The tragic events that happened in Boston in a way proved the message that no amount of laws will prevent the will of a mad man. Crazy (whether in the name of his/her God or some other reason) follows no law, rhyme or reason expect hurt as many people as possible. Up until now we as a people could find a thing to blame for the shootings (namely the gun) while ignoring the root cause ( the state of mental health today). This recent event cannot be blamed on lax rules on gun control. If this turns out to be some home grown crazy and not the act of a terror cell we will have to ask the real question and find a real solution.
It really wouldn't surprise me to hear these nuts did it because they want to affect the gun control debate. Maybe I'm cynical but I absolutely do not trust the anti-gun whackos.
And strangely the anti-gun whackos are silent on this issue so far...I'm sure they'll find a way to still blame guns.
Nope... we only blame guns when guns are the cause.
As opposed to blaming a lack of God in schools when people are shot... or blaming video games for people getting shot...
To me no gun= no gun violence. No gun doesn't = no bomb violence.
But you got to stretch logic an awful lot to tell me that you can have gun violence with no gun.
But as we can all agree, a bomb isn't a gun. So why bring it up?
The problem is the Violence part of the equation not the method. The criminally insane will find a gun no matter how illegal, just like they will find a hammer, a bomb, or a chainsaw. A bomb is a weapon like a gun. The difference is with the bomb we are talking about the user and with the gun we are talking about the gun when we need to be talking about the reason for the shooting (the one inside the killers head).
Yeah, I never bought the "They're going to do it anyway" argument. It's like saying we shouldn't treat a patient for a heart attack if he has cancer.
Each form of violence has a different solution... Better mental health precautions would be nice... but when it comes to gun violence there is a much simpler and straight forward answer.
As far as IED's... the only precautions we can take is informing merchants... Hey if someone buys 10 lbs of ball bearings, 5 lbs of nails and 30 lbs of fertilizer in the same trip... you might want to let someone know.
I'm all for mental health screenings. I'm all for public health organizations and the occasional mental health 72 hour investigations too.
Of course it could be that the Boston bomber is completely sane and just really pissed off. I guess we'd have to find out why he was pissed off to figure out where that slice of the pie lies.
Excuse, me Seth, but the two brothers shot a cop in cold blood. Then they had a running gun battle with the police, injuring another cop. So I think we have to get back to motive.
My friend specializes in that. They ask him in court whether the person flipped out and it's a one time deal, or whether it's a serial killer, who thrives on murder. When a person becomes a religious or ideological whacko, they are like the latter, thriving on murder. So, the weapon used is irrelevant, as the bombers have shown. But the motive was to kill.
I joined the NRA at 10. The motive was not to kill but to have fun target practicing. It is a family tradition. My nephew can outshoot me..
Right, now, I think it's important to not be paranoid and to listen what everyone has to say. We've seen that the U.S. Senate is not going to touch the gun issue this year or the next. But to me, to state as one guy did, that we need to torture the bomber that was caught first thing to get him to talk--we'll, what's the point? The fun of torturing? Let's keep the dialogue going.
Well, Dr Billy Kid our nation has become a sick one. Not only have we become a nation of unhealthy physical bodies, we think that torture is acceptable. Case in point. Gitmo. I think the United States are the bad guys to tell you the truth...
You'll have to come up with something better than flabby bodies and Gitmo. Matter of fact, I think you should clarify your statement of America being "the bad guys", period.
I know you posted that video link, but that doesn't really explain your statement; and that short video doesn't really even clarify itself; it's simply a short rant that says some things I agree with but other things that should be elaborated on.
I think the video I posted sum's it up fairly nicely but I will elaborate. I'll start with Gitmo because I believe it to be more then just an incident. I'd put it on a historical par with Japanese Interment Camps...sure some of those at Gitmo genuinely need to be in prison and some are simple suspects that get to skip any Constitutional protect or the Gieneva Convention moving on...
Another great example...the Iraq War went to war searching for WMD...didn't find any but managed to kill over 120,000 civilians....great job there. I'm sure none of those civilians who lost family members won't ever strap a bomb to themselves to blow up a cafe to avenge Aunt Beru and Uncle Owen. And really if you had a government kill (accident or otherwise) a family member wouldn't you be mad and want revenge...or at the very least some Justice. But that won't happen...the justice I mean.
We'd rather spend money on the War Machine then focus on our country. We'd rather send missiles that literally cost's us million to launch then actually trying to fix things. What if we refocused the entire war effort on ending the war on starvation. Make sure nobody in the world goes home hungry. .....
I could go on.
(BTW anyone catch the Star Wars reference?)
The link is of actors acting out a script not a real life.
Laws that control the use of explosives will not stop people getting blown up, but that doesn't mean there should be no laws controlling the use of explosives. Likewise, laws relating to the control of firearms will not stop people getting shot, but that does not mean there should be no laws related to the control of firearms. Laws are not created in the belief they will eliminate a crime. They are created as part of a number of measures to try to reduce crime.
I agree. The fact the gun laws will end violence should be mentioned. And us law biding citizens with a need for high explosives (gophers) are being keep away from our right to them. Reducing crime is a good thing. How many rights are you willing to give up to reduce crime. Say a written test to vote? A permit to use your freedom of speech? Permission to be outside after 2 AM (according to a radio host in Kent nothing good happens after 2 am)? If we place a tracking device in everyone we could reduce crime and missing persons. If everyone would submit a blood sample and fingerprint sample we could also reduce crime. That pesky 4th amendment would be a problem, but like the 2nd if we can justify it by thinking it will make us safer then isn't that what's important.
There is no "right" to own explosives.
Rights have always been limited. Always. It's nothing new. The courts have always agreed that public safety usurps individual rights. In short, the good of the many will always trump the good of the individual.
Rights aren't limitless...and I believe that pretty much everyone agrees that they shouldn't be. The gun control argument is just a matter of where to draw the limits.
It's about getting the balance right. For example I disagree with immigration checkpoints 50 miles from the border subjecting people to forced seizures and searches without a warrant. But that doesn't mean I think there should be no border controls. Likewise, even if you think a complete ban on firearms is wrong, that doesn't mean all controls on firearms is wrong. I do agree there is a threshold though, at which point common sense controls can become authoritarian. My opinion is that in the case of firearms that threshold hasn't been reached yet. I think there are some common sense measures (like making background checks more useful) that can be put in place that might help reduce certain types of firearm related crimes. In other cases though I think things are very close to that threshold. For example at a DUI checkpoint, try telling the police officers they have no authority to stop law abiding citizens without probable cause. Unless the officers are particularly enlightened, I doubt that situation will end well for you. That is authoritarian in my view and is the sort of thing people should be worried about.
Really the blame for all of this should be on the state of mental health care in America, but the President fixed that right??????? Unless it was an act of a terrorist group then that is a different type of crazy.
Romney? who is that?? I kind of remember this rich guy that tried to buy some election but instead had his hat handed to him?? Romney would not of tried to fix it unless there was a company that could profit from it. My problem is that after all the hype true reform was left to the side.
The fact is no politician can cure insanity.
Prayer can't either.
So it comes to finding and institutionalizing the insane in our community on the rare chance that medicine can cure it (Which is unlikely)
So yeah, we're screwed when it comes to do-it-yourself IED's.
In my opinion, the root of the problem is that violence is the result of frustration as a result of the enormous inequity in our society; desperate people do desperate things! And that goes for domestic and international terrorism alike
That's an interesting theory. I don't think a plausible one, but interesting nonetheless. Historically, however, poor people reduced to desperate measures tend to do things that make them money... or at least target organizations that they blame for their own problems. The point is they have predictable targets. Socialist groups tend to be trouble-makers and annoyances... they aren't random terrorists. They are WAY too preachy to not teach "the man" a clear lesson.
But it might be because some college kid can't afford a phablet. I guess crazier things have happened.
There can be many reasons for violence. In the past we did see riots with social causes such as the Watts riot or the riots after the Rodney King trial. Many terrorist groups will use the abject poverty within a country to recruit. The social inequality of the middle east does breed a lot of terrorists. Today we are seeing a more militant side to the social inequality argument from the 99%ers to the nuts up in Cleveland that tried to disrupt commerce by blowing up a bridge. However it could be argued that these people would find any reason to do what they want to do. If not this than because it was Monday or the dog next door told them to do it. True motive is usually not as trendy.
I'd agree with Petra that inequality would be part of the problem...with the exception being terrorists. I think the number one terrorist recruitment agency is the US military. How many civilian's did the US kill during the Iraq War? 120, 000-122,000 I think those are the numbers
MelissaBarret, you stated "Nope... we only blame guns when guns are the cause." Gun are never the CAUSE. Guns are inanimate object that can be used for good or evil, just like a pressure cooker. We blame the drunk driver and not the car or the alcohol. We should blame the killer not the gun.
As to your point about rights being limited. They are limited, to a point, in the Constitution. But, the part of the 2nd Amendment that states "shall NOT ne infringed" does not give the FEDERAL government the ability, short of an amendment to the Constitution, the ability to change the Constitution or it's Amendments. Furthermore, the 10th Amendment place all power and law making in the hands of the people and the States that is not specifically given to the Federal government in it's enumerated powers without a Constitutional amendment.
Unfortunately, the SCOTUS does not agree with you - denying some gun rights is acceptable under the constitution. It may be political, it may ethically based, it may be a lot of things but it is also something we'll have to live with.
The far larger problem is when people decide to ignore reality and believe (based on about as much evidence as a belief in God) that removing guns will save lives. The end result is predictable, and we've already seen quite a few laws being floated about in various efforts to see just how far the people will allow their rights to be denied. To date it's not a large amount, but years worth of such efforts will, one day, inevitably result in laws prohibiting any gun at all. There are too many people, citizens as well as politicians, that would like to extend govt. control over that particular facet of our lives.
Yes, guns don't kill people, people kill people yada yada yada.
It's a cliche and a ridiculous argument. Of course guns kill people. You may like them a lot, but they are still weapons and weapons are made to hurt other living things.
If an individual cannot show that he can act responsibly within his "rights" he does not deserve them. Simple concept that our entire legal system hinges on.
But, regardless... this entire topic is moot because no one used a gun at the Boston incident, so it has absolutely nothing to do with gun rights.
I think what you mean is that guns are used to kill people.
"If an individual cannot show that he can act responsibly within his "rights" he does not deserve them. Simple concept that our entire legal system hinges on" .
We are not given our rights the government is given guidelines on how they can limit them. The guideline for the limitation of rights is you breaking of the law not the breaking of the law by someone else. If your neighbor drives drunk you don’t lose your license they do. So why if a person with mental issues uses a gun you should loose your right to own one.
The point of this topic was how the actual issue behind the shootings was overshadowed by the talk about gun control. A person who will use a gun to shoot-up a school will use a bomb if the gun is not available. A locked door will not stop a criminal. A ban will not stop a criminal.
Guns occasionally kill people all on their own, but I digress. Yes, guns are used to kill people. I don't buy the "finding another way" theory... I think sometimes they would find another way, sometimes they wouldn't, sometimes they would blow themselves up trying... etc. Regardless, the limitation of their access to a gun would be a barrier to them and barriers to killing other people are a good thing. Yes?
Since everyone keeps using the tired drunk driver analogy... I'll run with that. To operate a car you need a license. You must prove to the government that you have the capability to drive a car. You must prove that you have the knowledge of car safety. You must prove to the government that you have no disabilities that would interfere with your ability to operate a car safely. In many states you have to prove that you have no psychological problems that would increase the risk of accidents. You have to have insurance so that anyone you hurt with your automobile is financially compensated....
To get a gun, you gotta go to Walmart... Throw it in the cart beside the beer and the deer corn.
Driving is not a right it is a privilege granted by the government. As of right now owning a gun is a right. although to be fair I could see some of these restrictions being helpful. All rights come with responsibilities.
Granted... neither are explosives
Yet owning a 14 bullet clip isn't a right granted by the government either. Owning a semi-automatic weapon isn't a right granted by the government either.
If we want to be purists about what our founding fathers granted us as "arms" everybody gets a musket.
So, once again where do we draw the line?
Edit: The right to keep firearms is restricted on a regular basis to certain individuals. Those merely accused of the potential of domestic violence get their guns taken. As a matter of fact, restraining orders without a history of violence also require you to turn your guns in. Convicted felons loose their guns... even if it wasn't a violent offence.
Are these "infringements" ok?
Rights are NOT granted by the government. The Constitution is set up to set the parameters for the government to PROTECT our rights. The "musket" argument is moot. The founders set up the 2nd Amendment, not for hunting and not so that it would be a static "stuck on musket" right, but that the people and the States cold effectively fight back against enemies, both from abroad and from within. They are on record, in their own writings, as establishing the fact that WE THE PEOPLE should be able to defend against the federal government if it becomes needed due to tyranny. History is fun and if you do your due diligence you can find out the truth.
I'm fine with guns for protection. I'm fine with guns for hunting.
That doesn't mean buy as many as you want of whatever type you want with no limitations whatsoever.
There need to be boundaries put in place to keep idiots from being given instruments of death.
There are already boundaries, and it hasn't stopped anything!
There are already boundaries. It is already illegal to shoot people. What part, and be specific, of the recently (thankfully) defeated federal gun law would have stopped the Newtown shooting or any of the mass shootings that are being used for political expediency? Give me a specific part of the bill...
Oh, we're talking about the newtown shootings now?
Honestly I don't know that it would have helped and YOU don't know that it wouldn't have.
Edit: What exactly do you have against background checks for gun shows and internet sales?
So, in other words...you can't name any proposed legislation that would have changed the outcome and specifically how. correct? You don't even know what the legislation consisted of do you? and yet you propose to pass it, correct?
Worked for Obamacare didn't it. Isn't it exciting, just anticipating what all will come from that? Now that it has passed, our politicians can read it if they want.
It was for background checks on gun show sales and internet checks.
90 percent of Americans and the NRA supported it.
That is a small part of it...and it is already illegal to sell firearms over the internet and ship them unless you are federally licensed and do a background check. So what would the new law do? read up on it a bit more to see what was really in there. Don't rely on sound bite...do your own homework.
Background check have already stopped many 1000's of people from purchasing firearm and do you know how many of these were prosecuted by this administration? 44...enforcement of existing laws, not new laws that only affect law abiding citizens is what is needed.
As to your driver's license and auto insurance scenario...Each State determines the amount of, or whether their State requires auto insurance. Some States do not. It is because according to the 10th Amendment any powers not specifically granted (enumerated) the federal government or specifically denied the States is to reside with the people and the States. It is supposed to be this way for everything, but the federal government has usurped (and the people have abdicated) this power.
"Of course guns kill people"
I must have the laziest gun ever it wont do anything unless I manipulate its functions.
So let's say you sleep with another guy's wife. He's coming across the parking lot at you. Since guns don't kill people there should be no difference at all in your reaction whether he has a gun or just has his sleeves rolled up.
If there is any difference at all in your reaction, then the "guns are completely blameless" argument is crap.
Nice try, the person operating the gun killed me. The gun wont be prosecuted.
I guess it was a nice try of explaining the difference between gun violence and good old fashioned getting your ass beat.
I knew you wouldn't concede the very obvious point. 2nd amendmenters rarely do.
That's why these conversations are useless.
The gun by itself could not kill him...only a person can kill with the gun.
Your argument is lacking in any form of logic.
No it doesn't lack logic... unless being beat up is the same as being shot in your mind.
The point I'm making, which I doubt you'll acknowledge, is that guns are far more deadly forms of violence than fisticuffs.
Guns make killing someone else easier. So therefore, some of the fault of the death is the gun.
This is why arguing with the "Pry the gun out of my cold dead hand" people doesn't work. They will stubbornly refuse to acknowledge any point. Even when it's valid.
No one is arguing that guns are generally a better way to kill than punches. The point is that guns, on their own, do not kill anyone. And, that making it harder for law abiding citizens to own legally acquired firearms, as per their rights, would do nothing to stop the very crimes that are being used to support the legislation in Washington. Just to "do something" for the sake of doing something is not the answer.
So if we acknowledge that a gun makes killing people easier... then the guns are part of the problem.
You can point to other factors, and I agree there are other factors. Yet you seem unwilling to see any problem at all with it.
That's why these debates are worthless, and why I tend to devalue the opinions of people who ignore valid points because they feel acknowledging these points might mean that their guns get taken away. That's why things never get solved.
So things that make easier killer are part of the problem...lets ban baseball bats, cars, all knives, water (drowning someone is fairly easy)...
Wow... more cliche and predictable arguments with no substance.
Heart attacks cause death, so we shouldn't treat cancer. That's essentially your argument. Good luck with that.
I think your only calling it a cliche and predicatable because you can't argue against it. As one of the posters on here claimed "they are disappointed with their gun, it just sit's there...it doesn't go around killing people by itself." Yet people die from those things I stated...why not ban them?
I think your line of thought is that people are too irresponsible to own guns, so they should be banned...same line of thought about soda sizes in New York.
And your example of Heart attacks and cancer is retarded. You can leave a gun alone and it won't do any damage to anything...a heart attack or cancer is another matter however.
Plus some people need killing....there are cases throughout history where guns where taken away from the populations and it lead to a form of genocide...and a gun would of been very helpful to kill the bad guys.
I'm calling it cliche and predictable because I've heard the same argument about five thousand times. It's is irrelevant as I'm not discussing baseball bat violence.
You're quoting propaganda posters at me and at the same time telling me you aren't using cliches and rhetoric.
In addition, it's obvious that you are knee-jerk reacting and not reading a thing I write anyway... so yeah the only thing you could be throwing at me is programmed responses.
And no, some people DON'T need killing. Did you really think that statement would make anyone feel any better about arming you?
So you've heard the same argument a thousand times and yet you've never come up with a single solid argument to combat it? While we aren't talking about baseball bats we are talking about a weapon...something that makes it easier for one person to kill another. I'd think a baseball bat could be put under the same category of "Easier to kill with"
I did read one thing of your that I found to be interesting...let me quote it...
"Oh, we're talking about the newtown shootings now?
Honestly I don't know that it would have helped and YOU don't know that it wouldn't have."
The above quote was in response to a poster talking about the recently shot down bill of background checks....now she claims she didn't know if it would of helped....but Lanza only mental illness was aspergers (high functioning austism which is not characterized as a violent illness...aspergers are actually usually classified as usually be victims not victimizers)...that bill wouldn't have done a single thing to save any of those unfortunates.
And finally Melissa...;-) some people don't need killing huh? ;-)
In 1938 a government banned owning of guns from a certain sect of people...shortly thereafter that government killed around 6 million of those types of people...I'm sure they took away the guns for a certain reason...I'm sure those government types needed killing...our government agreed. WW2
1. Lanza likely didn't have Asperger's. There was no medical diagnosis ever made. Violent behavior is not a symptom of aspergers.
2. We don't know whether his crazy mother would have passed more stringent background checks and her crazy anti-social son would have been denied access to guns.
3. You can kill whole government types? You really shouldn't have a gun then.
4. To answer your next post, I enjoy debating with wilderness too... and we largely see eye to eye on the gun debate. Have fun figuring that out... since you seem to think you are having a valid argument with someone who largely has the same viewpoint as someone you think is right.
5. I'm not trying to argue... I'm trying to have a rational conversation. You are getting in the way of that.
And finally, the guns killing people on their own statement I made was an offhanded comment. If you've ever had a gun safety class you know that it is indeed possible for a gun to fire all on it's own. It wasn't a statement that was relevant to the conversation, however, which is why it was followed by the "I digress" part.
1. No medical condition diagnosed? Sounds like he would of passed a background check.
2. Now you get "crazy" mother part from where exactly? Sounds like you might be making something up...unless you have a link ;-) Do research next time before making stuff up.
3. Yeah...the government types that were killed were actually a political party called the "Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei " which translates somewhat to "Social Democratic Party of Germany" or more commonly known as the Nazi's. As I wrote that government type needed killing, our government agreed and World War 2 happened. BTW, over one million Jewish children were killed in the Holocaust, as were approximately two million Jewish women and three million Jewish men
4. I'm not saying I agree with Wilderness or Josak...lol I commonly don't. But they are good arguer usually. WIlderness doesn't have the imagination that Josak does but he's a better arguer. Josak would be much better if he put aside a few preconceived notions and personal biases....or at least in my opinion.
5. Your contradicting yourself if you think your having a conversation not an argument.
"Wow... more cliche and predictable arguments with no substance.
Heart attacks cause death, so we shouldn't treat cancer. That's essentially your argument. Good luck with that."-Melissa.
Wow you used the word argument twice.
1. That's why I said psych checks should be included in background checks.
2. Crazy is used as a relative term here... As in "If you have an obviously disturbed child, you would be crazy to keep a gun in your house"
3. Thank you for the history lesson. I've got a bit of an inside source on Nazi's in Germany. That inside source would have preferred they be brought to justice rather than killed. Hitler could have been stopped just as easily in a jail cell than with a bullet. Regardless, military operations aren't the same thing as personal gun ownership and military decisions aren't the same as you personally choosing whether someone lives or dies.
4. I am a good debater... if you are giving me a debate. You weren't. You were accusing me of saying things I didn't say and arguing your own assumptions.
5. Nope, no contradiction. I'm saying that YOU are arguing. Regardless, there's a difference between using an argument and arguing.
Why stop there?
Why not simply ban people?
Most effective way to reduce killing.
No discrimination between law abiding and non-law abiding citizens.
1. Good to hear that you can admit that the new background checks wouldn't of prevented the shooting. We can now move past the idea of that background check would of saved any lives (in that certain case). It only shows some light on the Newton families being used a political props.
2. I read one of your articles (or scanned it really) about TBI. You had a family member who has a traumatic Brain Injury...I work in the medical field, I can honestly say some of the craziest patients I've ever met were TBI. I don't think you should be able to own a gun because you have a family member with TBI.
3. Is your insider source a Nazi family member? Because i also have an insider source...a few of them actually family who were German's and they tried sneaking Jew's out of Germany, and I knew some holocaust survivors (Jewish ones). They would definitely disagree with you on some people need killing.
Lets take a newer example. Would 9/11 survivors rather have Osama rotting in jail or 6 feet under?
4. That's what quoting is for dear. You might claim you didn't say that but the nice thing about a forum board is you can't erase what you already wrote ;-)
5. Technically if I say another word on arguing would that at least make it that we are arguing about arguing?
1. I said right from the beginning that I didn't know they would. If you would have read you would have known that. I never used the newton families as props and would have considered the very reasonable and majority supported bill a good idea regardless. Why do you keep bringing Newton up if I'm not. And why keep arguing a point I conceded? Could it be because you seem to be so foreign to the idea of admitting when someone has a point?
2. Yeah, you must have scanned it because she's not a family member. I wouldn't own a gun if you gave me one regardless of whether a friend had a TBI or not. I love my kids too much to have such a dangerous thing in my house. However it is more evidence that you really aren't reading anything.
3. My source is a German woman who married a soldier at the end of WWII. Your friends must be more blood-thirsty than her.
4. Quote away. I said exactly what I said I said. Still not reading?
5. Yes now we are arguing because you aren't saying anything useful or pertinent and I'm responding anyway. Good job. I'll go ahead and ignore you unless you say something even remotely relevant to anything I've said. HAGD.
1. Yes you did claim something to the effect. Mitch first brought up Newton and other mass shootings being used by the government for an anti-gun agenda.
"Honestly I don't know that it would have helped and YOU don't know that it wouldn't have." Melissa Barret
Actually he did know, and well the rest of the people who actually read articles and comprehend them know that background checks wouldn't of stopped anyone of the shooters from going on their spree...that was the point of Mitch's post...guess it went over you head.
2. I'm reading these posts but apparent your not even reading what your writing...let me quote from your article on TBI.
"This article is both inspired by and dedicated to Stacey May Lemasters, a woman that I am proud to call both a member of my family and a friend."
And yet in your last post you claim she isn't a family member. So she's a family member when it suits you and she isn't when she doesn't. Lol
3. German woman married a soldier...her name wouldn't of been Eva Braun would it? She married a german soldier. ;-)
4. Denial is an ugly thing...as I mentioned in 2. Try reading what your write. ...for your article that woman is a family member and for your forum posts she isn't. lol lol
AGAIN...how is limiting the rights of law abiding citizens going to stop criminals who by their very nature do not obey the laws???
Sorry, I still don't understand how background checks limit rights to law abiding citizens.
You want to explain that one? I'm still waiting on the explanation of all the stuff I didn't know about that legislation that was "thankfully" not passed.
You also asked how I'd change it and I posted a long list of ideas... Nothing in there limits rights of law abiding citizens either.
Rhetoric and cliches are nice hon... but if there is nothing behind them and you can't have a conversation beyond them... then why on earth should I see your opinions as anything but regurgitated NRA drivel?
Do some homework and read what the bill contained. Stop relying on soundbites. Actually familiarize yourself with a topic before you speak (write) on it. You are defending a bill that you do not understand. It's not simply a background check bill.
Do you agree we should have background checks, mental health checks and limitations on who can vote?
I actually read the entire thing. What exactly is it you have a problem with? Specifically, what section?
Here's the link btw... So you can reference it in your answer: http://www.toomey.senate.gov/?p=press_r … amp;id=968
Voting and owning a gun aren't the same thing.
Mitch, laws controlling the use of explosives do not (and cannot) stop people getting blown up. Does that mean there should be no laws controlling the use of explosives?
We are discussing the 2nd Amendment, correct? The is about arms. And, they have been well defined since the Amendment was written and before. They did not include cannons etc.
Furthermore it is illegal to shoot people, stab people, blow people up, run them over with a car etc...
I never said that there should be no laws concerning firearms.
1. Can not be any FEDERAL infringement of the Right without a Constitutional Amendment.
2. State laws can and are Constitutional, to a point.
3. Making it harder for law abiding citizens to purchase firearms will not stop gun violence.
"1. Can not be any FEDERAL infringement of the Right without a Constitutional Amendment."
Lots of people, including gun owners, don't consider the tightening of background checks an infringement of their 2nd amendment rights. For those who think it is, they are free to challenge Federal law in court. If SCOTUS determines the law unconstitutional, it will be struck down. If not, it will be upheld.
"3. Making it harder for law abiding citizens to purchase firearms will not stop gun violence"
Judging the value of gun control legislation on that basis is a double standard. We do not determine the value of other criminal laws on the basis of whether they eliminate a crime. If that were the case there would be no laws against homicide, rape or theft. None of those laws eliminate the respective crimes. Enforcing them only stops specific instances of those crimes. We know laws must be part of a range of measures a society puts in place to try to reduce crime. So the value of a homicide law is not based on whether it alone can eliminate homicide. We know it can't. It is based on the value we place on life, and reflects the importance we place on trying to protect life with a range of different measures. The value of gun control legislation should be judged by the same measure.
No actually I started this to talk about how events shape the national debate and how reasons for such events are hijacked for party agendas on both sides.
You did not make a very obvious point, my fear wouldn't be of the gun but the man wielding it.
Would you fear him more with a gun or without?
If you fear him more with a gun, then that is an admission of partial responsibility of the gun.
If you don't fear someone who is angry with you and has a gun more than someone that is angry with you and doesn't have a gun, it's not MY logic that's faulty.
It is the person, not the gun. If there is a policeman, or someone I know is not nuts, who is mad at me and he happens to be carrying, I am not concerned. If I don't know if they are nuts or not, of course I would be more nervous if they had a gun...or knife...or hammer...or bat...or pickle fork, etc. It is all about the person with the gun and their mental status. Just because someone is carrying and angry, does not make them a threat.
No, there is no RESPONSIBILTY to the gun at all. The responsibility is 100% on the one using the gun. The fact that the gun makes the job easier does not in any way shift the responsibility. You need to think through your answers better and apply some reasoned logic to them.
I am using logic. No gun, no shooting. Seems pretty logical to me.
Where is the fault in that again?
How do propose to keep the guns out of criminal hands, who by definition do not follow the law, and without going against the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment's "shall not be infringed"?
Well, background checks at gun shows would help.
To be honest, I would like to see mental health evaluations prior to gun purchases. I would also like to see gun manufacturers be criminally responsible for deaths caused by their guns that WEREN'T in the hands of law abiding citizens. I would like gun owners to be criminally responsible if guns in their possession "fall" into the hands of people who use them for crimes. I would like parents to be criminally responsible for gun death caused by their children.
I would like mandatory gun safety classes for licencing... and I would like reasonable restrictions on what types of guns can even be sold to the public. I am all for clip limits. I would like the last legal owner of a firearm to be responsible for what that fire arm did.
So if guns are responsible for kililng people I guess you should blame sugar/McDonalds for making people fat and not overeating and a lack of exercise.
Still deciding not to take responsibility for your own actions huh? So I guess McDonalds is to blame for making people fat, not bad choices.
You do realize some many people in the United States own AK-47's without going on shooting sprees...just like people can eat at McDonalds and remain fit.
Most people are responsible enough to own a gun without wanting to blow everyone away in a theater or go on a rampage at a school. If you take away that gun there are still going to be those out there that will go on a rampage with a baseball bat, car, knife, etc...
Just like limiting soda sizes won't cause people to stop being fat.
And I'll continue to use the same rhetoric until you actually address it instead of just claiming cliche's and rhetoric's and living in your fairy tale world.
And if I was you I'd be angry at McDonalds.
Ok... Why do you keep saying I want to ban guns?
Oh, because you're not reading what I was saying in the first place and are just throwing out the standard argument.
So why on earth would I want to do anything but make snarky remarks at you?
So yeah... you have no points because what you are saying is irrelevant to anything I've said.
Continue posting and I'll continue making snarky remarks. And in my mind, I'll consider any opinions you have as worthless because you aren't trying to actually engage in meaningful debate.
You aren't helping your cause any... and your actions are representative of why no progress is being made and why your gun ownership is threatened.
"You aren't helping your cause any... and your actions are representative of why no progress is being made and why your gun ownership is threatened."
lol, this is an internet forum board...I hardly anything anything said here will change the hearts or minds of anyone with the power to change laws.
And I'm arguing with a person who claimed "Guns occasionally kill people all on their own,"...lol your evening entertainment nothing more. And your not even a good arguer....you lack facts and like to use your own rhetoric's to makeup for you lack of imagination..
.I was kind of hoping I could get Josak or maybe Wilderness to join in on the discussion (for or against)...they are pretty good arguers (usually) and at the very least they have an imagination. ;-) Wilderness is a much better arguer though.
I would fear him more with a baseball bat than with nothing as well...should we ban those as well? You do know that more people are killed each year with baseball bats than with rifles, right?
I'm not talking about baseball bat violence.
I'm discussing gun violence. If you would like to discuss baseball bat violence please make a separate thread.
And once again, I never said to ban guns... why does everyone keep saying I did?
And finally, please explain again how a background check infringes on your second amendment rights? Don't bring up unrelated scenarios like voting and baseball bats... How, specifically, does a background check infringe your second amendment rights?
It infringes because the text does not say 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. Except for background checks.
So you disagree with the laws forbidding felons to have firearms?
The Constitution does address the loss of rights due to certain circumstances such as felonies. Secondly, States can enact laws that restrict carry laws etc. The question is where in the Constitution, the only place the federal government is supposed to derive their power, does it give the federal government the right to do so? It doesn't and in fact it specifically denies it that power in the 2nd Amendment and the 10th as well.
Let's look at this from another angle. How many people fired an AR15 at these guys? Those that believe they can protect themselves from an enemy or our government by owning firearms are blowing smoke up their own behinds. My point is guns don't protect us from terrorism.
Guns don't kill, but people firing guns do and mentally unstable people usually do mass killings. The idea that background checks inconvenience innocent gun buyers and the criminals are going to do the killings anyway is pure B.S.
The TSA makes it inconvenient for innocent passengers to board an airplane. Why don't we use the same logic on that scenario? Why have the TSA, the terrorists are going to blow up an airplane anyway? The reason is the TSA is putting out a net that can prevent the bad guys from boarding the airplane. The same goes for background checks. We inconvenience many to prevent a few mentally unstable people from committing mass killings.
Right now there are HIPPA laws (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) that was passed by Congress in 1996. Those laws provide confidentiality of information during business transactions, including mentally unstable people. Why don't they pass laws that allow that information to be obtained by guns sellers? It would at least create net to prevent the mentally unstable from getting those weapons. But no gun people don't want that because it's an inconvenience.
This is what I really don't get about the gun debate. If people kill people and not guns, why are so many reluctant to ensure that the people with guns are responsible enough to have them?
"Will the events in Boston change the tone of debate in America? "
The answers to this thread show that nothing will change. Everyone will still hold tight to their own beliefs without even giving them any extra thought.
There is no reason to give gun control any extra thought due to the Boston incident... as guns weren't used. It would be like reevaluating my views on birth control because of the Boston bombings...
It appears the events in Boston will not change the tone of he debate one iota.
It will further entrench the "sides" on their positions on gun control.
And also immigration.
Either coincidentally bad timing of his bombing or deliberately bad timing.
Another "Patriots' Day" act of violence. Like the Oklahoma City bombings.
And how ironic the 19-year-old became a US citizen on September 11, 2012.
You know the problem is always been the human being but for whatever reason we don't want to talk about that. We'd much rather find a scapegoat such as mental illness, they were upset and single out these people as if they are the only ones responsible for thousands if not millions of deaths in America and around the world. Focusing on the instruments that some of these people use in order to kill is an attempt to cut down on some of these murders, if a pyromaniac is loose in society one doesn't say let's give out free matches. We have to do more than say oh well there is nothing we can do about that.
by Leland Johnson16 minutes ago
The federal government could declare a state of emergency and post at least 2 well trained, armed personnel, either police or military, within our public schools. Gunmen attack soft targets. They like to...
by flacoinohio5 years ago
Do you believe modifying the Second Amendment is going to prevent mass acts of violence?This questions is for all of those situational or sunny day anti-gun advocates. Pro-gun advocates spend a lot of time and...
by Jo_Goldsmith114 years ago
Are we growing quiet to what happened 112 days ago? The local media believes we have become lost in the current news. Washington seems to be gearing up for another election cycle and trying to bring into...
by Mr. Happy5 years ago
A question for people who are against gun control: does the fact that 'the founding fathers" wrotethat the 2nd amendment shall not be infringed lead them to believe that gun laws will never change? With this kind...
by leeberttea7 years ago
... to carry regardless of state or local laws?I think the Supreme Court will rule today that Americans, all Americans have the constitutional right to carry guns and states and cities can not limit that right! This is...
by Josh Ratzburg19 months ago
What are your thoughts on gun control?With the recent mass shooting in Oregon, it makes me think that there needs to be better gun control laws. "But criminals are still going to break laws and get guns, so you're...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.