. Only you and those who suffer the same paranoia, talk of banning handguns; be they extremist gun-rights advocates or gun-banning advocates.

        Name me one state or city that has such laws which hasn't been struck down by the Supreme Court.

        Other than felons (and I am not sure about even that one) name me one gun regulation that the NRA leadership and their like-minded followers (whether they belong to the NRA or not) wouldn't repeal.

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 13 months ago in reply to this

          You're missing the point.  The thing is that none of those laws fit any of your list; they are all about simply taking guns away.  Something you keep saying isn't the point, yet we have law after law that does just that.

          So is it any wonder that people look past the stated objective to find another reason?  The decades long barrage of gun control laws that have nothing to do with keeping guns from the mentally ill or those untrained in their use has produced a gut reaction against any law, which is not surprising when the stated reasoning is so obviously NOT the reason.

          1. Alternative Prime profile image86
            Alternative Primeposted 13 months ago in reply to this

            Just a Simple Question ~ In your OPINION wilderness, or anyone else for that matter ~ Should a Mentally ill individual keep a GUN and if this individual does indeed have a GUN, should he/she be allowed to retain possession of it?

            1. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 13 months ago in reply to this

              Unanswerable as given.  You'll have to define "mentally ill" in this context, and then give an acceptable method of separating those that exhibit the symptoms from those that do not.  And a psych exam before buying or keeping a gun isn't it.

              And then, when you have accomplished that, explain how current or proposed gun laws fit into the desire to prevent mentally from having a gun.  The statement, after all, was that is a primary goal of gun laws...

              1. Alternative Prime profile image86
                Alternative Primeposted 13 months ago in reply to this

                So you're gonna play that GAME?? lol smile ~ So all this talk about keeping GUNS out of the hands of Mentally ill individuals is just BS??

                How about an individual who is CERTIFIED Mentally ill by a Psychiatrist?  Should he/she keep a GUN and if he/she already has a GUN should he/she be allowed to retain possession??

                Another VERY Simple question which of course will be Dodged Again I Suspect ~

                1. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 13 months ago in reply to this

                  OK - you defined "mentally ill".  As defined by psychiatry and a licensed psychiatrist.  Now how do you find which citizens fit that definition?  To be of any use, that IS part of the question, you know.  Until you can find a way to do that, the question is still of no value, although I'd like to see it done as well.  Without subjecting every gun owner to a psych exam every year!

                  1. My Esoteric profile image88
                    My Esotericposted 11 months ago in reply to this

                    How do you think they catch them now, Wilderness?  There is a small database now and will hopefully grow larger.

                    But, for the sake of pinning you down to an answer (politicians should take lessons from you); let's assume "we HAVE found a way to do that [identify the mentally ill"; do you still prefer to let the mentally ill, who by definition have a lowered mental capacity to reason effectively, to have guns.  Let's say your neighbor is paranoid schizophrenic (it is implied that you know this, but your sharpshooting technique to avoid responding requires the specificity), will you sell him a gun if he wants one?

                    1. wilderness profile image97
                      wildernessposted 11 months ago in reply to this

                      You catch them when they commit a crime.  But you want to catch them before any untoward actions, which is a slight problem. 

                      Given my supernatural powers to know when someone is mentally ill, I truly don't know.  The obvious answer is "no", but I don't find it that simple.  You do, but then you don't really care about people's rights and freedoms, while I very much do.

                      I'd probably not sell the gun, but what does that have to do with anything?  Neither you nor I have those supernatural powers, so why the discussion?

    5. Paul Wingert profile image79
      Paul Wingertposted 13 months ago

      The NRA used to be all about gun safety. Now it's ran by a bunch of gun makers who don't care about safety, you or your gun. All they care about is gun sales.

      1. ahorseback profile image48
        ahorsebackposted 13 months ago in reply to this

        The NRA used to be allowed in schools ,   along with all other traditional value based idea's .  But much like personal responsibility  ,  we no longer require  education in education institutes !

        1. My Esoteric profile image88
          My Esotericposted 13 months ago in reply to this

          I was never taught NRA in school, and I know of no one who was, at least since 1955, which is a far back as I can remember.  In primary and secondary school I was taught mathematics, reading, writhing, civics, history, shop, sex ed, geography, and the Golden Rule.  What is happening today, at least in my  grandson's Florida schools and pre-K is they are being taught the first two several years earlier.

          How is it you translate something like 5% of Americans who are not responsible to meaning 100% (minus one, yourself) are not responsible?

          1. DWDavisRSL profile image84
            DWDavisRSLposted 11 months ago in reply to this

            The NRA's Eddie Eagle program used to come to schools and teach kids about gun safety and what to do if the found a gun, or knew if someone at school had a gun. Now they have been banned from schools and no one is teaching the kids about these things.

            1. wrenchBiscuit profile image86
              wrenchBiscuitposted 11 months ago in reply to this

              The government has already disarmed you! It began with the Federal Reserve Act in 1913, continued with the Social Security Act of 1935.The death knell that heralded the end of the "dream"  was sounded by the Patriot Act of 2001. The American citizen is already branded and turned out in a herd.

      2. colorfulone profile image88
        colorfuloneposted 13 months ago in reply to this

        I believe you are on to something there for the most part.  I keep thinking that all this talk about gun control from the WH sets off a lot of knee jerk reactions in people who go buy more guns.  Sales go up..., manufacturers earn big, and investors earn more money on Wall Street.  It seems to me that there is a lot of game playing and manipulation to get people to open there pocket books and spend at this point.  At some point though I think that will change with more gun control and even confiscations might begin.

        I have to wonder what would become of all the confiscated guns if that happens.  (fast and furious gun running?)

        ADDED:  I believe a lot of gun crimes can be avoided if the laws on the books were enforced.

        1. rhamson profile image75
          rhamsonposted 13 months ago in reply to this

          "ADDED:  I believe a lot of gun crimes can be avoided if the laws on the books were enforced."

          I have believed this to be a true statement. I don't think deterrence will be as much a factor to bringing down the gun deaths but at least the shooters will be off the street for awhile. I say this as if jail time were a effective deterrent to someone shooting another then jail time for drug addicts would work as well.

          1. colorfulone profile image88
            colorfuloneposted 13 months ago in reply to this

            "I say this as if jail time were a effective deterrent to someone shooting another then jail time for drug addicts would work as well."

            With Obama's prison reform, jail time is becoming even less of a deterrent.  Criminals are being handed down lesser prison sentences by judges or being put on probation instead of serving any time behind bars.  Convicts in prison are getting their older and higher sentences reduced so they can be released sooner.  It doesn't help keep law abiding citizens safe, because the thugs will find guns one way or another.  Most gun-thug crimes are thugs against thugs, and I suppose the same is drug addicts against drug addicts. 

            All the while the U.S. has empty jails and empty prisons (then all the empty FEMA camps too).

            1. rhamson profile image75
              rhamsonposted 13 months ago in reply to this

              I have not heard of violent gun felons being released. The new release policy is aimed at small drug arrests mostly pot. These people offer little risk.

              1. colorfulone profile image88
                colorfuloneposted 13 months ago in reply to this

                Thousands of federal inmates were granted early release from prison this month. I believe an amendment does include repeat offenders with some seriously violent felony histories, and criminal illegal aliens.

                This is a result of a decision made by officials appointed to the United States Sentencing Commission, they are un-elected officials.   

                THE PROBLEM: The Sentencing Commission’s amendment to reduce federal drug-sentences is applied with no regard to the inmate’s criminal history. That is key! 

                Therefore, criminals who are approved to be released into the public because of the amendment is inclusive of inmates who have violent criminal histories of assault, firearms, murder and more.

                On November 1, there were 6,100 inmates with federal drug trafficking convictions who got early releases.  Texas got hit the hardest with over 500 released.  They were not recreational pot smokers.
                http://www.theneworleansadvocate.com/ne … ers-return

                The U.S. Sentencing Commission's amendment in early 2014 could release up to 46,000 inmates early in the next years ahead. Without regard to their criminal history.

                Approximately 55,000 criminals are released from federal prison every year under normal circumstances.

                No one, not even Obama can say that the public will be safe from released early former-inmate's criminal behaviors or another Willie Horton.

                RECENT STUDY: shows that early-releases do re-offend at the same 45% rate as those who serve full sentences.
                http://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files … ndment.pdf

                * We are not being told what those former inmates' criminal histories are with reduced federal drug-sentences.

                It is well known that prisons are fertile ground for recruiting terrorists.
                "Terrorist Recruitment in American Correctional Institutions"
                https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/220957.pdf

                My apology for taking this thread way off topic, MyE.

                1. rhamson profile image75
                  rhamsonposted 13 months ago in reply to this

                  "We are launching this clemency initiative in order to quickly and effectively identify appropriate candidates, candidates who have a clean prison record, do not present a threat to public safety, and were sentenced under out-of-date laws that have since been changed, and are no longer seen as appropriate," Deputy Attorney General James Cole said at a news conference.

                  The clemency changes would be open to prisoners who have met a set of specific conditions: they must be low-level, non-violent offenders without a significant criminal history and must be serving a federal sentence that would likely be shorter if they were convicted today. They must have served at least 10 years of their sentence and have demonstrated good conduct in prison, with no history of violence before or during their prison term.

                  http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/23/politics/ … index.html

            2. My Esoteric profile image88
              My Esotericposted 13 months ago in reply to this

              How does your statement Colorful "Criminals are being handed down lesser prison sentences by judges or being put on probation instead of serving any time behind bars.  " square with the facts?  Those being, prison sentences have been increasing a lot for the last 20 years. that the rate of incarceration has been increasing for the last 20 years, and that we have more people in jail or prisons than EVER before in total numbers and in percentages.

              I have asked this question of several of you who claim laws aren't being enforced and have not one of you have an adequate, in fact any, answer.  Why?  Because you don't have one, so you ignore it and repeat the same untruth hoping someone will believe it.

              1. colorfulone profile image88
                colorfuloneposted 13 months ago in reply to this

                "I have asked this question of several of you who claim laws aren't being enforced and have not one of you have an adequate, in fact any, answer.  Why?  Because you don't have one, so you ignore it and repeat the same untruth hoping someone will believe it."   

                I would suggest you dig and do some open minded research, if possible, to find out WHY several others claim laws aren't being enforced.  There are many Sheriffs who claim the same and some are speaking out, its on the internet. But, I suppose you wouldn't believe them either. 

                I posted a list of laws on this thread that are not being enforced under the Obama Administration.  If they were, there would be a lot less crime on the streets. You figure out the why for yourself that you are comfortable with believing and I won't try to bust your bubble.

                1. My Esoteric profile image88
                  My Esotericposted 13 months ago in reply to this

                  I did, which is why I make such claims.  Instead of listening to individual anecdotes, e.g., "There are many Sheriffs who claim the same and some are speaking out...", I look for broad data sets of data which cover a relevant period of time.  And that data says:
                  * Incarceration rate, probation and on parole, in America in 2013 is 716 per 100,000, highest in the world; in 1980, it was 150 per 100,000
                  * US jails hold 22% of world's prisoners, with only 4.6% of the world's population ... why?
                  * In 1980, the "incarceration (not parole) was about 150 per 100,000; in 2007 it was around 520 per 100,000; it has been declining ever since as has crime in general
                  * In 1980, about 600,000 people were in jail or prison; in 2008, it was around 2.3 million, but has been falling since.

                  And you said that "If they were, there would be a lot less crime on the streets.".  But the problem is, you are wrong, crime is down (meaning laws are being enforced) :
                  * Total Property Crime rate has been falling since 1990
                  * Violent Crime rate has been falling since 1994

                  So tell me, how is it you think crime is increasing and laws aren't being enforced?  Hopefully that didn't bust Your bubble.

                  1. colorfulone profile image88
                    colorfuloneposted 13 months ago in reply to this

                    Try a narrow keyword search like "crime increase in usa 2015" (or 2014) and I think you will be able to see that crime is on the rise in 2015.  You'll get it!

                    Narrow keyword searches will  give you better results. Happy searching!
                    Good night. smile

        2. My Esoteric profile image88
          My Esotericposted 13 months ago in reply to this

          How are the crime laws not being enforced?  Curious minds would like to know.  Where did the 7.2 million people incarcerated in American jails and prisons come from  ... Mars?

          1. rhamson profile image75
            rhamsonposted 13 months ago in reply to this

            For instance there is a law that if you commit a crime with a gun you get five years mandatory. That has become a bargaining chip for many in plea agreements. Unless it is enforced it can change nothing.

          2. colorfulone profile image88
            colorfuloneposted 13 months ago in reply to this

            • 10 years—18 U.S.C. § 922(j)—for possession of a stolen firearm.

            • 10 years—18 U.S.C. § 922(i)—for shipment or transport of a stolen firearm across state lines.

            • 10 years—18 U.S.C. § 924(b)—for shipping, transporting or receipt of a firearm across state lines with intent to commit a felony.

            • 5 to 30 years consecutive mandatory minimum sentences—18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(1)(A)—for carrying, using, or possessing a firearm in connection with a federal crime of violence or drug trafficking.

            • The death penalty or up to life imprisonment—18 U.S.C. § 924(j)—for committing murder while possessing a firearm in connection with a crime of violence or drug trafficking.

            • 15 years mandatory minimum—18 U.S.C. § 924(e)—for a “prohibited person” who has three prior convictions for drug offenses or violent felonies.

            • 10 years—18 U.S.C. § 924(g)—for interstate travel to acquire or transfer a firearm to commit crimes.

            If these federal laws were being enforced every gun-thug on the streets could be hauled in.

            Mars...pft! 

            Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/02/wayne … z3rD0GnwVt


            http://usercontent1.hubimg.com/12739746.jpg

            http://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie.html

    6. ahorseback profile image48
      ahorsebackposted 13 months ago

      Our culture is becoming less and less accountable for personal responsibility ,  for behavioral impulse control . Why   should an organization like the NRA be held responsible for  something no one else does ?

      What about enforcing  existing Law [s]?  No anti-second amendment advocates   to want to address that ?
      It's pretty clear  ,the objective of the anti.

      1. My Esoteric profile image88
        My Esotericposted 13 months ago in reply to this

        I didn't say there are no anti-2A advocates, but that there are a very small percentage.  The difference between you and me is that I don't translate "a very few" into meaning "most".  To extend your methodological logic I could say in the same fashion that since a smaller percentage of Americans are black, therefore we are all black; which of course is not true; and neither is your supposition that all gun-control advocates means they all want to ban guns.

    7. ahorseback profile image48
      ahorsebackposted 13 months ago

      Here or elsewhere in the forums , Why doesn't anyone answer my question ,............
      Why not enforce existing gun , crime  laws ?????

      1. My Esoteric profile image88
        My Esotericposted 13 months ago in reply to this

        Most states have very few regulations to follow, that is why.  To put numbers to that statement,

        * 26 states have terrible gun regulations
        * 11 states have poor gun regulations
        * 6 states have mediocre gun regulations
        * 2 states have good gun laws
        * 3 states have great gun laws
        * 2 states have excellent gun laws

        Guess which states have the lowest gun ownership as well as the lowest death rates from gun, you guessed it,  most of the states with a good rating or better.

        Since we have a huge overcrowding of prisons, which is getting worse, I would say the crime laws are being followed.  Are there studies out there that I am not aware of that support your hypothesis that crime laws aren't being enforced?

    8. ahorseback profile image48
      ahorsebackposted 13 months ago

      Actually it is the hype of anti- gun crowds that feed the hysteria   feeding the ego and pocketbook  of the NRA .  Even us gun crowds know that , That's exactly why I don't belong to  either , Perhaps the NRA AND the anti - gun crowd are in Cahoots ! Hmmmmm?

      1. My Esoteric profile image88
        My Esotericposted 13 months ago in reply to this

        hmmmmmm ia right, I haven't thought of that, lol.

    9. ahorseback profile image48
      ahorsebackposted 13 months ago

      I got tired of the constant harassment  by the NRA , years ago !  Always asking $ , Dues , spreading  hysteria !   I have always owned guns  and mostly   without belonging to  the NRA,    Most gun owners do not fear the anti's. Oh well !

    10. ahorseback profile image48
      ahorsebackposted 13 months ago

      Well bottom line , everyone knows that Guns , the second amendment , the NRA and every law abiding citizen in America  .   Are , Is  and will always be at fault for  all crime in America .......right ?

      1. My Esoteric profile image88
        My Esotericposted 13 months ago in reply to this

        You may know that, but I don't.  What I do know is:

        1.  People, animals, bacteria, and viruses kill people, animals, bacteria, viruses and destroy the environment..
        2. Only people and chimpanzees kill for pleasure, anger, depression, or any other reason other than self-defense and survival.
        3. There are man-made objects in the world which, because of their existence, facilitate people (not chimpanzees) to carry out killing other people or themselves
        4. Some man-made objects are designed with the sole purpose of helping people aggressively kill other people or themselves.
        5. These objects whose sole purpose was to aggressively kill other people or themselves can also be used in self-defense, target practice, hunting for food, hunting for fun of watching another living thing die, but that wasn't the initial reason for their invention
        6. There are organizations whose actions lead to more dead people, whether intentional or not.
        7. There are organizations and individuals whose unreasonable opposition to sensible regulation of the objects designed for the purpose of killing, or other objects whose misuse can lead to death does lead to more dead people, regardless of intent.

        And finally, I know that if these organizations and individuals who oppose sensible gun laws worked with those who promote sensible gun laws where would be 1) less dead people and 2) plenty of people who own guns (some of them who otherwise died because of the opposition to sensible gun regulations)

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 13 months ago in reply to this

          Although you put guns designed strictly for hunting or target practice into the category of those produced for the sole purpose of killing people, the only real quibble I can find with your list is that "sensible" laws. 

          "Sensible" to you doesn't necessarily translate into "sensible" to the people that pay the cost in time, hassle and money.  Your evaluation of that "sensible" qualifier seems to be anything - anything at all - that will reduce gun ownership from people you don't think should have them, and that just doesn't work for those that want a gun.

          1. My Esoteric profile image88
            My Esotericposted 13 months ago in reply to this

            Hunting for fun, if that is your meaning, and target practice were not the reasons firearms were invented.  They were invented for war and hunting for food.

            Nevertheless, I stand a bit corrected, including one of my own.  Bullet (pun intended) 4 should read " Some man-made objects were originally designed with the sole purpose of helping people aggressively kill other people or animals for food.

            And bullet 5 should read "These objects, whose sole purpose was to aggressively kill other people or animals for food, can obviously be used in self-defense, suicide, target practice, hunting for the fun of watching another living thing die, etc, but that wasn't the initial reason for their invention

            Is it fair to say by, paraphrasing your "sensible" paragraph that by "sensible" you mean "no".  If that is not the case, then the discussion can turn to "what is sensible because if "no" was not your meaning, then that implies you think there are sensible gun laws that could be adopted that meet your criteria of reasonable access to guns while, at the same time, tends to keep guns out of the hands of the wrong people.

            Do I have that right?

            1. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 13 months ago in reply to this

              Ahh.  The key, then, is "invented" rather than "designed" or "produced".  I had not realized you were that old, to have been there when someone set out to invent a gun. big_smile  Of course, I did not realize that guns have ever been consistently used to kill people for food either; I do think you have crossed the line here in your emotionalism.

              But absolutely I think some gun laws are reasonable and useful.  As a suggestion, I gave you a list above of some that were not after you said that gun control advocates only pass laws to keep guns out of the hands that should not have them.  You even agreed that those laws were not reasonable. 

              So what laws would you propose that can reasonably be expected to lower the death toll?  I'm not particularly interested in laws created solely to aid police in finding who last registered a specific gun, though - only restrictions that will actually keep people alive.

    11. ahorseback profile image48
      ahorsebackposted 13 months ago

      Said it before but here goes !     "Sensible " gun laws ,might indicate  the thousands of laws on the books already  that we  "sensibly "   enforce .   The ones that we "sensibly" prosecute ,   " sensibly"   punish and "sensibly  "   incarcerate the criminal . 

      Instead we will    " Sensibly " plea bargain everything down to misdemeanors   ,   "Sensibly "  drop half of the charges  , "Sensibly  "   reduce the sentences  ..............And ALL for what  "sensibly " good behavior ?

      Be sensible !

      1. My Esoteric profile image88
        My Esotericposted 11 months ago in reply to this

        Why is the incarcerated population, as a percent of people AND in raw numbers, higher than it has ever been in history if our justice system does such a poor job of putting people in jail.

        You all believe in fairy tales and myths.

        1. Most of those not on the far-Right want to ban guns - FALSE
        2. The criminal justice system doesn't put people in jail - FALSE
        3. The higher the rate of gun ownership equals lower rates of death - FALSE
        4. The NRA, through its political activities, ISN'T responsible for thousands of deaths by guns a year - FALSE

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 11 months ago in reply to this

          1.  Don't know where this came from, so can't really reply.
          2.  Misdirection won't help - yes, the system puts people in jail.  Just not for the crimes they committed, including illegally carrying or using a gun, which is the point being made.  Instead they are there for smoking a joint or some such ridiculous charge.
          3.  Absolutely it is false.  But just as false is that the rate of gun ownership equals higher rates of death - something your own research has shown, even as you pretend that "insignificant" (your terminology) numbers means it does.
          4.  No, the NRA isn't responsible for those deaths; again, both your research and mine prove that.  At most you could claim that they are (partially) responsible for the killers choice of weapon, and even that is very iffy.  Assigning blame when none is apparent, simply to vilify people, doesn't make it so.

          1. wrenchBiscuit profile image86
            wrenchBiscuitposted 11 months ago in reply to this

            http://usercontent2.hubimg.com/12805613.jpg

            If you're not selling this baloney then you should. There are a lot of people in pick-up trucks with gun racks and confederate flags that would buy it by the dozen. This has got to be the most famous statement of the day. You comment:

            "... yes, the system puts people in jail.  Just not for the crimes they committed, including illegally carrying or using a gun, which is the point being made.  Instead they are there for smoking a joint or some such ridiculous charge..."

            Most of us outside the trailer park understand that the overcrowding of jails and prisons is a direct result of the "prison for profit" system. Your assertion is absurd, and simply not true. As usual, your rant is based on conjecture that fits in with the rest of the fantasies you dream up over by "The Big Rock Candy Mountain".

            The case of Weldon Angelos who is serving a 55 year sentence for gun possession and the sale of marijuana is one of many that refute your lame argument. He didn't shoot anyone, nor did he kill anyone with a gun.

            http://famm.org/weldon-angelos/

          2. tirelesstraveler profile image87
            tirelesstravelerposted 11 months ago in reply to this

            Wilderness, you have to read Freakonomics, by Levitt and Dubner.  It is definitely food for thought.  Some of it even to gun violence/crime.

    12. ahorseback profile image48
      ahorsebackposted 13 months ago

      ANTI- gun , anti- second amendment , anti- NRA people  .  You really need to take a hard look at Paris France ,   and then consider  just what extremely restrictive gun laws does to a city, a country , a  culture  !

      And consider this , The terrorist , the criminal , the mentally impaired , the gang member , CARE NOTHING  about "reasonable  gun laws ".  OR ANY LAW AT ALL !

      1. My Esoteric profile image88
        My Esotericposted 13 months ago in reply to this

        Pro-gun control (who I admit are anti-recent NRA, as well as anti-Ku Klux Klan) people are not, by-and-large anti-gun nor are they anti 2nd Amendment; that is just a figment of your imagination and improper use of rhetoric (but well prepared propaganda); but nevertheless a prerequisite to sustain the position you maintain as truth. 

        I, and virtually all of the pro-control crowd, am in favor of passing laws nationally or state-by-state which keep guns out of the wrong hands; yet I am also pro-gun and pre-2A.  How do you reconcile that with your misperception?

        As I responded to you in a different tread, your analogy with an army of well trained terrorists is a meaningless analogy unless your intent is to make sure every American is armed, at all times, with a fully-loaded M-16, some of which have M-203 grenade launchers attached, and sufficient ammunition strapped around their body and has gone through annual, grueling military training on how to use it and act in a coordination fashion.

        1. ahorseback profile image48
          ahorsebackposted 12 months ago in reply to this

          We are fortunate in America , for Americans ! The greatest military forces  in the world , a comprehensive form  of controlling government of those forces . And yet  , many like yourselves  think disarming Americans is a cure for you liberally influenced  , poorly  organized  and socialist agenda-ed  justice system .

          Liberal intellect idealisms  have  made it so that we no longer punish those who DO commit crimes  so just how are MORE laws going to stop  one more "mass gun killing "?    I wish somebody would simply explain that !   Yet no one has yet answered that question !

          Care to ?

          1. My Esoteric profile image88
            My Esotericposted 12 months ago in reply to this

            Exactly where did I EVER say "And yet  , many like yourselves  think disarming Americans ..."  I have NEVER said that, in fact I have said just the opposite.

            So tell me, is it your desire to put guns in the hands of those who don't know how to use them or will use them to harm others?  And if so, why do you do you want people to die needlessly.  If not, then how do you propose to stop them from getting them?

            It is a simple question, you are either in favor of extra people dying who don't need to or you or not, which is it?  Can you answer that question (which has been asked many times before)

            As to your question about stopping mass killings, if people had done their job right in the South Carolina church shooting, the perp couldn't have bought the gun.  I have read where two or three of the others obtained their guns either legally without background checks or safety training or anything else in states like Louisiana, or got them illegally but could have been stopped with background checks. 

            But even so, those types of killings account for so few of the total deaths by gun; it's the other 99% that need to be addressed, especially the 60% that are suicides, you know, the ones that never make headlines but are the ones that can be most helped.

            1. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 12 months ago in reply to this

              "I have NEVER said that, in fact I have said just the opposite."

              The latest answer is in the following paragraph: "So tell me, is it your desire to put guns in the hands of those who don't know how to use them or will use them to harm others?  And if so, why do you do you want people to die needlessly.  If not, then how do you propose to stop them from getting them?"

              Unless you refer only to disarming foreign citizens, it must be Americans.  Whether I agree with your sentiment or not (and for the most part I do), the fact remains that you wish to disarm Americans.

              1. My Esoteric profile image88
                My Esotericposted 12 months ago in reply to this

                Until you put the word "some" in front of "Americans" you will never get it.  But, of course, if you do, your whole position falls apart because you will be recognizing that some Americans ought not to have firearms.

                Consequently, your position is that any American (which is all I am talking about) , whether crazy or not, any felon, any suicidal citizen ought to have a gun to carry out whatever suits them?  Have I got that right?

                And you still haven't answered my question "And if so, why do you want people to die needlessly.  If not, then how do you propose to stop them from getting them?""

                1. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 12 months ago in reply to this

                  My I quote myself? "Whether I agree with your sentiment or not (and for the most part I do)..."

                  Does that answer your question?

                  1. My Esoteric profile image88
                    My Esotericposted 12 months ago in reply to this

                    I read and appreciated that sentiment.  But then you followed that up with "...the fact remains that you wish to disarm Americans.", which is contradictory.  So long as you maintain that my side wants to "... disarm [all] Americans...", then I can't stop asking my question about your motivation.  As soon as your belief about my sides desire changes to  "... disarm some Americans ..."; then we are at a point where serious discussion can begin.

                    1. wilderness profile image97
                      wildernessposted 12 months ago in reply to this

                      But you're the one inserting that [all], not I.  I didn't say that - I said "Americans", and went on to say that unless you referred to foreign citizens that was all that was left.  There was no more indication of being [all] or [some] than you provided in your original text.  The assumption is that it is [some], but that they ARE Americans and not some illegal alien or foreign tourist.

    13. WillStarr profile image84
      WillStarrposted 12 months ago

      So what are these mysterious and miraculous 'common sense' measures that you claim would make criminals stop committing gun crimes?

      1. My Esoteric profile image88
        My Esotericposted 12 months ago in reply to this

        There are three related problems in using the phrase "you claim would make criminals stop committing gun crimes". 

        One is - I have NEVER said, nor has the vast majority of those who support sensible gun control, that it "would make criminals stop committing gun crimes".  I have ALWAYS said something to the effect that it "would would reduce the number of criminals committing gun crimes"; that is a significant rhetorical difference which makes a lie out of your statement. 

        Two is - You imply that gun control must be 100% effective before it is useful; that is fallacious reasoning designed only to obscure the truth.

        Third is - You imply that 100% of criminals denied access to guns via background checks will obtain a gun illegally.  That is false on the face of it and therefore is fallacious reasoning designed only to obscure the truth.

        Sensible gun control laws would include:

        1. Universal background checks
        2. Proof of training on how to use and protect your gun
        3. Universal ban on those currently charged with or have been convicted of domestic violence
        4. Prohibiting anyone on a state or federal violence related watch list from obtaining a gun
        5. Registration with local law enforcement
        6. Allowing ATF to keep and track guns used in crimes (the NRA currently prohibits this through their lobbying and intimidation)
        7. Allowing CDC to do significant studies in gun-related deaths (the NRA currently prohibits this through their lobbying and intimidation)
        8. Allow doctors, in those states that prohibit it like FL, to discuss gun safety with their patients
        9. Require state law enforcement to better document gun related crimes to the same degree they document other crimes
        10.Require all states to submit gun related crime data to FBI and CDC

        NOWHERE IN THOSE does it say BAN GUNS, does it.

        Those are just a very few.

    14. WillStarr profile image84
      WillStarrposted 12 months ago

      OK folks, we now have a list, courtesy of myesoteric, of new burdens on law abiding gun owners that will have zero effect on the criminals that will simply ignore them.

      Among them BTW, is the relatively innocent sounding 'universal background checks'. What does that mean? It means that if you sell or gift a gun to a relative or a friend, government wants to know it via a 'background check'.

      How, you ask, would they know if you did not comply? Well, therein lies the rub. In order to know who sold/gave what gun to whom would require nationwide gun registration, and that's the real purpose because it means that our anti-gun progressives would finally know who has what guns.

      National gun registration is absolutely necessary for confiscation, as our Australian friends found out much to their dismay. They were assured that registration would not result in confiscation, but they were lied to of course and now they are disarmed.

      As myesoteric admitted, none of his 'reasonable' regulations will prevent crimes, so why do it? I'll give you one guess.

    15. ahorseback profile image48
      ahorsebackposted 12 months ago

      Anti- gun , anti-second amendment people simply cannot fathom  enough about the fact that a civil uprising would occur in America  because of gun confiscations .  I would be stopped dead in its tracks by  the gun owners and lobby .   I am not an NRA fan and yet  the war of attrition by anti-gunners  is enough to make sense to them , therefore  making more sense to people like me who will rejoin them in spite of their constant hounding for money for legislation and lobbying ..
      .............One type of  gun today  , the rest tomorrow ...........The NRA believes that  and you know what ?Lately ,  I 'm beginning to as well .

      1. My Esoteric profile image88
        My Esotericposted 12 months ago in reply to this

        Almost all, as I have told you many times before but nevertheless bears repeating since it isn't getting across to you, gun control advocates are neither anti-gun nor anti-2A; that is simply a rhetorical concept you must believe in to allow you to take the next steps in your argument.  Absent the truth of what you assert, your arguments are simply words with no meaning because the underlying premise is false.

        1. ahorseback profile image48
          ahorsebackposted 12 months ago in reply to this

          So you say.......... Just what , if not more controls , are you about then ?  Yet  liberals fail completely to hold the existing system AND it's multiple thousand or so gun laws , accountable ?   Want to plea bargain or pardon  the SAN Bernardino shooters do you , after all they were just misguided Muslims ?

          1. My Esoteric profile image88
            My Esotericposted 12 months ago in reply to this

            You're smarter than that ahorseback, to actually believe the gibberish you just wrote.  Try something more reasoned than just a string of disconnected hyperbolic statements.

    16. WillStarr profile image84
      WillStarrposted 12 months ago

      The amusing aspect of all this is that every time progressive liberals call for gun control, Americans buy guns by the millions, so we members of the NRA thank you, wish you a Merry Christmas, and may you find a nice .357 Magnum under the tree this year.

      1. Matthew Harvey profile image68
        Matthew Harveyposted 12 months ago in reply to this

        Im a major gun owner and no member of there NRA because they really are in it for the money not constitution like they claim to be and i will say that some gun control is need but the only thing i think is that every american should have the right to own any fire but a full auto but in order to own that gun you have to test and qualify for it before owning it that is the only gun control law i will except

      2. ahorseback profile image48
        ahorsebackposted 12 months ago in reply to this

        I like this one and agree wholeheartedly  Will !  But.......... is there any such thing as a progressive liberal ?

    17. Kathleen Cochran profile image84
      Kathleen Cochranposted 12 months ago

      So the point of the NRA is profits for gun manufacturers?  That would explain a lot.

      1. My Esoteric profile image88
        My Esotericposted 12 months ago in reply to this

        That wasn't their original goal, but that is what it has morphed into over the years; as well as becoming a platform for 2A zealots.

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 12 months ago in reply to this

          Or at least that's the rallying cry of the gun haters.  For myself, I haven't examined their actions, though I have seen where they fight attempts to unnecessarily restrict 2A amendments.  Much like the NAACP does, or the ACLU.  All three collect donations from anywhere they can get them and payoff politicians to vote the way they think is right - it's kind of odd that the only one declared to care only about a specific industry is the NRA.

          Of course, they are fighting the same enemy (those wishing to end gun ownership as much as possible) and it is thus inevitable they will be allies of a sort, but that doesn't show that the NRA's primary purpose is to provide profits for gun manufacturers.  That part of the "action" seems to be nothing more than a made up story designed to discredit the organization as just one facet of the battle.

          1. WillStarr profile image84
            WillStarrposted 12 months ago in reply to this

            I'm a lifelong member of the NRA and I can tell you that it does indeed support the arms and ammunition industry because shutting it down or suing it out of existence is a backdoor attack on the Second Amendment.

            However, the NRA does not sell guns nor share in any sort of profits. That's another falsehood used by anti-Second Amendment zealots in an attempt to demonize the NRA.

            For years, the anti-gun zealots have tried to create a false 'gun crisis', but it does not exist. Most gun deaths are self-inflicted suicides, something that the hysterical anti-gunners deliberately omit when citing deaths. Of the remainder, almost 70% are drug gangs killing each other and an occasional client!

            So if you are not a gang member, not a criminal, not a police officer, not suicidal, and do not use illegal drugs, your chance of being shot in America is almost zero.

            There is no gun crisis.

            1. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 12 months ago in reply to this

              The NRA supports gun manufacturers...how?  By subsidy?  By selling guns?  By providing raw materials, either iron or even just iron mines?  By covert transportation of guns?

              Or is it just a matter of supporting the same thing; the freedom to own and bear arms?  Just that simple thing will greatly benefit manufacturers (it is necessary for their profits), but is insufficient (IMHO) to say that the NRA is "supporting" manufacturers.  Their goals and aims are similar, which will give rise to the appearance, of course, but that is far different than actually supporting, in a physical or economic manner, gun manufacturers.

              Interesting fact you might check on (find a graph of US homicide rates over the past century): there was a huge spike in the homicide rate in the 1920's, and another much later that is still subsiding.  The first coincides almost perfectly with prohibition (including the downslide when it was repealed), the second quite well with our "war on drugs", particularly THC.  As that "war" is dying off and laws are cut back on marijuana use, so has the homicide rate declined.

              Interesting, yes?

              1. WillStarr profile image84
                WillStarrposted 12 months ago in reply to this

                The NRA supports arms manufacturers in two ways:

                1) The NRA supports arms manufacturers by defending them from harassment lawsuits and laws that are intended to cripple the industry.

                2) The NRA showcases new developments in arms and ammunition. It's the best in advertising because the NRA is the world's most esteemed expert in arms and marksmanship.

                It would  be interesting to correlate gun crime with the event you listed and new laws either restricting gun ownership or removing those restrictions. Then we might also find causation.

                1. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 12 months ago in reply to this

                  Interesting that the NRA provides paid legal defense for manufacturers, much like the ACLU does.  Of course, if it's only lawsuits intended to cripple the industry, not just a company, it is pretty plain that that would fall within their stated goal of protecting the 2A, and the "support" being offered is simply a by-product of that goal.

                  Well, yes, it would showcase new developments.  It's what their members (the man in the street) wants to see, after all!  Again, that it "supports" manufacturers is strictly secondary and of little importance.  Or so it seems to me.

                  The near absolute time correlation between prohibition and the short lived spike in homicide rates in the US is pretty conclusive to me.  And with the mafia of the time being intimately involved with illegal alcohol as well as guns, that seems pretty conclusive as well.  It is not absolute, but pretty darn close.

                  I was never particularly interested in GUN crime - just crime - so didn't look for any correlation there, but would fully expect to find it.  Both the backwoods hillbillies running the stills and the city criminals selling it relied heavily on guns.

      2. WillStarr profile image84
        WillStarrposted 12 months ago in reply to this

        That's a false accusation often used by liberals to denigrate the NRA. They are the prime defenders of our Second Amendment protections, so they are attacked constantly and falsely.

    18. WillStarr profile image84
      WillStarrposted 12 months ago

      BTW, the more people exercise their natural and Second Amendment protected right to keep and bear arms, the stronger we become as supporters of that right as more Americans join us.

      1. Kathleen Cochran profile image84
        Kathleen Cochranposted 12 months ago in reply to this

        Then America ought to be the safest country on the planet.  We have the most guns.  Why aren't we safe?  Other countries manage this issue to the satisfaction of their citizens and have far fewer gun deaths.  What are we doing wrong?

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 12 months ago in reply to this

          Who knows?  We'll never find out, either, as long as we put all our efforts into the red herring of taking guns away.  Perhaps if we actually tried to find out why, we could cut the death toll, but it's too important to calm fears and do the PC thing.

        2. WillStarr profile image84
          WillStarrposted 12 months ago in reply to this

          We are safe. As I said:

          Most gun deaths are self-inflicted suicides (63% in the latest CDC statistics), something that the hysterical anti-gunners deliberately omit when citing deaths, probably because most of them support suicides. Of the remainder, a full 70% are drug gangs killing each other and an occasional client!

          So if you are not a gang member, not a criminal, not a police officer, not suicidal, and do not use the illegal drugs that force you to associate with drug dealers, your chance of being shot in America is almost zero.

          Again, if you are none of those things, you are safe.

          The reason we have so many more murders than some other countries is our large and mostly fatherless minor population that other nations simply do not have! They commit 70% of all US gun murders. When anti-gun zealots compare our rates to other countries, they always (and knowingly) choose countries with little to no minority population.

          As I've said repeatedly, there is no gun crisis in America. There is a suicide problem, although progressives do support the right to commit suicide. There is also a minority crime crisis, but that will not change until their cultures change. However, actually telling the truth about that is not PC and will earn you a racist label.

          So in a way, we can say that the actual root problem is political correctness and progressivism.

    19. WillStarr profile image84
      WillStarrposted 12 months ago

      This is a true statement:

      For years, the anti-gun zealots have tried to create a false 'gun crisis', but it does not exist. Most gun deaths are self-inflicted suicides, something that the hysterical anti-gunners deliberately omit when citing deaths. Of the remainder, almost 70% are drug gangs killing each other and an occasional client!

      So if you are not a gang member, not a criminal, not a police officer, not suicidal, and do not use illegal drugs, your chance of being shot in America is almost zero.

      There is no gun crisis.

      I defy anyone to dispute it with hard facts.

    20. wrenchBiscuit profile image86
      wrenchBiscuitposted 12 months ago

      http://usercontent2.hubimg.com/12780015.jpg

      The Pew Research Center states:

      " Suicides by gun accounted for about six of every 10 firearm deaths in 2010 and just over half of all suicides, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

      Since the CDC began publishing data in 1981, gun suicides have outnumbered gun homicides. But as gun homicides have declined sharply in recent years, suicides have become a greater share of all firearm deaths: the 61% share in 2010 was the highest on record. That year there were 19,392 suicides by firearm compared to 11,078 homicides by gun (35% of all firearm deaths). The rest were accidents, police shootings and unknown causes."


      That's an awful lot of gun related deaths. Apparently in your way of thinking it's "O.K." if someone kills themself. Sorry, in my way of thinking it's not. Without the convenience of a gun, many of these people might still be alive. A human life is worth going the extra mile. If they still beat themselfves to death with a baseball bat, at least we will know that we tried.

      1. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 12 months ago in reply to this

        A human life is worth taking guns from someone else - I get that.  It would be a zero cost solution (if it worked, anyway) to anyone that doesn't want a gun.

        Is it also worth banning rope?  Cars?  Sleeping pills?  Razor blades?  Illegal drugs (effective ban, not just play)?  Freon and air conditioners?  All aerosols?  After all, you're only concerning yourself with half the suicides - shouldn't we put the same effort into the other half?  Particularly as it won't involve violating our highest law?

        Ignoring the nasty little dig about it being OK, how much do you think the country should pay (in any form) to prevent someone from intentionally harming themselves?  Or is it suddenly OK when it's something YOU like or use that needs taken away?

    21. WillStarr profile image84
      WillStarrposted 12 months ago

      Gun opponents have always simply ignored this because they cannot refute it and it makes it obvious that the anti-gun hyperbole is demonstrably false because the ordinary citizen is very unlikely to get shot:

      This is a true statement:

      For years, the anti-gun zealots have tried to create a false 'gun crisis', but it does not exist. Most gun deaths are self-inflicted suicides, something that the hysterical anti-gunners deliberately omit when citing deaths. Of the remainder, almost 70% are drug gangs killing each other and an occasional client!

      So if you are not a gang member, not a criminal, not a police officer, not suicidal, and do not use illegal drugs, your chance of being shot in America is almost zero.

      There is no gun crisis.

      I would also point out that far from opposing suicides, most progressive gun-haters enthusiastically support doctor-assisted suicides, but obviously, they oppose do-it-yourself suicides.

    22. Alternative Prime profile image86
      Alternative Primeposted 12 months ago

      WillStarr ~ For the moment, let's assume your data is correct ~ It seems to corroborate the fact that you don't really NEED a gun you just choose to possess one for alternative reasons such as sport etc ~ I think this would be a logical conclusion a rational person could deduct from reading your words ~

      If correct, I would also assume you'd be in favor of CLOSING all Loopholes related to the sale of assault style weapons right?

      1. WillStarr profile image84
        WillStarrposted 12 months ago in reply to this

        My stats are from the CDC, so argue with them if you think they're inaccurate.

        Are you saying that our rights are based on 'need'? If so, please cite your source.

        The reason it's twice as safe to walk the streets here in the US (other than those in drug-gang infested neighborhoods) as it is in the 'unarmed' UK (the UN recently listed Scotland as the most violent country on Earth!) is because a criminal's intended victims might be armed, so no, giving up those guns is not a smart idea at all.

        Use your head.

        1. Alternative Prime profile image86
          Alternative Primeposted 12 months ago in reply to this

          I think you might want to use YOUR head for a moment Will ~ We are NOT Scotland nor the U.K. , so any attempted comparisons would be futile ~ It just dosen't work ~

          Maybe you should wander through some of the chat-rooms here and elsewhere to discover the PRIMARY Reason most Gun Nuts cite as to WHY they feel the NEED to own a firearm ~  And yes, I would estimate at least 90% of them think they NEED a Gun for various reasons including to be used in "PRETEND" or Fictitious scenarios~ I've even seen an individual say personal experiences and atrocities purportedly witnessed  in Iraq Compelled her/him to purchase a Gun ~ Only one problem with that decision, last I checked, we do NOT live in IRAQ ~

          In short, if your wisdom indicates a LACK of Need, maybe the 2cnd Amendment is ripe for CHANGE via Congressional Action or Executive Order ~

          1. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 12 months ago in reply to this

            And what would you be basing that estimate of need on?  The desire to make a negative point on the forum?  The natural fit with the drivel you spout on gun controls? 

            Will must be right though - your concept of "rights" seems to hinge on "need"; if you don't "need" a right then you should not have it.  Good thing the writers of the constitution disagreed with you!

            1. Alternative Prime profile image86
              Alternative Primeposted 12 months ago in reply to this

              I never said the 2cnd Amendment was "Needs Based", but just about every Gun Nut here and elswhere has articulated their reason to purchase a gun with that sentiment ~ Supposedly, they "NEED" a Gun for various reasons I guess ~

              1. wilderness profile image97
                wildernessposted 12 months ago in reply to this

                I'm confused.  If it isn't about needing a gun why bring it up?  What can it matter whether it's needed or not? 

                You made the claim (and have ignored a request to back it up), but why?  What was the purpose of saying something like that if it doesn't matter anyway?

          2. Matthew Harvey profile image68
            Matthew Harveyposted 12 months ago in reply to this
          3. PhoenixV profile image79
            PhoenixVposted 12 months ago in reply to this

            Or a rule by decree?

            1. ahorseback profile image48
              ahorsebackposted 12 months ago in reply to this

              And is THAT executive action , rule by decree , other  major change of the constitution  worth the  civil uprising it would cause ?

              1. PhoenixV profile image79
                PhoenixVposted 12 months ago in reply to this

                I was being facetious. I was dumbfounded that a comment was made that something like the Bill of Rights, in most general terms, something specifically created to protect personal freedoms and limit the government, could be brushed aside in such a contradictory way.  It is an oxymoron and lacks patriotism.

                1. WillStarr profile image84
                  WillStarrposted 12 months ago in reply to this

                  Exactly correct.

                  It's called the Bill of 'Rights', and only We the People have rights. The Bill of Rights limits government, not we, the People.

                  Government has no 'rights' and I cringe every time I hear someone say that government has the 'right' to do something. Government has 'powers' only, and those are limited to what We, the People (the real authority!) granted them in our Constitution.

                  Well said, PhoenixV!

                  1. Alternative Prime profile image86
                    Alternative Primeposted 12 months ago in reply to this

                    Actually Will Starr, the Government absolutely has the Right & Powers to act unilaterally in the Public Interest for Domestic and or International Security Reasons etc ~

                    These "Rights & Powers" have been exercised in the past and presumably will continue to exercised in the future as needed and or warranted to PROTECT "We the People" ~ The Constitution does indeed take a subordinate position to Public Safety ~ It's simple Common Sense Action and nothing within the constitution and or related documents is ABSOLUTE ~

                    1. WillStarr profile image84
                      WillStarrposted 12 months ago in reply to this

                      Show us your source for that claim (other than martial law in a national emergency).

                      OUR Constitution (it belongs to We, the People, not government) is the supreme law of the land, so your claim that it is superseded by some mysterious higher authority (again, other than martial law in a national emergency) is bogus.

                      So show us your legal source for that claim, and no, your opinion is not a source.

                      BTW, Congress has never declared martial law in the United States. The closest it has ever come was when Pres. Lincoln invoked partial martial law during the Civil War and Congress approved some limited measures.

              2. Alternative Prime profile image86
                Alternative Primeposted 12 months ago in reply to this

                Civil Unrest? ONLY In "Republican PRETEND Land" and perhaps a few "Pockets" of Isolated Rural Regions where individuals live in an "Alternatie REALITY", or should I say Fantasy-World  ~

                ahorseback, you still don't seem to understand that in the REAL World within the Big Bustling Cities all across this nation, where we have Modern Conveniences & Interact with different Creeds, Colors & Religions, we are NOT pre-occupied with that "GREAT Fictitious Battle" with the FEDERAL Government, a solid essential government which is comprised of 4 Million Hard Working Patriotic Americans ~ Even numbskulls like Rush Limbo, Sean Hammerhead, Bill o'reilly etc understand that it's NONSENSE ~

    23. wrenchBiscuit profile image86
      wrenchBiscuitposted 12 months ago

      You make comments like  "twice as safe", as if that is supposed to be satisfactory. I would prefer to simply  be "safe", rather than twice as safe.  Furthermore, Columbine and Sandy Hook were not situated in the middle of a ghetto, and it was white criminals who t did all of the killing! Your stats and conclusions pander to uptight white racist conservatives, but you have no real solutions, other than to accept the status quo and let the killing continue.

      1. WillStarr profile image84
        WillStarrposted 12 months ago in reply to this

        And there it is! Telling the truth is racist!

        And so too, apparently, is doing anything about the carnage in America's inner cities. 70% of all gun homicide victims are minorities, and their killers are also minorities, but progressives do not want to discuss it because that's their 'culture'.

        I submit that the real racism is ignoring the fact that 70% of all gun murder victims are minorities. 

        So again:


        This is a true statement:

        For years, the anti-gun zealots have tried to create a false 'gun crisis', but it does not exist. Most gun deaths are self-inflicted suicides, something that the hysterical anti-gunners deliberately omit when citing deaths. Of the remainder, a full 70% are drug gangs killing each other and an occasional client!

        So if you are not a gang member, not a criminal, not a police officer, not suicidal, and do not use illegal drugs, your chance of being shot in America is almost zero.

        There is no gun crisis.

      2. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 12 months ago in reply to this

        "Your stats and conclusions pander to uptight white racist conservatives, but you have no real solutions, other than to accept the status quo and let the killing continue.

        Isn't there something about pots and kettles?  For you have yet to propose any solution at all to reduce the homicide rate in this country, either.

    24. wrenchBiscuit profile image86
      wrenchBiscuitposted 12 months ago

      http://usercontent1.hubimg.com/12781540.jpg

      I have proposed a practical solution on several recent Forums as well as essays published right here on Hubpages, Facebook, and elsewhere. Over a period of approx 3-4 years I have been active in this manner. That's not to mention my "boots on the ground" activism. What is posted online is dated as well. Proof that you don't know what you are talking about and that I most certainly, verifiably do. You should speak for yourself. And you should also take the time to read a little before you leap. You could avoid a considerable amount of embarrassment.

      1. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 12 months ago in reply to this

        The only thing you've proposed is to either take away guns or make then harder to get.  Neither one is a real solution (described and proven on these forums multiple times) to a high homicide rate; the statement that you have yet to propose a real solution thus stands.  Ones that are known to have already failed multiple times do not count.

        1. WillStarr profile image84
          WillStarrposted 12 months ago in reply to this

          You nailed it

          Whenever someone claims to have published a solution 'elsewhere', you know that it's not a solution at all or they'd eagerly publish it here. It's a dodge.

          1. wrenchBiscuit profile image86
            wrenchBiscuitposted 12 months ago in reply to this

            What a ridiculous statement. I have published right here on Hubpages. Do you define that as "elsewhere"? Very odd that wilderness maintains I haven't when anyone can check my profile page and clearly see that I have. Or perhaps he is suggesting it is a holographic insert.

            1. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 12 months ago in reply to this

              A link would be nice...particularly as there is nothing on your profile page obviously dealing with murder rates.

              1. wrenchBiscuit profile image86
                wrenchBiscuitposted 12 months ago in reply to this

                I am not in your employ. If you do not have the motivation to simply go to my Hubpages profile and read what I have posted then that is your problem. Furthermore, there is no man living today who can benefit from the effects of penicillin if he does not first allow himself to be injected. It is the same with any solution. The NRA is not looking for a solution because a solution would mean a catastrophic loss of revenue. As with all major shifts in the social dynamic, a lot of people are going to have to die before any real change occurs. That is because the average person is not very smart, and so is easily manipulated by organizations like the NRA. The medicine has to be taken, or injected before it can work. This is elementary.

                1. WillStarr profile image84
                  WillStarrposted 12 months ago in reply to this

                  Since you obviously know exactly where your solution is, it's simply a matter of ordinary courtesy to either provide a link or, even better, C&P it here. I do not understand why you are so reluctant to do so.

                2. ahorseback profile image48
                  ahorsebackposted 12 months ago in reply to this

                  That's total hog wash , If you think the NRA would be hurt by  some more  gun restrictions , you're nuts .   The fact  that you  and many say the NRA is not for sensible restrictions is also hog wash ,  Everyone understands sensible gun laws and you know what ?       ........We already  have them ! So ,  Why doesn't the left focus on  enforcing the existing   laws on gun violence , on ANY violence for that matter .   These Hot button election year cycles of  meaningless chants by the left are getting extremely boring .  Why don't you guys focus on the some of our far, far more pressing issuers.   

                  If the left was truly  serious about crime in America ;   you would first focus on the open faucet of   illegal alien and Obama's blind culturally  immigration agenda's and policies ,  you might then go to inner city minority  crime cultures , perhaps  family interventions dealing with  gang infested  family histories  ,  you might even try drug and alcohol driven  Native American problems . But no . 

                  You see everyone on the  activist left is  enthralled with espousing  the elitism of  pseudo intellectual discourse .   In other words  mindless  thumpers of the political correctness bible  .     The NRA has undoubtedly  made millions and millions of dollars  AND almost doubled it's  membership in the last fifteen years alone .   Gun sales are up  at records never seen before .    So keep up with the mindless anti gun drivel .........It's working extremely well  for all  the gun advocates !  Personally  I just love this entire debate !

                3. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 12 months ago in reply to this

                  And you do not pay me to read your drivel.  I did go so far as to look at titles, but nothing looked interesting and certainly not interesting enough to open the hub and look at what was in it.  Just another case, then, of Wrench Biscuit making claims he cannot or will not back up with facts.

                  But if the NRA isn't looking for a solution, neither are you.  Only for a faux reason to deny rights and get rid of guns; nothing that will help save lives at all.

    25. WillStarr profile image84
      WillStarrposted 12 months ago

      So far, not one word that disputes these facts:

      Most gun deaths are self-inflicted suicides (63% in the latest CDC statistics), something that the hysterical anti-gunners deliberately omit when citing deaths, probably because most of them support suicides. Of the remainder, a full 70% are drug gangs killing each other and an occasional client!

      So if you are not a gang member, not a criminal, not a police officer, not suicidal, and do not use the illegal drugs that force you to associate with drug dealers, your chance of being shot in America is almost zero.

      There is no gun crisis.

    26. WillStarr profile image84
      WillStarrposted 12 months ago

      "I think you might want to use YOUR head for a moment Will ~ We are NOT Scotland nor the U.K. , so any attempted comparisons would be futile ~ It just dosen't work ~

      Gun control advocates cite the UK all the time when they think it's to their advantage, and then chide me for doing it when it proves them wrong! LOL!

      "In short, if your wisdom indicates a LACK of Need, maybe the 2cnd Amendment is ripe for CHANGE via Congressional Action or Executive Order ~"

      'Need'?

      Since when are our rights based on your idea of 'need'? Do you realize what a stupid premise you are pushing when you claim we should demonstrate 'need' before we can exercise our rights? Should you have to demonstrate a 'need' for free speech?

      BTW, your ignorance is showing. The Constitution, including the Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment cannot simply be changed by Congressional action or executive order. There is an Amendment process, and it is deliberately difficult so that it cannot be done on a whim...like yours.

    27. PhoenixV profile image79
      PhoenixVposted 12 months ago

      I think  perhaps at the core or root is a difference in idealogies.....                                                                      Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.

      Alexis de Tocqueville

    28. WillStarr profile image84
      WillStarrposted 12 months ago

      What all progressives refuse to address:

      Most gun deaths are self-inflicted suicides (63% in the latest CDC statistics), something that the hysterical anti-gunners deliberately omit when citing deaths, probably because most of them support suicides. Of the remainder, a full 70% are drug gangs killing each other and an occasional client!

      So if you are not a gang member, not a criminal, not a police officer, not suicidal, and do not use the illegal drugs that force you to associate with drug dealers, your chance of being shot in America is almost zero.

      There is no gun crisis in America.

      1. My Esoteric profile image88
        My Esotericposted 12 months ago in reply to this

        The ONLY people in the WORLD that says there is not gun crisis in America are from the extreme of your side of the debate.

        I do have to agree with you that most of those on my side miss, or fail to emphasize, the real danger of easy access to guns ... suicide, which by definition is a mental illness.  But, then your rhetoric shows you don't value life enough to care whether people die from guns other than crime.  You also left out, for obvious self-defense reasons, the second (maybe third) most popular reason why people die from gunshot, "people known to the killer"; the larges segment of those being spouses and after that ... friends.  But, I have feeling you don't consider those legitimate deaths either.

        So, because of your irrational, paranoid fear of losing your gun, you condemn all of these people, some 20,000 people a year, to death.  They thank you for your service to guns.

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 12 months ago in reply to this

          Sorry, but the only ones condemning a suicide to death is the suicide themselves.  No one else.

          1. wrenchBiscuit profile image86
            wrenchBiscuitposted 12 months ago in reply to this

            http://usercontent1.hubimg.com/12784552.jpg
            I am proud of my German ancestors: Bach, Handel, Beethoven, and Brahms, for their great achievements. But I make no apologies for the miscreant Mengele,  the National Socialists, or the Jew, Hitler, whom many today still mistakenly believe was a German. Your lack of compassion for humanity is reminiscent of the Nazi. You have even admitted that the status quo is more important than your own children. The fact that someone, who by their own admission, is completely devoid of human compassion can own a gun, and even an automatic weapon, is frightening.

            Based on your own commentary, I am confident that if a 7 year old black child accidentally wandered on to your property, that you would not hesitate to shoot them. I also wouldn't be surprised if your excuse was that you felt threatened, and that the 7 year old "looked much older" than his years. Which is an actual quote from your commentary on the Tamir Rice murder by Cleveland police.

            I am proud of my father. My father was a compassionate man, and very courageous, as he stood against the racist Americans. He would have never sold me out to the status quo. Not in a million years!

        2. WillStarr profile image84
          WillStarrposted 12 months ago in reply to this

          You cannot argue with the facts, so you attack me for 'not caring', which is a silly emotional appeal and a logical fallacy.

          There is no reason to believe that suicidal people would not simply use another method if guns were not available. Japan, where guns are all but banned, has the world's highest suicide rate and they almost never use a gun.

          Almost 94% of all gun deaths in the US are suicides, drug gangs killing each other, legal intervention, and criminal acts by people who are already forbidden by law to possess a gun.

          We hear a lot of hyperbole about thousands of children being the victims of firearms accidents, but accidental gunshot deaths actually claim less than 550 per year of all ages, an amazingly low figure in a country with 300,000,000 million lawfully owned firearms, and less than 60 are children.

          I defy you to show us where anything I said here is not true:

          If you are not a gang member, not a criminal, not a police officer, not suicidal, and do not use the illegal drugs that force you to associate with drug dealers, your chance of being shot in America is almost zero.

          There is no gun crisis in America.


          Attacking me is proof of nothing except your inability to show us where I am wrong.

          1. Alternative Prime profile image86
            Alternative Primeposted 12 months ago in reply to this

            Sorry Will, but "Sandy Hook Elementary School", where 20 innocent children & 6 adults were taken by a GUN is a Crisis in and of itself ~ Maybe you don't agree and that's very unfortunate ~

            Yes, I know what ALL your ill-conceived excuses will be, "Motive", "Mental illness", "People Kill Guns Don't" etc etc, we've all heard them over and over again at least a million times ad nauseam, but the FACT still remains, the weapon used in this horrendous act was a Gun ~

            1. WillStarr profile image84
              WillStarrposted 12 months ago in reply to this

              Do it for the children? Is that your point? How many times have we heard that 'If it will save just one child's life, it's worth doing"?

              Well, let's test that. Far more children (20 times as many) die in car accidents, so why not make the national speed limit 5 miles per hour and drive around in bumper cars if it will 'save just one child's life'? We don't do that because in reality, we accept a certain amount of risk in just about every aspect of life, including our right to arm ourselves.

              The real risk today is Muslim terrorist attacks on the softest of all targets...America's schools, so are you as adamant about the Muslim risk as you are about a Sandy Hook event?

              1. Alternative Prime profile image86
                Alternative Primeposted 12 months ago in reply to this

                Another Ridiculous Comparison and or "Test" we've heard ad nauseam and sorry Will, you are just WRONG across the board with your distractions ~ How can a reasonable, rational thinking individual make progress in a negotiation with a Gun Supporter when said supporter refuses to acknowledge the DIFFERENCE between a Gun and a Car? ~

                This is exactly what President Obama faces with conservative republican Obstructionists in Congress, hence his unilateral actions out of necessity to protect "We the People" ~

                FYI ~ One primary DIFFERENCE is the OBVIOUS, Transportation is a Necessity in todays society, Guns are NOT ~ Although they can, cars are not specifically designed to Kill while Guns are, we could go on ALL day but WHY bother when the individual at the opposite end of the conversation is an NRA Member ~

              2. wrenchBiscuit profile image86
                wrenchBiscuitposted 12 months ago in reply to this

                http://usercontent2.hubimg.com/12785085.jpg
                I have always been against capital punishment. However, having examined certain viewpoints during the last several days, I have found good reason to reinstate the death penalty across the board.

    29. Alternative Prime profile image86
      Alternative Primeposted 12 months ago

      UPDATE :

      The "NRA" will probably never concede the FACT that Sensible Gun Control is a Crucial Component of a Reduction in Gun Violence, WHY should they when Power & GREED drives their Agenda, and WHY should Republicans care when most are Bought & Paid for by the NRA ~ But the balance of Rational Minded Americans think differently, and thank GOD for that ~

      The Debate or lack thereof, had ended LONG Ago, NOW it's time for ACTION over Rhetoric ~

      According to Recent Reports, at least 1 Governor is Ready , Willing, & Able to take UNILATERAL Action to BAN certain types of Guns in his state, I believe this will initiate or instigate a "Snowball Effect", the President of the United States is also contemplating the same action to enact a UNIFORM Umbrella Law which will have Sweeping, ALL Inclusive, Comprehensive Jurisdiction ~

      LONG Over Due  Preliminary Steps to achieve the ultimate goal of REDUCED Gun Violence ~

      1. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 12 months ago in reply to this

        Thank god the president does not make law in this country.

        1. colorfulone profile image88
          colorfuloneposted 12 months ago in reply to this

          It would be grand if the so-called president would differentiate between the good guys and the bad guys.  He cannot say  Islamic radical terrorists to target the terrorists, he acts as an apologist for them.  But, he wants to take guns away from Americans who might need guns to protect themselves from Islamic radical terrorists on American soil.  Who's side is he on?

          1. WillStarr profile image84
            WillStarrposted 12 months ago in reply to this

            Whose side is ALL of progressive America on?

            They want to import millions of the followers of Islam, knowing full well that, just like the two Bernardino Muslim killers, they simply do not know who is and who is not planning on killing Americans. At the same time, they also want to disarm the same loyal and law-abiding Americans who are a threat to no one except criminals and would-be terrorists.

            The knee-jerk response of progressives like Obama and Clinton to terrorists attacks is to disarm loyal, law-abiding Americans while also insisting on bringing in more terrorists.

            The mind boggles.

            1. Alternative Prime profile image86
              Alternative Primeposted 12 months ago in reply to this

              Um, Will, It was the Progressives who recently Initiated Legislation to Ban "No Fly" individuals from purchasing a Gun, it was your Radical Backward NRA Owned Republican CONGRESS that Dismissed it ~

              Who is on WHO's Side?? smile

              1. wilderness profile image97
                wildernessposted 12 months ago in reply to this

                Based solely on your comment, the "progressives" are pushing for more progression towards total governmental control of every individual and thus must be considered to be on the side of the politicians.

                The Republican congress you so detest dismissed the action and thus must be considered to be on the side of the people.

                Pretty simple, actually.

                1. Alternative Prime profile image86
                  Alternative Primeposted 12 months ago in reply to this

                  WoW, I was gonna say Nice Try but that's just pathetic wilderness ~ smile Your simply wrong ~ Individuals on the "No Fly List" are on said list for very good reason, they are "Suspect Persons" ~ and yes mistakes are made but in totality, giving these individuals weapons as your Republican Congress did, is the equivalent of being COMPLICIT by Enabling them ~

                  Trust me wilderness, trying to justify arming these individuals as republicans essentially have, is an exercise in Futility & Isnanity, Perhaps even Treasonous ~

                  1. wilderness profile image97
                    wildernessposted 12 months ago in reply to this

                    "Individuals on the "No Fly List" are on said list for very good reason,"

                    And what reason would that be?  I've repeated asked you, and the best you can come up with is that "they are "Suspect Persons", although you fail to indicate what they are suspected of.  Perhaps not being a Progressive?

                    And that an unspecified person, in an unspecified place, suspicions that they are guilty of an unspecified action or event is sufficient reason to deny constitutional rights.  Yes, that's certainly "progressive" - progress right down the crapper!

                    1. My Esoteric profile image88
                      My Esotericposted 12 months ago in reply to this

                      I am surprised you asked this question as well, Wilderness.  But to make it simple, the people on the watchlist are 1) known terrorists, 2) suspected terrorists, 3) those communicating with terrorists, or 4) have acted in such a manner as to have authorities thinking that person might be a threat to this nation.

                      Now, I understand you want to arm potential terrorists and other dangerous persons, but more reasonable minds do not.

              2. WillStarr profile image84
                WillStarrposted 12 months ago in reply to this

                I full support the idea that non-American citizens on a no-fly list ought to be deported immediately. Do you support that? If not why not?

                But what about American citizens on a no-fly list (about 250 according to the latest report). Do you think those Americans ought to be deprived of their Constitutional rights without due process? Did you know that an eight year old boy is on that list? Did you know that just sharing a name with a suspected terrorist can get you on that list? Did you know that media reporters have been on that list simply because they have traveled to Islamic countries on assignment?

                Calling for that ban exposes just how cynical Barack Obama can be. It's a backdoor attempt to deprive Americans of their Constitutional rights by ignoring their protection of Fifth Amendment due process. It's pablum for idiots.

                Ask yourself this: If someone is so dangerous that they are on a no-fly list, why don't we just arrest them?

          2. wrenchBiscuit profile image86
            wrenchBiscuitposted 12 months ago in reply to this

            http://usercontent1.hubimg.com/12785080.jpg
            If he would differentiate between the good guys and the bad guys, many European Americans would have been deported, put in prison, or executed during the last 8 years. Instead, it is business as usual. The poor and working class whites are labeled as bad guys when it's convenient; the blacks usually are labeled that way by default, and the poor Indigenous, mistakenly called Latino, shoulder the rest of the "bad guy" burden. The greedy white / Zionist elite get a free pass as usual. You are in the right church concerning terrorists, but definitely in the wrong pew. Obama is simply the latest point man for white supremacy, which is the biggest and most powerful terrorist organization in the world. His racial background has no bearing on his purpose, other than to confound the simple minded.

            1. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 12 months ago in reply to this

              Nothing like a good old racist rant, is there?

              1. wrenchBiscuit profile image86
                wrenchBiscuitposted 12 months ago in reply to this

                http://usercontent2.hubimg.com/12785201.jpg

                What I find most fascinating about you wilderness is that by your own admission you live in a trailer park. That is not to say that I see anything wrong with that, but it is a simple fact that rich people, especially members of the ruling elite, do not live in trailer parks where people have cars without wheels sitting on blocks, and where you will see  "good ol' boys" riding around in pickups with gun racks drinking Pabst Blue Ribbon Beer. Consequently, it raises questions as to why you jump to the defense of a class of people who might hire you to fix the toilet, or to pave the driveway at their guest house, but who would never invite you through the main gate, and certainly not to dinner!

                I find it odd that my use of an adjective disturbs you so. Why? I am a white person. Why would you think I was racist against my own kind? Really doesn't make sense does it? Did you ever stop to think that I was simply being descriptive? Your logic , and problem with adjectives, leads me to believe that if I spoke of a "tall" man, or a "short" man, you would accuse me of hating tall people, and short people. Especially if I said, " The tall man  was a serial killer", or "the short man  had a fondness for Herefords and Holsteins". Seriously, why do adjectives bother you so much. I don't have a problem with being white. And just because I am white, it doesn't mean I have to accept, and make excuses for criminals who also happen to be white.

                George Washington was a rapist and a kidnapper, as well as Thomas Jefferson, and a slew of other famous white men. Today, Americans, many who are white people, are killing children in Palestine and Syria with their tax dollars.  I am disgusted by what they did and what they are doing.  They have stolen   the lives and the future of human beings, and have caused untold misery. I owe them nothing simply because they were, and are  white men. Apparently that's the way the "Sons of the Pioneers " think.  But I am smarter than that. Osiyo!

    30. WillStarr profile image84
      WillStarrposted 12 months ago

      "Transportation is a Necessity in todays society, Guns are NOT"


      That's your opinion, and it's a minority opinion at that. There are over 100,000,000 law abiding gun owners in the US, and it is their right to defend themselves with a firearm if they choose, so if you don't like guns, don't buy one.

      And yes, I did notice the typical, angry progressive personal attack when proved wrong. That's sad.

    31. ahorseback profile image48
      ahorsebackposted 12 months ago

      Willstarr  I gotta say , In all the controversy around a President that cares so little about the realities facing America  today , I believe that  there is one word that  Would be  about to "hit the fan ' in this media of ours . Impeachment !  Except that same media is owned by him !   From his lax outlook to the  security of our borders , the mirage of gun control importance , the impending cultural- religious  war about to engulf America's voting booths , his love affair with the Muslim brotherhood  and dozens of sister [brother ] organizations throughout the word , his apologist   politic-speak toward  the mid east and it's militant factions  of Islam ;     WHY in the world the pundits of the right haven't even mentioned THAT ONE WORD -- Impeachment ,baffles me .

      I can only hope everyone in their right minds   is awaiting the term of  a Lame Duck to end .

      I have already gotten beyond the mindless drivel of the likes of Alternative Prime , Peoplepower ,and on and on who  senselessly follow the rhetoric of leftist  thought programming . So I don't need their opinions .

      Why hasn't impeachment been mentioned ?

      1. WillStarr profile image84
        WillStarrposted 12 months ago in reply to this

        In a word, 'political correctness'. Barack Hussein Obama is the nation's first black president and also the most liberal president in history, so the liberal media, which has so much invested in him, simply cannot allow him to fail.

        By the same token, Republicans are reluctant to criticize Obama very harshly lest they be labeled 'racists', as they surely would be.

        The three most sincere threats to our liberty are political correctness, a corrupt media, and losing our right to keep and bear arms. Don't let anyone tell you that the real goal of 'gun control' is not the disarming of America. It is exactly that and the proponents have said so in unguarded moments:


        There is little sense in gun registration. What we need to significantly enhance public safety is domestic disarmament . . . . Domestic disarmament entails the removal of arms from private hands . . . . Given the proper political support by the people who oppose the pro-gun lobby, legislation to remove the guns from private hands, acts like the legislation drafted by Senator John Chafee [to ban handguns], can be passed in short order. -signed by Henry Cisneros, the Former Secretary of HUD


        The only way to discourage the gun culture is to remove the guns from the hands and shoulders of people who are not in the law enforcement business. - New York Times


        Banning guns is an idea whose time has come. - Joseph Biden, quoted by AP

        We must get rid of all the guns. -Sarah Brady

        When we got organized as a country and we wrote a fairly radical Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of individual freedom to Americans... And so a lot of people say theres too much personal freedom. When personal freedoms being abused, you have to move to limit it. Thats what we did in the announcement I made last weekend on the public housing projects, about how were going to have weapon sweeps and more things like that to try to make people safer in their communities. -Bill Clinton

        Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of Americans to feel safe. -Dianne Feinstein

        Source: http://thefiringline.com/library/quotes/antifreedom.xml

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 12 months ago in reply to this

          Now, now, Will.  We have been reassured over and over, right on this thread, that the intent is NOT to take all guns - that no one has even seriously proposed such a thing.  Surely you believe them?

      2. Alternative Prime profile image86
        Alternative Primeposted 12 months ago in reply to this

        ahorseback, if you are actually entertaining impeachment proceedings against President Obama, why not focus on that SLAM Dunk "He was born in Kenya"  assertion ~ smile ~ according to some polls, roughly 30% of Republicans STILL BELIEVE President Obama was NOT born in the United States ~ smile ~

        With this kind of consensus they obviously must have the IRREFUTABLE Evidence right? smile

        Why do you think nobody takes congressional republicans seriously any more?  ~

    32. Alternative Prime profile image86
      Alternative Primeposted 12 months ago

      Always trying to DISTRACT from the issue at hand ~

      Will, here on Planet Earth, including the little Grey Aliens living amongst us have an OPINION related to "Constitutional Rights" and the deprivation, suspension, and or infringement thereof ~ And believe it or not, just because you and others around here "Claim" such an infraction would indeed occur in any given circumstance does NOT make it FACT ~ We have Courts who entertain Juris-Prudence to decide Constitutional issues, and what you're aspousing would certainly NOT warrant  the Time nor Effort ~

      Considering the Fact that I'm not a Congressman, the REAL Question is the following ~ Do CONGRESSIONAL Republicans Advocate Deportation and if so, WHY are they are willing to deport but not deprive them of Guns ?? ~

    33. WillStarr profile image84
      WillStarrposted 12 months ago

      Bottom line...the purpose of the Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment was to 1) assure We, the People that our Creator endowed rights were protected and, 2) enable We, the People to take up arms against tyrants should it ever become necessary.

      Therefore, if there is any serious attempt to disarm We, the People, We, the People are not only justified in taking up arms against such tyranny, but duty bound to do so.

      1. My Esoteric profile image88
        My Esotericposted 12 months ago in reply to this

        Only if the government does such a thing extra-constitutional and against the majority of the population.  BUT, if We The People decide to approve a Constitutional Amendment doing away with the 2nd Amendment, then revolt would not be called for because the People have spoken.

        1. WillStarr profile image84
          WillStarrposted 12 months ago in reply to this

          Good luck with that!

        2. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 12 months ago in reply to this

          You are correct, of course.

          But in the meantime, a pretty good effort is underway to do away with it without any approval.

      2. Alternative Prime profile image86
        Alternative Primeposted 12 months ago in reply to this

        Will Starr ~ That's your Mis-Guided OPINION which I've unfortunately heard more times than "OBAMA was Born in Kenya" and that's ALOT ~ smile

        If you have 2 or perhaps even one quasi-functional eyeball, or if BRAILE is the only option, one functional digit, a BIG NEW World of REALITY should Emerge out of the Smoke & Dust ~ smile

        The 2cnd Amendment Right to Bear Arms is reserved for a "Well Regulated Militia" to protect the people from another foreign invasion ~ private citizens were EXCLUDED according to the explicit words contained therein ~

        ead the Entire sentence to be enlightened ~

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 12 months ago in reply to this

          Perhaps you hear it so much because it is the legally correct interpretation?  Instead of one made up simply because it's a convenient excuse to deny rights?

        2. My Esoteric profile image88
          My Esotericposted 12 months ago in reply to this

          Actually, Alternate, I have to take their side.  The specific purpose of the 2A is to ensure the states (not specifically the People) were capable protecting themselves from an oppressive federal gov't; that was a real fear by about 50% of Americans, the ones who opposed the Constitution.  After ratification and because of the fear Hamilton wanted to turn the central gov't into a British-style one, even supporters of the Constitution, such as Jefferson and Madison, joined in those fears.  It wasn't quite true, of course, but Hamilton definitely liked the idea of a very strong executive and something much different than what Madison had in mind.

          That is the basic story behind the 2A.  To restate it in fewer words, the reason why the "right to bear arms" by the People is included in the wording is because that is who would be the Militia organized by the States, should it be necessary.

          It is ironic, in my opinion, that Scalia found it necessary to convolute history to justify personal self-defense as a reason to "bear arms" in Heller.  The way I see it, it is implied given the fact that the People DO have right to bear arms; it comes with the territory.  There is no bar in law that the People cannot use the arms they have in self-defense of their person or family.

          Now, it may be true, as PeoplePower points out, that the need for a militia is more or less mute because of the strength and capabilities of the standing army, and army that didn't exist back then, and the fact that the National Guard and, for the few states that have them State Militia are armed by the gov't; you don't need to bring your own.  But that doesn't mean it won't be needed in the future.

          1. Alternative Prime profile image86
            Alternative Primeposted 12 months ago in reply to this

            I respect your Opinion & Interpretation of the 2cnd Amendment Mr. Esoteric, but the word "Tyranny", which is what I believe the implication is, dosn't appear anywhere in my copy of said Amendment ~

            If this was the INTENT of our F-fathers, why omit such a critically important word only to leave ambiguity when it could have easily been included? ~ Sorry, but It makes absolutely ZERO sense to arm pilgrims, some of which were obviously drunkards, promiscuous, slave owners, liars, manipulators, petty thiefs, mentally ill etc against their OWN Government ~

            We had just CONCLUDED a Gruelling War with the British to win occupation of the U.S., I think a "Well Regulated Militia" to protect said occupation from an outside force is a more likely scenario ~

            P.S, ~ Republicans have a DIFFICULT enough time trying to DEFINE Tyranny today, I could image the task WAY back when ~

    34. WillStarr profile image84
      WillStarrposted 12 months ago

      BTW Alternative Prime, in the Heller decision, the Court ruled that:

      "(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia..."


      You haven't been right about anything, have you?

      1. My Esoteric profile image88
        My Esotericposted 12 months ago in reply to this

        The reasoning being that back on those days, the state did not provide arms.  If you were called to the militia, you had to bring your own; hence the right to bear arms must supercede being in the militia for the verbage to make any sense.

        Don't argue with me Will, I am agreeing with you.

        1. WillStarr profile image84
          WillStarrposted 12 months ago in reply to this

          It's still valid today. The National Guard is not the citizen militia. The citizen militia by definition is all able-bodied citizens, and that is a formidable force with over 100,000,000 well armed citizens.

          After all, the mighty US military was almost defeated in Iraq by a few rag-tag insurgents, and the US militia is a thousand times more dangerous to a would-be tyrant.

    35. WillStarr profile image84
      WillStarrposted 12 months ago

      "To restate it in fewer words, the reason why the "right to bear arms" by the People is included in the wording is because that is who would be the Militia organized by the States, should it be necessary."

      Exactly. It's not complicated at all. Since armed citizens ARE the militia, protecting the preexisting right of the citizens to be armed was essential to a militia.

      1. My Esoteric profile image88
        My Esotericposted 12 months ago in reply to this

        Not to be contrary but, for some odd reason, the Amendment COULD have denied the right to bear arms, and it would have the same force of law since the Constitution is the legal document we all agreed to follow.

        Obviously, that would have been a terrible idea and nobody would have agreed with it, but in theory, that could have happened.

        I don't think "right to bear arms", as a specific "right".  Instead, it is included in the idea liberty where each individual has a "right to do as they please, so long as they do not harm others."  Obviously, one of those things a free individual can do is carry arms.  What the 2A did was make that specific ability a matter of law.  Minus the 2A, the "right to bear arms" is no different than the "right to own a car" of the "right to go where ever you want, within certain limitations".  By themselves, each of those "rights" is no more important that any other.  But, given there IS a 2A, then the right to bear arms is elevated above other rights.

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 12 months ago in reply to this

          As it should be.  Where is our "right" to own cocaine?  Cook meth?  Hunt out of season?  Own an ocelot or lion? 

          A great deal of what we "could" do or own has been denied us - privately owned guns would be only too easy to add to the list.  And no, I'm not arguing that we should be allowed to own cocaine.

    36. WillStarr profile image84
      WillStarrposted 12 months ago

      'I don't think "right to bear arms", as a specific "right". '

      Do we have a right to life?

      If so, don't we also have a right to defend that life?

      If so, don't we obviously also have the right to the means of defense?

      If you wake up in the night and see a stranger going into your child's bedroom and there's a baseball bat standing in the corner, do you really believe you have no right to arm yourself with that bat and beat the bastard into submission or even kill him if necessary?

      The Second Amendment doesn't even mention guns. It protects 'arms', and that includes that baseball bat or anything else you can lay your hands on to defend yourself and/or your family.

      Think about that before you foolishly deny yourself the right to defend your life.

      1. Alternative Prime profile image86
        Alternative Primeposted 12 months ago in reply to this

        Here we GO Again ~ smile ~

        So now they had Baseball Bats in the 1700's?? I'm not sure if they were  actually playing baseball and collecting cards n' bubble gum back then BEFORE the sport was even invented but who knows, I could be wrong on that one ~ smile

        Actually, if you wanna get Technical & Specific, arms WAY Back over 2 centuries ago obviously consisted of Single Shot Muskets, Knives, Boomerangs, Sling Shots,  Frying Pans, Ben Franklin's Wig, Jeb Bush's Personality & Cannons etc ~ An Automatic-Rifle was Inconceivable by most in the day ~

        If you expect me and others to believe  the Far-Fetched STORY that George Washington et al Founders said here "Drunken Pilgrims", Slave Owners, Drug Addicted Misfits & Misguided Un-educated SOULS, take these Muskets & Cannons and if we  here in YOUR Federal Government and or agencies thereof, ever get out of line ACCORDING to YOUR Judgement, Feel Free to USE them Against us ~

        REALLY?? SERIOUSLY?? smile Do you honestly expect rational intelligent Human Beings to ACTUALLY believe our founders were that dumb?? ~ In Reality, George & the Fellas' were certainly not brilliant individuals , but they weren't stupd either ~

        Anyway, the 2cnd Amendment dosen't even say that, the writing within is Unambiguously Explicit with the Queen's English and here it is ~ When a sentence begins with "A Well Regulated Militia", as the Amendment quite clearly does, The Ridiculous "Un-affiliated with a Militia Theory" pretty much goes right OUT the Window ~

        "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."

        Try not to ADD, Subtract, Omit, ERASE, Crunch, SQUEEZE, or Mentally Manipulate the Words like most republicans TRY to do ~ smile

        1. WillStarr profile image84
          WillStarrposted 12 months ago in reply to this

          Two Supreme Court decisions say you are completely and dead wrong, so I think I'll just go with them if it's all the same to you.

          Have a nice day.

    37. Alternative Prime profile image86
      Alternative Primeposted 12 months ago

      That's fine Will, you're entitled to you Opinons & Beliefs, but just remember, the words contained within 2cnd Amendment and a Court's Decision are as Divergent as "Night & Day" ~ smile ~ Good day to You as Well ~

      1. WillStarr profile image84
        WillStarrposted 12 months ago in reply to this

        Unlike progressives, I do not view my opinions or beliefs to be 'facts'.

        The Heller decision was heavily based on the writings of the Founding Fathers, and from those historical records, it is clear that they intended to protect an individual right to keep and bear arms. It is also clear that since a citizen militia would be useless unless the citizens were armed, it was simply one more reason to protect that basic right. 

        As far as basic human rights are concerned, I think you must agree that we all have a right to life, and that it therefore follows that we must also have the right to defend that life and the right to arm ourselves for that defense. That's simply beyond logical dispute.

        The Bill of Rights does not restrict the rights of We, the People. It was created to protect the rights of We, the People by limiting the power of the new government. All of those limitations are easy to find because they are prefaced by 'shall', and the restrictive clause in the Second Amendment is "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

        Does the Second Amendment say that the right to keep and bear arms is restricted to militia members? Of course not, because the Bill of Rights is not about restricting We the People! It's about restricting government.

        1. Alternative Prime profile image86
          Alternative Primeposted 12 months ago in reply to this

          C'mon Will, I always hope I'm gonna' meet an HONEST Rationally Intelligent Conservative in here but guess what? Unfortunately, that just might be an exercise in futility ~  sad

          To try and prove an INVALID, Nonsensical Point, republicans ALWAYS OMIT, Delete, Ignore and Slice OFF the most IMPORTANT words within the Amendment, and those words are obviously "A WELL Regulated Militia", the PRE-FIX, the "PREABMBLE" to the ENTIRE Sentence ~ Which translated in simple English equates to an ARMY which is Controlled, Trained, Restricted & of course Regulated by Experienced individuals such as George Washington etc ~

          Pilgrims who had Multiple Social & Mental Problems were never given the right to "Arm Up" against George Washington, The Federal Government and or his successors, especially NOT in a Written Passage ~  It's simply a Myth ~

          Furthermore, WHY even create a Centralized Federal Government with Jurisdiction over the States if there was such Suspicion & Cynicism in the air?? ~ It Makes Absolutely NO Logical Sense ~

          1. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 12 months ago in reply to this

            Republicans omit the first phrase and idiot Democrats and in and pretend the words "militia members right to keep...". 

            But for once you're right that Pilgrims with social and mental problems were not give the aright to arm up against Washington.  Probably because "Pilgrims" existed nearly 200 years prior to that. 

            Why create a centralized government?  Probably because individual states could not fight the British, even with French help, and hope to win.  Yes, there was intense suspicion and cynicism in the air but unlike the Democrats of today they managed to compromise and create a workable government and nation in spite of that.  Of course they didn't have to deal with the insanity of socialism, either...

            Perhaps you should consider adding a few history classes to those on law and government you need?

            1. wrenchBiscuit profile image86
              wrenchBiscuitposted 12 months ago in reply to this

              http://usercontent2.hubimg.com/12787209_f1024.jpg

              Good God! Individual states could not challenge the crown and hope to win? The insanity of socialism? History classes?

              The insanity of socialism as opposed to what? A tyrannical oligarchy masquerading as a democracy? And how do you suppose we quantify the degree of insanity in order to mark the difference between the two? And your call to the classroom is laughable. Especially considering that after the states had "won", and Washington and his evil cabal of wealthy land owners had begun dividing the spoils, the Bank of England still owned the United States! In fact the United States has remained a British  colony ever since. Both you and Lee Greenwood would benefit from a few history lessons.

              1. wilderness profile image97
                wildernessposted 12 months ago in reply to this

                If you think the US is still an English colony, subject to English law and courts, I'd have to say that you need to go back to school as well.

                1. Credence2 profile image86
                  Credence2posted 12 months ago in reply to this

                  Isn't the American legal system based upon English Common Law?

                2. wrenchBiscuit profile image86
                  wrenchBiscuitposted 12 months ago in reply to this

                  I am not surprised by your terse response. But as you have indicated, your inability to interpret the meaning of the Second Amendment  helps to explain why you find a world of black and white more palatable than the world of living color.

    38. WillStarr profile image84
      WillStarrposted 12 months ago

      "Why then, is the NRA et al hell-bent to make sure all citizens can get a gun at the drop of a hat, regardless of whether they are a danger to themselves of society with a gun in their hands?"


      Why then, are you hell-bent to totally misrepresent and demonize the NRA? If you really believe that, then you know absolutely nothing about the NRA.

    39. WillStarr profile image84
      WillStarrposted 12 months ago

      Why do we assume that phrases in common use nearly 250 years ago meant the same thing they do today? 'Well regulated' in 1776 meant 'in good working order'. It did not mean disciplined or trained:


      The meaning of the phrase "well-regulated" in the 2nd amendment

      From: Brian T. Halonen <halonen@csd.uwm.edu>

      The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

      1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

      1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."

      1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

      1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."

      1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."

      1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

      The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

    40. WillStarr profile image84
      WillStarrposted 12 months ago

      The most common anti-arms argument from progressives is that the Second Amendment provides government authority for the arming of the militia. But why would the Founding Fathers create an amendment empowering government smack in the middle of what they themselves called 'The Bill of the People's Rights' whose stated purpose was to restrict government power and authority? That makes no sense at all.

      Not only does it not make sense, it is also redundant because that power was already in the main body of the Constitution In Article 1, Section 8:

      To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

      The intent is obvious from the writings of the Founding Fathers that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.

      The real question is why progressive/socialist/liberals so desperately want to disarm We, the People?

      1. Credence2 profile image86
        Credence2posted 12 months ago in reply to this

        So, it is the zero sum game again, Will, yes?

        There is a big difference between having safeguards to  being able to buy a gun like one buys a burger at a hamburger stand and 'disarming the people'.

        So, we do understand each other, that ALL law abiding citizens without prior criminal record should be able to purchase a gun, right? You arenot qualifying any of that, are you, Will?

      2. My Esoteric profile image88
        My Esotericposted 12 months ago in reply to this

        WILL -

        "The most common anti-arms argument from progressives is that the Second Amendment provides government authority for the arming of the militia. "  First, since I have never heard of such a claim by my side, please provide enough sources to show this is the normal sentiment of progressives; otherwise it is simply a fabrication so that you can counter it.  Also, "anti-arms" is a wrong characterism, again designed to provide you a foil; the more correct would be "pro-life" since that is the desired outcome of sensible regulations. Nothing "anti" about that, is there?

        "Exactly. Soft on crime liberalism." - again, an attempt to fabricate something so that you can argue with it.  Please explain how your came to the conclusion that it was the Liberals who prohibited punishment for criminals trying to buy a gun (even if that claim is true, which I have my doubts it is); imo it would be the NRA and friends who would prevent prosecution.  Another hole in your reasoning is that prosecuting such an event is a state, not federal, matter.  So, if what you say is true, and most states have one or both conservative governors and/or legislatures, common sense says the correct pejorative is "Exactly, Soft on crime conservatism"

        "They simply buy one from a street dealer or get someone to straw-buy a gun."  Chances are much higher they buy one or have one given to them by family and friends. that is the main source of guns for criminals or law-abiding citizens who turn to criminal behavior (that happens a lot, you know).  Solution to help REDUCE, (Notice that REDUCE does not mean Stop, the word your side incorrect uses) criminal access to guns is universal background checks for any transfer of ownership of a gun, just like a car.  That leaves 1) only criminal means of obtaining a gun (of which only a small percentage will do) or 2) the people transferring the gun decide to become criminals themselves by not getting a background check; all should be prosecuted.

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 12 months ago in reply to this

          This is a little confusing.  Most criminals get their guns from family and friends, so background checks will...do nothing to reduce it.  Unless you are going to check everyone for any family member or friend that is criminal and deny them a gun based on that?  I'm just not following the logic that background checks will somehow reduce the number of criminals with access to guns.

          1. My Esoteric profile image88
            My Esotericposted 12 months ago in reply to this

            Have you ever heard of Universal Background Checks?  The purpose of that law is to REDUCE, not stop, the number of guns making their way into the hands of 1) criminals, 2) mentally unstable, 3) wife-beaters, 4) people on gov't terrorist watch list, and the like.

            Mandatory firearm training will REDUCE, not stop guns falling into the hands of the irresponsible and reckless.

            By opposing such common sense measures you are effectively supporting the idea that all of the above should be armed if they so choose and therefore don't really care how many people die needlessly from firearms.

            And that is sad coming from someone who otherwise shows great intelligence.

          2. Credence2 profile image86
            Credence2posted 12 months ago in reply to this

            How can you say that background checks are ABSOLUTELY ineffective. What temerity do you have to say that the system is not even an effective deterrent and that all these Federal agencies and such are fools spending years engaged in something that does not work?

            The Zero Sum approach of yours, either something works 100 percent or it is totally useless, flies directly in the face of reality and common sense.

            Well, I justify the cost if these checks deter 10 percent of those that illegally seek a gun. You don't get it, I know that they will get the gun somewhere, so why make it more likely that they can get the gun without any deterrent at all?It is like I told you before, with your attitude, the very principles that underlielaw enforcement is futile. And I don't buy it.

    41. Alternative Prime profile image86
      Alternative Primeposted 12 months ago

      Not even CLOSE to "Obvious" Will ~

      You might have a semblance of a case if the 2cnd Amendment said the Following ~ "The Right of the People to Keep & Bear Arms Shall Not be Infringed" ~ But unfortunately for conservatives, there's a BUNCH of Inconvenient words which PRECEDE these words in the SAME sentence ~

      The Final Accurate RESULT? A Completely Different Meaning, one which is Concise, Clear, & UNAMBIGUOUS ~ According to said Amendment, you must be Affiliated with an Army or like assembly to have the RIGHT to Keep arms ~ And said Army would be used to Protect the States from another "British" or Foreign Invasion, NOT to be used against their own "Flesh & Blood Brethren", that would be INSANITY ~

      You're not alone though Will, most republicans try to "OMIT" words from this passage or "PRETEND" they don't exist ~

      P.S. ~ Spouting more CONservative Rhetoric I see ~ Progressives are NOT trying to "Disarm" We the People, just aiming for COMMON Sense Solutions to the Gun Violence Problem we have, like REMOVING and or REDUCING the number Multi-Round Military Style Assault Weapons in Circulation for starters ~

      1. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 12 months ago in reply to this

        None of which addresses the points made; just repeats that we'll pretend the additional words "members of the militia" were meant to replace "the people".

        Want to try again and actually discuss the points presented?

        1. WillStarr profile image84
          WillStarrposted 12 months ago in reply to this

          He cannot address the points one by one and counter them because he knows we're right, so he just blusters.

    42. WillStarr profile image84
      WillStarrposted 12 months ago

      "There is a big difference between having safeguards to  being able to buy a gun like one buys a burger at a hamburger stand and 'disarming the people'.

      Does a burger buyer have to produce state issued picture identification and fill out a federal form first? Does the FBI run a background check on a burger buyer?

      As far as disarming the people is concerned, the current Vice President of the United States of America wants to do exactly that:

      Banning guns is an idea whose time has come.
      - Joseph Biden

      So too does Dianne Feinstein:

      Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of Americans to feel safe.
      -Dianne Feinstein

      Here's a list of political figures who would love to ban guns:

      http://thefiringline.com/library/quotes/antifreedom.xml


      "So, we do understand each other, that ALL law abiding citizens without prior criminal record should be able to purchase a gun, right? You are not qualifying any of that, are you, Will?"

      I understand that any new gun laws will have absolutely no effect on the people who are supposedly the target of those laws. I understand that the law abiding and armed American citizen is the true target of such scams as the 'gun show loophole' and 'universal back ground checks' since neither would have any effect on criminals but would require that all law abiding citizens tell the gun-grabbing politicians in government what guns they own and where they are kept (universal registration), which is the long time dream of Second Amendment opponents.

      Any law abiding gun owner who trusts a gun-control promise is a damn fool as the gun owners in Australia learned when all the promises that registered guns would never be confiscated turned out to be bald-faced lies in just a few years. Now their guns are gone.

      So don't try to scold me on this issue, because it's very evident that I know far more about it than you do. In fact, the one thread that runs through almost all gun-rights opponents is ignorance.

      1. Credence2 profile image86
        Credence2posted 12 months ago in reply to this

        "Does a burger buyer have to produce state issued picture identification and fill out a federal form first? Does the FBI run a background check on a burger buyer?"

        So is this provision ok, or do you have a problem with it as an obvious imposition that the burger buyer does not suffer through?

        1. WillStarr profile image84
          WillStarrposted 12 months ago in reply to this

          You're the one who said buying a gun is as easy as buying a burger:

          "There is a big difference between having safeguards to being able to buy a gun like one buys a burger at a hamburger stand and 'disarming the people'.

          So before we go any further, what new laws do you propose that will actually stop a criminal from obtaining a gun, since they do not obey laws in the first place?

          If you do not answer that question, then you are simply blustering.

          1. Credence2 profile image86
            Credence2posted 12 months ago in reply to this

            I am not afraid to back up what I say.

            How about answering the question I asked you ? Do you think that picture ID, federal forms and FBI background checks are appropriate safeguards to keep guns out of hands of criminals which I like to believe we concur upon? Otherwise, it is nothing more than a hamburger and hamburger stand, right?

            We can start by enforcing the aforementioned provision that I spoke of above? Is there a problem with that?

            1. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 12 months ago in reply to this

              Not Will, but I'll give an opinion anyway.

              As the majority of criminals that own guns now did not buy them legally, there doesn't seem to be any reason to think that additional laws to make purchases illegal will have much, if any effect.  Plus, consider how many guns are manufactured in the US but ultimately end up in either Canada or Mexico - those same guns could be sold to US criminals instead, should we tighten purchase requirements further.

              Bottom line - seems to me that if a criminal wants a gun, (s)he will get one, and without a background check.  It won't matter if one is required or not - it will not be done when a criminal wants a gun. 

              In addition, consider the cost of such a nation-wide program, and who will pay for it.  It seems reasonable that filling out a bunch of forms and getting a background check is going to cost at least $50 - a cost borne by the buyer, demanded by a third party but benefiting no one.  Not reasonable - if that third party thinks it IS a benefit to them, they should be at least covering the cost.

              1. Credence2 profile image86
                Credence2posted 12 months ago in reply to this

                Thanks for having the conjones to attempt to my question.

                No, background checks do assist in the process of weeding out criminal element from obtaining weapons, just like traffic cops aid in insuring that violations of traffic laws are given due surveillence. The Zero sum game does not work for me. Is it flawless and foolproof, of course not. But is doing nothing better, can we really afford to live in a Bonnie and Clyde type of society today?

                So, if we are not serious in having authorities perform gun checks of people buying weapons to check background records and such, then my hamburger stand analogy is the correct one, is that right?

                1. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 12 months ago in reply to this

                  What can you produce to show that backgroud check assist in either saving lives OR keeping criminals from getting guns?  The millions of illegally owned guns in the country?  You say it does - I say it doesn't, based on those illegally owned guns. 

                  Doing nothing is not an answer.  So why do we refuse to try any answer that doesn't involve taking guns - a fruitless endeavor?  Because no one cares, as long as the guns are gone?  Like it or not, it looks that way.

                  Burger stand - not correct, but not that far from it either.  Nearly all citizens that purchase guns from a gun store, show, etc. are good citizens, so why hassle them?  You want guns away from criminals - watch the criminals for guns and quit trying to make gun owners pay all the price for societies problems!

                  1. Credence2 profile image86
                    Credence2posted 12 months ago in reply to this

                    So, you say that the traffic cop on the beat in not a deterrent for motorists violating traffic laws? That is highly unlikely. That is the equivalence of your assertion here.

                    Obama has been in office for 7 years and no one has seriously addressed taking anybody's guns. Just more bogey-man stuff from the conservatives.

                    So, if you don't advocate checking anyone, than the burger stand analogy is most fitting. Why do you assume that people that purchase guns are automatically good citizens? That is a blanket observation that is not logical when applied to a population group.

                    It is funny how conservatives talk about voting integrity by requiring Voter ID, but when to comes to firearm purchases, it is another of kettle of fish.

                    How do we get the guns away from the criminals, if there is no mechanism to  identify them prior to their commission of a crime?

    43. WillStarr profile image84
      WillStarrposted 12 months ago

      "So, if we are not serious in having authorities perform gun checks of people buying weapons to check background records and such, then my hamburger stand analogy is the correct one, is that right?"

      We have been doing background checks for decades. Were you really unaware of that?

      What do you mean by 'if we are not serious in having authorities perform gun checks of people buying weapons to check background records and such..."? Who said we are 'not serious'?

      I've heard lots of gun-control advocates  claiming that buying a gun is as easy as buying a carton of milk (or a burger if you wish), which is totally false and most of them know it's false when they say it.

      1. Credence2 profile image86
        Credence2posted 12 months ago in reply to this

        Then let's continue the background checks, that is a big part of my solution, is it part of yours? Reasonable people recognize that there has to be some restrictions involved.

        1. WillStarr profile image84
          WillStarrposted 12 months ago in reply to this

          Did someone say we should discontinue background checks? What on Earth on you talking about?

          1. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 12 months ago in reply to this

            I have hinted at it.  Give the huge number of guns in the hands of criminals, it doesn't seem to do much good, while costing gun owners millions of $$ and tens of millions of hours each year.

          2. Credence2 profile image86
            Credence2posted 12 months ago in reply to this

            Ok, we agree, obviously you support background checks...

        2. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 12 months ago in reply to this

          "Reasonable people recognize that there has to be some restrictions involved."

          So we'll come with some new/old laws that have proven ineffective and run the cost of guns up.  Maybe that will reduce the number of guns bought, whether by criminals or not.

          Do you see the point?  We're trying all the same old things over and over, and they don't work!  "Reasonable people recognize we need restrictions".  Great.  Agreed.  So find some restrictions that work!  Station a watcher on every street corner in gang territory and photo everybody with a gun, then arrest and search them.  Put a battalion of cops into downtown Detroit, looking for guns.  When we've cleaned out that city, go to Washington DC.  Then Chicago. 

          We already have restrictions on carrying concealed weapons and criminal ownership - enforce them, and quit bugging honest people buying a gun.

    44. WillStarr profile image84
      WillStarrposted 12 months ago

      If a criminal attempts to buy a gun but fails the background check, should he be prosecuted? What should be the penalty if we are serious about keeping guns out of the hands of criminals?

      1. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 12 months ago in reply to this

        Would such a law be effective in keeping guns from criminals? 

        And unless I'm mistaken, a sting that found a criminal buying a gun would result in the perp going to jail.

      2. Credence2 profile image86
        Credence2posted 12 months ago in reply to this

        No prosecution is necessary, you just deny the sale.

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 12 months ago in reply to this

          Whereupon they go to the next store and try again.  Or the "dealer" down the alley.  Either way, the criminal gets his gun.

          1. Credence2 profile image86
            Credence2posted 12 months ago in reply to this

            But that is better and more difficult for him to be challenged the first time and always be aware that he or she may be challenged, rather than the convenience of knowing they can pick up any thing any time they want like you know what through a goose....

            1. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 12 months ago in reply to this

              Why is it better?  What purpose does it serve?  How many lives might it save that the criminal knows he or she may be challenged?

              Credence, to be completely honest this sounds like the same old story - "We have to do something, so pretend we'll take away the killer's favorite tool, placating the masses as we do so.  And in the process, keep some honest people from buying, too, and reduce the guns in circulation." 

              What's wrong with at least trying to find an answer to the carnage instead of just letting it continue year after year?

              1. Credence2 profile image86
                Credence2posted 12 months ago in reply to this

                But it sounds to me that you want it both ways, and that can't be. Police act as deterrent, so do background checks and ID requirements for purchasing firearms. Are you saying that paying for law enforcement is too much a burden on the tax payer? My stand is that any deterrent is better than nothing at all.

                Your argument about background checks and ID checks being unjustifiably ineffective  are non-sequitor. This would not apply to any other aspect of law enforcement, why is this so different?

                So, if you are an honest person, what do you have to fear in the process? So, if you are driving within the speed limit, what do you need to fear from the traffic cop?

                I have suggested a solution to the carnage, keep background checks, FBI an otherwise in force, require ID. Nobody is talking about taking anyone's gun away or keeping those without criminal records, the good guys you talk about, from legally purchasing one.

    45. Dr fahad profile image62
      Dr fahadposted 12 months ago

      .

    46. WillStarr profile image84
      WillStarrposted 12 months ago

      Asked:

      If a criminal attempts to buy a gun but fails the background check, should he be prosecuted? What should be the penalty if we are serious about keeping guns out of the hands of criminals?

      Answered:

      No prosecution is necessary, you just deny the sale.

      Exactly. Soft on crime liberalism.

      So once again, the criminal is not the target because in 2010, the latest year I can find the stats, over 76,000 tried to obtain a gun by lying on the forms but were caught in the background check. Amazingly, while stopping criminals is the supposed purpose, only 44 were prosecuted.

      We are punishing law-abiding citizens by making them jump through all these hoops while we ignore the criminals who tried to buy a gun. BTW, that does not stop them from getting a gun. They simply buy one from a street dealer or get someone to straw-buy a gun.

      No law will keep criminals from buying guns. Laws will not and never have stopped criminals.

      1. Credence2 profile image86
        Credence2posted 12 months ago in reply to this

        So, is it a criminal act for one with a criminal record to attempt to buy a gun?

        So, we have a problem with the judicial and prosecutory systems, that does not invalidate the need for background checks. This is a case where the public need to demand that those breaking the law be prosecuted and not ignored.

        Everybody needs to 'jump through the same hoops" Nothing will stop the determined criminal from acquiring a gun, but I don't see any reason not to provide deterrence toward that end by the appropriate authorities.

    47. WillStarr profile image84
      WillStarrposted 12 months ago

      BTW, I still haven't been told what 'sensible gun control' the NRA is supposedly resisting.

      I assume it's the national firearm registration (falsely labeled 'universal background checks') with which only law abiding gun owners would comply. Only an idiot would believe criminals would also register their weapons.

    48. WillStarr profile image84
      WillStarrposted 12 months ago

      "I have suggested a solution to the carnage, keep background checks, FBI an otherwise in force, require ID."

      Again, what on Earth are you talking about? All of that has been in force for years! Where have you been?

      The carnage is mostly suicides, which background checks do not check! Most of the rest of the carnage is occurring daily in America's inner cities as minority gang members kill each other. For some reason, liberals don't care about that.

      But when you said you don't want to prosecute criminals who illegally try to buy guns, you lost all credibility on the topic because while you want to impose more burdens on honest Americans, you want to be soft on criminals.

      1. Credence2 profile image86
        Credence2posted 12 months ago in reply to this

        Well, it seems obvious to me that conservatives are not so much in favor of these provisions that contribute to keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.

        I told you that if you accept the current scenario in regards to dealing with carnage thats a good accomodation to our 2nd Amendment.

        I am right here where you are, Will, trying to make sense of inane rightwing arguments that talk about criminals getting guns but are not really interested in reasonable forms of prevention that do not involve taking guns away from honest citizens or preventing them from purchasing same.

        I care about all of it, Will, whether it fits the rightwing playbook or not.
        I was in error about the law, if the law states that one with a criminal  record can be prosecuted for just the attempt to buy a gun, then so be it, and I stand corrected having no problems with that.

        So, do I get my credibility back?

        Are not you conservatives always saying that we need to enforce the laws on the books without adding new ones and we would do a better job in containing illegal possession of weapons and possibly reduce violence from them?

        So, instead of resisting the idea of background check, we keep them, and prosecute to the fullest extent of the law those that have criminal background who attempt to obtain weapons. So maybe if we had more than 44 prosecutions in the face of the number identified in violation, that may well be a step toward a solution that is not currently, according to you, being employed.

        1. WillStarr profile image84
          WillStarrposted 12 months ago in reply to this

          I had to go back and check to see if you really did just completely contradict yourself, and you did:

          I asked:
          If a criminal attempts to buy a gun but fails the background check, should he be prosecuted? What should be the penalty if we are serious about keeping guns out of the hands of criminals?

          You replied:
          No prosecution is necessary, you just deny the sale.

          But now, you've done a complete 180:
          So, instead of resisting the idea of background check, we keep them, and prosecute to the fullest extent of the law those that have criminal background who attempt to obtain weapons. So maybe if we had more than 44 prosecutions in the face of the number identified in violation, that may well be a step toward a solution that is not currently, according to you, being employed.

          So are you now agreeing that we ought to prosecute felons who try to obtain a gun? If so, we're making progress by actually blaming criminals instead of law abiding gun owners.

          For years, the anti-gun zealots have tried to create a false 'gun crisis', but it does not exist. Most gun deaths are self-inflicted suicides, something that the hysterical anti-gunners deliberately omit when citing deaths. Of the remainder, almost 70% are drug gangs killing each other and an occasional client!

          So if you are not a gang member, not a criminal, not a police officer, not suicidal, and do not use illegal drugs, your chance of being shot in America is almost zero.

          There is no gun crisis.

    49. WillStarr profile image84
      WillStarrposted 12 months ago

      "So, is it a criminal act for one with a criminal record to attempt to buy a gun?"

      Yes. It has been illegal since 1968:

      "It is a federal crime for felons and other prohibited gun purchasers to attempt to buy a gun. The (U.S.) Department of Justice, however, has not been prosecuting people who fail background checks at licensed gun dealers, leaving them free to buy from unlicensed sellers who don’t conduct checks..."

    50. colorfulone profile image88
      colorfuloneposted 12 months ago

      Its against the law for a felon to buy, posses or even touch a gun.   I wonder how many felons are packing a gun in the US as I write this. I bet the number of armed felons is scary. 

      A felony waiver is special permission granted to United States military recruit with a felony on their criminal record. - Wikipedia

      1. Credence2 profile image86
        Credence2posted 12 months ago in reply to this

        Will, and Colorfulone, I agree wholeheartedly with your last comments.

    51. WillStarr profile image84
      WillStarrposted 12 months ago

      WILL -

      ' "The most common anti-arms argument from progressives is that the Second Amendment provides government authority for the arming of the militia. "  First, since I have never heard of such a claim by my side, please provide enough sources to show this is the normal sentiment of progressives; otherwise it is simply a fabrication so that you can counter it.'

      (sigh)

      The overwhelming consensus was that the Second Amendment gave state militias a right to obtain and bear arms, but it did it not give individuals any rights. … The words of the Second Amendment are ungrammatical and difficult to understand in the best of circumstances. But if you look at the history and context of the amendment, including other references to state militias in the Constitution, it suggests that the amendment only applied to state militias.

      http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline … amendment/

      Pick up almost any textbook on American history prior to Heller and see what they said about the Second Amendment. Most said it empowered the arming of state militias or words to that effect.

      I have found that whenever a progressive calls me a 'fabricator' (a liar), even though I never, ever fabricate anything, they are using such insults as a last line of defense. I actually thought better of My Esoteric, but I guess I was wrong.

      I have proved that there is no gun crisis in America, and not one anti-Second Amendment rights opponent has attempted to counter that point by point, so I guess there's no point in bandying words with fools any longer.

      1. My Esoteric profile image88
        My Esotericposted 12 months ago in reply to this

        Sigh, I had a nice long reply completed and it vanished and I don't want to repeat it.

        Suffice it to say it revolved around;

        United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)  and Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886); both of which refute your and your source's assertion that "The overwhelming consensus was that the Second Amendment gave state militias a right to obtain and bear arms, but it did it not give individuals any rights".- The opposite is actually the case.

        Notice also, your source said "state militias" and not "government" which you used.

        I like my sources better than yours.

     
    working