Of course there is NO gun crisis in America , there is however a political crisis ! There is of course a reality crisis , there is a perception crisis , Every time the supreme court has addressed the questions of the second amendment by Nay- sayers , they have ruled in the favor of the amendment . Of the people's rights to bear arms . The revisionist's of the constitution need to GET OVER THEMSELVES ! They cannot do that ! You can't have your way with the constitution except by using it as a guide to legal precedent .
I have a suggestion for those who dream of changing the constitution , go invent your own country , somewhere else please .
Well said. That the Second Amendment protects our Creator granted right to keep and bear arms is now established law, and the arguments against it are moot.
Again, 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 and there's also very little chance that Congress will attempt any new restrictions. If our lawless president tries a tyrannical approach, that too will fail, and spectacularly.
"If one life is saved, the effort will be worthwhile."
Then I suppose you would support a 5 mile per hour speed limit and rubber cars? After all, far more children die in car accidents, so if it will save one life, it would be worth it.
If everyone checked the top twenty or so reasons and causes of death in America , one would think they would run to a doctor to have a heart check up , or a cancer screening or a cholesterol check , maybe even a colonoscopy , or stay off ladders where you might fall .........instead we have one more chronic attack of the vocal chords . Gun deaths come in somewhere after the top twenty five reasons , realistically higher than that .
In 2013 (the latest available stats) 30,208 people died from accidental falls. That same year, 505 people died from gun accidents. Americans are 60 times more likely to die from falling.
2 out of 3 gun deaths are suicides. Of the remaining 11,000 (+/-), 70 percent are drug gangs killing each other, some are legal intervention deaths and some are police officers.
If you are none of the above, the odds are 99.999990625% that you will not be shot.
There is no gun crisis. There is a suicide crisis and there is a gang crime crisis, and those are what we should be addressing.
Hi Will , sometimes I wonder how a people can be so delusional as to believe half the crap that is thrown out there day by day , I believe that even as intelligent as American youth is supposed to be ; they need to dig deeper . dig harder and begin to think , think , think .
I see the "Gun Nuts" are still trying desperately to DISTRACT from the REAL GUN issue ~ I think someone needs to EXPLAIN the Difference between an "Accidental Fall" and "Gun Accidents / Violence" ~ Will Starr and others seem to be ignorant of this divergence ~ An "Obsession" with trying to justify the unlawful "Militerizing" of private citizens ~
In addition, if Sand Hook was the ONLY Gun Violence Catastrophe in recent history, which it is certainy NOT, it would still equate to a "Gun Violence Crisis" ~
So here is my proposal . Anyone using free speech must do the following .:
1- Obtain a permit to carry free speech .
2-Take classes for the sole purpose of knowing how to use free speech responsibly and safely .
3 - Obtain a permit to actually voice an opinion
4- Go through a background check to make sure you do speak with true knowledge of that which you do say
5 - Keep all opinions in a locked case so that when staying silent the opinion cannot be used by someone else
6- Pay a fee for the use and abuse of the first amendment
7- When a violation of the first amendment is perpetrated , maximum sentencing must be enforced
False equivalency- What is the danger to the life and limb of others when a criminal chooses to speak? What are the dangers to the life and limb of others when criminals obtaining access to a gun?
Tell me, are they the same, really?
People take lessons to learn how to drive. Expecting a gun safety course for each person carrying a gun is not much different.
There has to be a starting point. Do not visit my house with a gun, I will have you arrested. However, in my state if I conduct a business from my home, I cannot deny you service if you have a gun.
Set standards for the guns made for the consumers. You want to protect your family. Install double bolt locks and retain a security system. Buy a dog that barks at strangers--it will have to have shots and be registered with the state.
Call all my ideas naive, or even stupid if you wish. Gun control is possible when we realize that guns are tools that careless people use.
Maybe you have been shooting all your life and never hurt anyone. If so, what is the big deal in taking a gun safety test?
Maybe you are a person buying your first gun. You should be required to file an application, take a safety course and spend some time on the practice range to see how it feels to hold a gun in your hand and more importantly, how well you can use it. My target, no pun intended, is handguns. However, attention needs to be given to users of rifles and shotguns.
The spoken word can be a brutal as the unintended gunshot. Neither can be taken back. However, you can recover from a spoken word. You may not recover from the gunshot.
Finally, the the First Amendment grants the Freedom of the Press. I was a reporter. I could not make up stories or use the names of people who were not involved in an incident. There are laws to prevent that. The freedom of speech does not give you the right to yell fire in a crowded area, if there is no fire. Virtually all the amendments to the constitution have corresponding laws to allow for a sensible interpretation.Why should the Second Amendment be protected from reasonable regulations and laws that protect the right to bear arms, provided you know what you are doing..
For the most part, Larry, you are preaching to the choir, here. I support your position.
i know that irresponsible talk, creating hysteria or libel can and does cause harm, but there is no body count that comes with that. I have been saying that the heart of the righhtwing obsession with firearm ownership is their belief that they should be as accessible as chewing gun and that steps needed to protect the public from unauthorized purchase and possession by the criminal element are excessive and is reflective of an overbearing government.
Is that Jeb Clampett or perhaps Daniel Boone? This is the 21st century we live in a higher interwoven technical society of over 300 millions, 19th century ideals and thinking have no place.
I could go along with safety training for all gun owners. It won't do anything to affect the homicide rate - criminals out to kill won't take one and if they did it would just make them a better marksman - but with the nanny state we're developing it fits in pretty well with the idea that politicians know what is best for you. Uncle Sam will protect you from yourself at all costs. Unlike a car, a safety course for gun owners won't even help the accidental death rate where someone outside the owner is killed - those numbers are so small that there isn't much more that can be done there.
But is that it? Is that the only regulation on gun purchase you would make? Or once that is done will there be another hurdle, then another and another?
Larry, it absolutely amazes me how Wildernesses side is so myopic about who kills whom in pretending that ONLY criminals kill others. Why do they do this? Because their arguments fall flat on their face if all of the other perpetrators of death by gun are considered.
Of 247,131 gun deaths in last 8 years, 1,941 were Undetermined, 5,179 were accidental, 98,771 were homicides, and 141,244 were suicides.
While it is "probable" that homicides would be reduced if all states had the same laws of Massachusetts (meaning no NEW laws, just implementation ACROSS THE BOARD of the ones that work), but it is a certainty that the number of suicides (mental illness type) would decrease, as would, in all likelihood accidental deaths because less careless, irresponsible, and/or stupid people will have access to guns.
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/12 … ns-newtown
Thought it was NC laws you were enamored with. Or are they now too lenient?
Is it your stance then that millions of people should be denied their right to own guns because a few of them will shoot themselves? I'm just not sure at all that that is a place we should be going.
Wilderness you asked, "Is it your stance then that millions of people should be denied their right to own guns because a few of them will shoot themselves? I'm just not sure at all that is a place we should be going."
I have not proposed, suggested or endorsed a ban on people owning weapons. People are going to die, despite our best efforts. A husband owns a gun. He is good on, he practiced range, took a safety course, and has a permit. But there is more to the story. His son, a teenager, takies the latest drug (that won't hurt anybody,) has a bad reaction, picks up Dad's gun (because a gun safe was not mandated) and kills himself. We can reduce those instances in time, but not eliminate them.
I am not seeking a ban on guns. I am seeking reasonable regulations on guns. I hope to get the illegal guns off the street. If you do not have a permit to carry a weapon and are caught with one, it should be seized and destroyed. Gun sales should be similar to car sales. You need to prove you are a licensed driver; you have to have liability insurance; you go over the car with the salesman so you know the gas tank is on the left and not the right. Cars that do not meet emission standards can not be sold in the U.S. Why can't we have standards dictating how many bullets a gun will be allowed to hold and the type of bullets.
I had an uncle. He lived with us. He was a city cop. He carried a gun. It was a .38 caliber (long time ago). I never touched it. I never took it out of the holster are let my friends in his room. My uncle walked a beat. He had the authority to carry and use a gun. He carried one when he was off duty. He never shot anyone. His presence probably prevented others from being harmed. That is not an outrageous goal.
"I am seeking reasonable regulations on guns. I hope to get the illegal guns off the street."
And what "reasonable regulations" will stop a criminal from buying or stealing a gun? There are many laws out there already, addressing just this matter - criminals may not own guns - and they don't work. What new law will do the job?
You don't want to ban guns, just ban some people from having a gun. Fine, but how do you do that without banning all guns? Having a license won't do it, having insurance won't do it (and why have gun insurance at all?), and restricting how many bullets it will hold won't do it. So how will you ban select people from having a gun?
And how will your "reasonable regulations" stop the suicide of someone wanting to die? What new law will stop/reduce that, without banning guns?
I have never proposed banning guns. I have recommended regulating guns, i.e. types of guns that are considered to suitable for self-defense and hunting. I think every gun owner should take a safety course every two years. I am a driver, with poor eyesight. It has to be checked. Do we want blind people using guns?
There is no ultimate solution that will end all unnecessary deaths. However, we can reduce that number through limiting the types of guns that are sold, requiring safety training, setting limits for people with poor eyesight, illnesses that affect judgment and those carrying a gun without a proper permit.
Will these recommendations or suggestions achieve total gun safety--no. Can they reduce the number of needless deaths and injuries, yes?
As a reasonable minded gun owner and a law abiding one , There are certain NEW restrictions that I could possibly endorse .
1- Acquisition of type III federal firearms permits have been too lax . Certain dealers can acquire a full auto- permit for sales or training purposes . Change that .
2- Could I reasonably forgo magazines holding over ten rounds , yes .
3- Permits for concealed or open carry for all who wish them , yes .[already in place }
4- Mandatory locking gun safes in all homes .
5- No loop holes - In state gun sales from citizen to citizen , or family member to family member could easily require a background check .
6- There are no such thing that I've ever seen as " gun show loop holes" , all gun sales at shows I've attended [dozens ] have a federally required background check.
7- No minors should be allowed to be alone with a gun without an adult .
The law abiding gun owner sees no loop holes , he attempts no illegal gun purchases , so where do we further restrict law abiding owners ?
That sounds pretty reasonable to me, I did not see any of this before,...
Actually those are all on the GunSense bucket list, so why is ahorseback arguing with us, Credence?
I do have this observation: What ahorseback observes in his state regarding gun shows isn't necessarily true in many other states. Yes, it is true that any licensed dealer selling at a gun show must get a background check (I think that is a federal law), but there is no federal requirement for unlicensed individuals selling or giving guns out of the back of their truck to get a background check. Some states close that loophole with state laws, but those are few and far between.
Really, the only thing I would add to ahorseback's list is "limited" strict liability. I say "limited" because if the owner does all the right things, mainly consistently using the gun safe to store weapons not being used, then they should bear no liability if it is stolen and used in a crime. Otherwise, if they carelessly lose possession, then they bear some of the liability if that gun is misused by others.
Also, in states like Massachusetts and Connecticut, almost all those things are state law, but in probably 80% of the states, such laws do not exist. That is why our side is pushing for some of those on his list to be federal laws, primarily #1, 2#, and 5#.
Hope springs eternal...
I am glad that I found that conservative thinking can accomodate some provisions in the direction of responsible firearm purchase and possession, without making it sound that any attempt at moderation is instead a 'run for all of the guns'.
But there are other consevatives that see even this as an imposition with a preference to be able to go out and buy a firearm without expectation of accountability for it at some stage of the process. Asking for that accountability is not the same as taking your gun.
Wilderness and I have spoken about my problem with zero-sum reasoning in regards to this issue and that I have seen very few occasions where some sort of deterrent barrier is less effective than doing nothing about a problem.
There was a great deal to learn in the dialogue from all sides, thanks...
Now if this is possible ! Perhaps we who tend towards liberal and all inclusive thought could possibly allow that there is a problem with the enforcement , prosecution , and punishment and incarceration of criminals who break the law constantly as a career choice ! Career criminals need to be dealt with in other ways than a slap from the collective wrists of liberal idealists who have a love affair with a utopian vision of unreality based Pseudo socialist dream worlds !
When ahorseback said "Career criminals need to be dealt with in other ways than a slap from the collective wrists of liberal idealists who have a love affair with a utopian vision of unreality based ", I wonder if he knew that liberals, who he says is primarily responsible for criminal justice, have:
1. Over approximately the last 20 years, property crime has fallen 43%, violent crime by 47%, and murder by 50%
2. Around 1980, about 300 people per million are in some form of incarceration, while in 2008, it was 1000 people per million
How do those 2 statistics square with liberals being "soft on crime"; it doesn't look like it to me.
"Wilderness and I have spoken about my problem with zero-sum reasoning in regards to this issue and that I have seen very few occasions where some sort of deterrent barrier is less effective than doing nothing about a problem."
Not that I recall, although I do remember you saying something about it. What you did NOT show is that every type of deterrent barrier is more effective than doing nothing, but that is exactly what you are insinuating. Anything and everything to deter purchase of guns should be done because it might help. And, as only gun owners are footing any and all of the bill, it doesn't matter how high that bill is - if it gets high enough it will just be another deterrent. Another method of reducing gun ownership, in other words.
Wilderness, when you say that Credence, and by extension our side of the debate, think that "Anything and everything to deter purchase of guns should be done because it might help.", you do you know that is not a true statement, don't you?
You took something our side believes is essential to save many lives, e.g., "Sensible pro-life, gun control measures to deter purchase of guns should be done because it might help." into the hyperbolic, untrue, statement "Anything and everything ..."
Why do you do that?
"I have seen very few occasions where some sort of deterrent barrier is less effective than doing nothing about a problem." (From Credence)
Is that not a paraphrase of "Anything and everything to deter purchase of guns should be done because it might help." Is not a "deterrent barrier" one which deters purchase of guns? How else should it be read?
Perhaps I do it because it is true. You yourself have made it apparent that continued efforts to deter purchase of guns, to reduce gun ownership, is worthwhile and advantageous while at the same time saying (in your hub and in these forums) that reducing gun ownership will not reduce the death toll as there is no correlation between gun ownership rates and homicide rates. It might (might) reduce the suicide rate and would probably reduce accidental death rates somewhat, but those are different topics and neither you nor anyone else seems to wish to discuss if we should limit 2A rights of millions to possibly prevent a handful of people from killing themselves).
Neither you nor Credence nor anyone else wants to actually project what registration, for example, or background checks will do outside of keeping a handful of innocent people from buying guns. The automatic assumption, that all know is false, is that checks will prevent criminals from getting a gun yet you continue to throw hurdles in front of gun buyers, while crying out that you don't want to reduce gun ownership. Just reduce gun ownership via innocent and wonderful sounding but worthless hurdles!
What other conclusion should I come to, then? Should I believe your words that you wouldn't do that even as you propose more hurdles? Hurdles that you state will not save lives?
(CAPS are for emphasis, not yelling)
The conclusion you can come to is to understand the words used and the context they are used in.
For example, I have said MANY times, so have Credence and others, said things like "I want to prevent (or deter, reduce) those who should not have guns, e.g, criminals, the mentally impaired (most suicides fit here), wife-beaters, the untrained in gun use, the habitually irresponsible, the immature, and the habitually careless from having easy access to guns". If you DISAGREE with that statement, then that means YOU DO NOT MIND criminals, the mentally impaired (most suicides fit here), wife-beaters, the untrained in gun use, the habitually irresponsible, the immature, and the habitually careless In other words, in order for you to have absolutely UNIMPEDED ACCESS to purchase guns, you will all those groups of people to buy, carry, and conceal firearms.
You only have two choices from the above; 1) you either agree with the intent of what My Esoteric, et al says about who should not have firearms or 2) you do not agree; there is no third choice (and please don't equivocate by saying you agree with "criminals, the mentally impaired (most suicides fit here), wife-beaters, the untrained in gun use, the habitually irresponsible, and the immature from having guns but for habitually careless people (or one of the others in the list), it is OK. So long as you agree with at least one of those categories, then you have agree with us.)
NOWHERE in the above is there a suggestion or implication that you, Wilderness, should not have a gun is there (so long as you don't fit one of the groups I listed)? NOWHERE in the above a suggestion that ANYTHING and EVERYTHING most be done to (by implication) STOP EVERYBODY from owning a firearm. If there are, please submit the offending word or phrase for discussion of grammar.
You suggest that "I have seen very few occasions where some sort of deterrent barrier is less effective than doing nothing about a problem." (From Credence) implies he is implying that one MUST use ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING to do something about a problem. That idea is NOT contained in the structure of his sentence. A proper paraphrase would be ("If there is a problem (the mentally unstable having unimpeded access to guns, for example) then doing SOMETHING (not anything and everything) is better than doing nothing"; it is nothing more than that.
Let me correct you yet again. You said I said
"You yourself have made it apparent that continued efforts to deter purchase of guns, to reduce gun ownership, is worthwhile and advantageous while at the same time saying (in your hub and in these forums) that reducing gun ownership will not reduce the death toll as there is no correlation between gun ownership rates and homicide rates." (I really wish you would just cut and paste what I REALLY said rather than misrepresent what I assert}
This Is True - "continued efforts to deter purchase of guns, to reduce gun ownership, is worthwhile and advantageous"
This is NOT True - "while at the same time saying (in your hub and in these forums) that reducing gun ownership will not reduce the death toll as there is no correlation between gun ownership rates and homicide rates."
What is not true about your representation of my work?
* It is NOT true that I found " that reducing gun ownership will not reduce the death toll ... "
* The Truth Is that I found " that reducing gun ownership will reduce the death toll "; you added the untrue word "not"
* It is NOT true that I found " ... as there is no correlation between gun ownership rates and homicide rates"
* The Truth Is that I found that "... as there is an almost statistically significant positive correlation between gun ownership rates and homicide rates." That is a far cry from saying there is NO correlation.
= Specifically, I use an Adjusted R-Squared cut-off value of 0.7 or 70%, which is a standard rule of thumb.
== If the result is above that number, then you can say with some level of confidence that the dependent variable (Homicides) and the independent variables (gun ownership rate and 4 more) are correlated.
== If the result is less than 70%, then one cannot be as certain there is such a relationship. But, the closer the Adj R-squared is to 0.7, the more probable it is.
== In either case, if the number is positive, then what correlation does exist is such that if the independent variable increases (higher rates of gun ownership) then so does the dependent variable (homicides)
=== In my study, the Adj R-squared for Homicide vs a set of five variables, one of which is rate of gun ownership was 0.64 or 64% (0% means no correlation, btw)
=== In my study, the Adj R-squared for Death vs a set of five variables, one of which is rate of gun ownership was 0.75 or 75%
In both cases, there IS a positive correlation and in the case of Death, I can say with confidence there is such a correlation.
Sorry about the lesson in statistics, but it is critical you don't misunderstand or misrepresent what I have said about such relationships.
Yes, there is a third choice. That of it being advantageous (at least for some of the categories), but not possible with any of the programs designed to impede general access to weapons. The conclusion therefore is that it is to do just that: impede general access to weapons while knowing it will do nothing to reduce ownership by any of the desired categories.
So, rather than demonizing the people that recognize it for what it is, you might consider demonizing the people that wish to remove all guns from society (see how easy it is to exaggerate and lie?). Some of us do actually think and reason about your plans for additional hurdles to gun purchases.
You want to keep guns from criminals: put a battalion of cops into inner cities and patrol with search dogs. You'll get most of them, you will accomplish far more than throwing barriers to gun ownership by honest people and the cost will be lower than even the background checks you want, let alone the rest of it. IF that's the goal, anyway - if it is to merely reduce gun ownership it's a lot easier to go after honest people than the criminals.
Sorry, but a statistically insignificant correlation (that is, not statistically significant) is the same as no correlation as far as I'm concerned. After all, there is a correlation between any two events, it is just too small to be relevant in most cases. I'm aware that you wish to use that insignificant correlation to claim that < guns = < homicides, but it isn't true. And you know it isn't, as well, yet will continue down the path anyway.
Nor are our two studies the only ones showing this lack of correlation; it has been published before. It just isn't talked about as it very effectively removes any reason to reduce gun ownership - something the left is not interested in hearing.
So we're back to the same thing: you wish to impede gun ownership for the general man in the street in the vague and forlorn hopes that it will reduce homicides (accidents are irrelevant and suicides are another topic entirely). Although you already know there is no correlation between the two, you would continue to harass would-be gun buyers and owners with increasingly onerous requirements, right up to where it is illegal to own a weapon. It is exactly what the anti crowd is already doing, what it has been doing for years, and with exactly the same result you will produce. Nothing at all.
Esoteric, you lost any real respect in the gun control debate when you decided that the only thing that would cut homicides is to control gun ownership ever tighter, and with laws that are already known to be failures. We both know it isn't the answer, we've both done the research showing that, but that's the only answer you'll accept, and that just doesn't make it for me.
Now, you want to discuss the ethics of denying constitutional rights to millions in return for (hopefully) preventing a handful of people from harming themselves, I'm up for it. You want to debate acceptable costs to (hopefully) prevent a small number of gun accidents, let's have at it. You want to discuss what might be causing violence in the US, I'm all ears...as long as you recognize that guns don't cause it and won't solve it. If you can figure out how to prevent criminals, or the insane, from getting or keeping a gun without interfering unduly with the rights of anyone else, I'd be interested. At least as long as "unduly" doesn't involve tens of thousands of man hours or millions of $$ for gun owners - if society deems it to be a problem, then let society pay the cost of correcting it.
But if all you're interested in is proposing more roadblocks in the path of gun ownership in order to cut the murder rate, I'm not interested. You know it won't work, I know it, and there is absolutely no reason to discuss it any further.
"You want to keep guns from criminals: put a battalion of cops into inner cities and patrol with search dogs." - When society can afford the tax increase needed to implement that good idea, it is much simpler to implement the gun control laws Massachusetts has; nothing more.
Simpler, yes. And the taxpayer doesn't have to pay for it; the gun owners will do it FOR them. But we could do it with a rolling battalion or two moving around the country; the savings from background checks would pay for it.
Nor will it be ONLY Mass. laws; you started with NC and now have continued to Mass. The expected reaction when it doesn't work (and we both know it won't) will be to add more. And more, and more and more.
The deterrent barrier I speak of is presentation of ID and mandatory background checks prior to purchase. As this has been a federal requirement and has been in place for sometime, what evidence can you present that proves that this process is more costly to gun owners than the deterrent effect against illegal gun purchases? All these federal agencies engaged in a fools errand? I going to need a little bit more than on the 'authority of the man from Idaho'.
Wilderness No 1
What's with you, the discussion is about the use of background checks, ID, waiting periods to prevent criminals from getting guns not preventing honest citizens from purchase or possession
Prove that these preventative measures are ineffective, or is this something you pulled out from the air. Where are all the kind of statistics you used to support the fact that fewer guns in the hands of citizens do not affect the homicide rate? The burden of proof is on you, not the FBI and all the law enforcement agencies using these programs. Where is your evidence that they have no effect on the criminal that wishes to acquire the gun?
Black lives still matter and we wont tolerant abusive policing in our neighboorhoods just to placate rightwingers.
#4 You said yourself that the ability to buy a gun should not be much more involved than buying a burger, thats ridiculous, period.
#5 As WrenchBiscuit says, the fact that you can just get a gun on the market is just so much TV nonsense. This is not as easy as it sounds, it would be more convenient to go Walmart. But according to 'gun guys' to there is no reason to inconvenience the general public by having a screening checks in place there. So, the criminal can easily obtain their weapons with less hassle and risk, than otherwise associated with buying underground.
#6 How do we deal with criminals and weapons if background checks are not performed. So much of the 'stuff' from the right is so much hot air. If most are like you appear to be here, I doubt that they are seriously looking for a reasonable solution.
#7 While we agree to disagree, I am going to vote and support my legislator in making sure that these minimum safeguards that I speak about remain in place. I guess that you are free to do the opposite.
#8 So, nobody want to take your darn guns!! This is ridiculous rightwing fiction that everybody from the President on down want to take your guns. The NRA sure has everyone fooled in creation of the classic bogey-man.
What's with pretending that background checks are going to prevent criminals from having a gun? Not a soul in the country can possibly believe that!
#2. Read the hub I wrote on it - it's got the raw data from the UN study. Read the one Esoteric wrote, where he comes right out and says there is no significant correlation between the two. Look at the experience of Australia, where guns were confiscated. Research it yourself and you will find out I'm correct. There is no statistical correlation between gun ownership rates and homicide rates.
#3 Haven't a clue what that has to do with gun control laws.
#4. Why? Easy enough to make the statement, now back it up. Show why - otherwise it's nothing more than opinionated words without any real meaning.
#5. What you're actually saying is that it won't matter when the black market for guns grows: criminals still won't be able to get a gun. Which is absolute nonsense and we both know it. It's not about ease; it's about owning a gun and anyone that wants one can already get one. Encourage that underground market and you'll just make it that much easier.
#6. Don't know. You answer it, because keeping the guns from the "good guys" isn't the answer.
#7. I know. You will encourage legislators, along with millions of other people that can't be bothered to understand the facts, to create more "minimum safeguards". And when the next school shooting occurs, you ask for more "minimum" laws. And then more - always the "minimum", but in reality each being only the tip of the iceberg because none of them will ease the carnage.
#8. No one wants to take guns. Yet Will Star has posted a long list of legislators that have come right out and been honest, saying they want to ban all private guns. It isn't the right posting nonsense here; it's the left that conveniently ignores the words of their own politicians!
What guns will you declare to be for self defense or hunting? More the point, what guns do you declare are NOT suitable for either? (I notice target practice and simple collector wants are not included - why is that?)
It is not possible to project whether your ideas will reduce "needless deaths or injuries" without far more details, but I would guess that it will not have significant results. It might cut a few suicides, and better training should produce fewer accidents, but that's about all. Can you make better definitions than just vague descriptive terms that everyone view differently?
Target practice would be done with the same type of guns that would be allowed for general use, i.e. handguns and some semi-automatic weapons and not military-grade weapons or other weapons that would be defined in the regulations. I think you can figure that out. Guns owned by collectors should not be loaded, and either has a trigger locks or is kept in a secure place. Anything behind a pane of glass should have the firing pin removed.
There are ways of enacting gun laws that would prevent deaths that are the result of easy access. There is justification for people knowing how to use guns and to have that ability.
Without my glasses, I am almost legally blind, do you want me to defend you. My son is legally blind (glasses will not help) with a limited field of vision do you want him shooting the guy who is at your side and pointing at someone else. I do not think so.
My participation in this discussion is concluded. Wilderness, I have encountered many like you--some of them are in jail--I use to be a newspaper reporter, covering cases involving the unlawful use of a firearm. I suspect you are a law-abiding citizen, with a myopic view about the second amendment.
Reasonable regulations will save some lives. I cannot predict how many. It will also in time change the attitude of people--people like you, who see no middle ground. In my home state, many elected officials run on a platform of no gun regulations and get financial support from the NRA. They do not get many votes, and many of them lose. Had they not raised the issue, the outcome may have been different.
Have a peaceful holiday season. Leave the guns at home unless you are hunting animals that are in season.
Larry, so long as Wilderness' side interprets statement from our side similar to
"I have NOT proposed, suggested or endorsed a ban on people owning weapons."
it either appears like this " ", i.e. blank
or are transmogrified into
"I have always proposed and endorsed a ban on people owning weapons."
Or, when you write "I AM NOT seeking a ban on guns"
it becomes " " or "I am seeking a ban on guns" and then they say "see, I told you so."
As long as their side REFUSES to see what we write, let alone read and comprehend the actual written word, the then communication and debate are impossible. So, we are left with ensuring that those who read this AND have an open mind get the real argument us pro-life people who believe in making it hard for those who should not have guns get them
"So, we are left with ensuring that those who read this AND have an open mind get the real argument us pro-life people who believe in making it hard for those who should not have guns get them"
LOL. Sure. And when your plans, including those that make it very difficult and expensive for the good guys to buy guns as well, fail utterly to prevent bad guys from doing the same, you will come up with more restrictions, more rules and more costs for the good guys to pay. All because you don't want guns out there. We get that.
But as far as ensuring a real argument - I haven't seen anything yet (from you) about taking guns not producing any reduction in murders. I haven't seen anything about registrations saving lives, or background checks preventing criminals from having guns. Only that if we do these things we will be better off - better off because the good guys won't have so many guns, although that part goes unspoken, doesn't it?
You are never going to understand, accept evidence or believe in the rights of others to be safe in their own home, workplace, school, etc.. You are never going to change your mind. The actor Charleston Heston said something to the effect that "they will have to pull my fingers apart to get the gun." The actual quote expresses the late actor's views, but is not accurate word for word. Mr.Heston died of ALS. It is an incurable disease that destroys a person. I speak first hand knowledge. My mother died of that disease. She did not choose to end her life with a gun and Mr. Heston apparently did not make that choice.
You are here to argue. Frankly, I think I could counter anything you say. I am not bragging, but 16 years as a news reporter and 25 years in public relations has given e some experience in countering bad ideas and promoting good ideas.
I am in the process of leaving Hub Pages for various reasons. This is one of them. I have been in this debate half-dozen times. None of the pro-gun people have offered any reasonable argument.
Have a good day. If you respond, I will not see it until tomorrow. By that time I will have moved on to more productive activities and will feel less compel to respond to your comments--the rights to voice those comments are protected by the First Amendment. If anyone says you do not have the right to voice your views, please let me know. I will defend your right to free speech until I can type or speak no longer--that would be a worthy cause, even if what you write offers nothing new and does not consideration the impact on other people.
Cmon, Larry, you can't leave, there are plenty other issues of the day that we need your imput in to resolve!!
I have been on the Hub for more than four years. I have used my experience to offer what I thought was meaningful comments, but of late. Let's just say it is time to move to another platform. I have four submissions to Chicken for the Soul and am working on another.
I have defended the oil and gas industry, even though I was fired from my industry job after 23 years. That was the decision of a few people, did not impact my belief in the industry. I oppose the legalization of marijuana and I opposed abortions. (I have an adopted son.) I support free speech, no matter how outrageous it may be.
I have a belief our country will be seeing better days. I supported Obamacare--I could not buy insurance after losing my job because of prior health conditions that had nothing to do with drinking or smoking.
I have been writing for content mills for three years. I made some decent money, but the assignments are becoming less appealing. So it is time for me to find another way to vent my beliefs.
Credence, I thank you for encouraging me to stay. There are writers more capable than I. I joined Hub pages to make some money. I struck out on that. I then started writing about things in which I believe. Those persons that read them, supported me. Unfortunately, the number of followers declined. So it is time to move on to a different venue. I may check-in once in a while. Wilderness should not be concerned. The second amendment is not going to be changed in the near future--we will need a non-partisan congress to accomplish the much-nneded changes that some of us want and at best that is 12 to 18 years away. I will not be around, based on family genetics, so others will have to pick up the fight.
"Frankly, I think I could counter anything you say."
Great! Wonderful! Show the correlation between gun ownership rates and homicide rates, then. Prove what equation would be used to translate from a gun ownership rate into a homicide rate. And use that equation to prove in at least a dozen different countries that it is true.
Other than that, what "evidence" would you like me to believe, and what does it show? So far you have provided exactly zero evidence, just saying that vague, undefined deterrents to limit gun ownership are desirable.
But whether you do or not, you have a good day. I do agree that arguing this topic is fruitless: Esoteric has shown that most satisfactorily when he agreed that there is no correlation between the two but still maintains that taking guns away from people (or not letting them buy a gun - same thing) is desirable in and of itself. At that point he lost me completely and yes, there is nothing left to debate.
From a horseback: So here is my proposal . Anyone using free speech must do the following .:
1- Obtain a permit to carry free speech .
2-Take classes for the sole purpose of knowing how to use free speech responsibly and safely .
3 - Obtain a permit to actually voice an opinion
4- Go through a background check to make sure you do speak with true knowledge of that which you do say
5 - Keep all opinions in a locked case so that when staying silent the opinion cannot be used by someone else
6- Pay a fee for the use and abuse of the first amendment
7- When a violation of the first amendment is perpetrated , maximum sentencing must be enforced
My answer to this freedom of speech BS
1. Freedom of speech is not free, or have you not heard. You could get slapped with a lawsuit for using one slurred word.
2. We are told everyday words we will be sued if those words we say
3. It is that way already and some are not permitted to even speak the truth
4. You will be background checked if say some things, and about the true knowledge. Do you know what someone else’s true knowledge is.
5. I thought we have this already “Anything you say, can and will be used against you!”
6. The price is jail time for some things that you say.
My answer to the gun control.
1. A gun for protection, should and is supposed to be our right, but we already need a permit, even to keep it out of sight.
2. Everyone should take lessons to learn gun safety and responsibility, but up to now it is not mandatory.
3. Obtain a permit to have a gun for protection/hunting. But NO ONE should be granted a permit to have/carry a people killing gun to kill more people faster. Assault weapons should only be in the hands of our Military men and women and only during their tenure in the service.
4. Why would you be against background checks? Without background checks that just whets a killer’s appetite.
5. Violation of the first amendment? All victims were silenced, is that what you mean?
'An "Obsession" with trying to justify the unlawful "Militerizing" of private citizens ~'
What 'unlawful militarizing' of private citizens? What on Earth are you talking about this time?
Charleton Heston said and I quote , "They can have my guns when they pry my cold dead fingers from them " AND THAT - is just the way most people I know feel about there guns and constitutional rights .
Despite the attempted propaganda, Detailed Background Chex will indeed prevent some criminals from acquiring a Gun, that's just an irrefutable Fact ~ But our actions must be immensely more Comprehensive if we intend to reach the ultimate goal of Controlling & Mitigating Gun Violence ~
I wouldn't take Will Starr too seriously until someone EXPLAINS to him the difference between an "Accidental Slip n' Fall" Death from a "Gunshot" Death, or a "Car Accident" and " Gun Violence", and the diffrence between a Knife and a Gun, a Toaster Oven and a Gun ~ ect etc etc ~ He seems to be a little confused ~
Absolutely. Just as if WalMart goes out of business nobody could buy a gun anymore. It's absolutely irrefutable that guns can only be had by buying one in a big box store!
Sure it is. (Somebody seems really confused).
You should be CONFUSED cuz I don't even know what you're talking about wilderness ~ I never said that, as a matter of FACT I don't even understand what you're trying to say ~ Maybe you should go back and re-read my last Comment a few times ~
The FACT still remains, "Background Chex" , will indeed prevent some criminals from acquiring Guns ~ It's clearly OBVIOUS ~
Outside of being "obvious" (to someone that wants to believe it badly enough), just how is expanding and growing the black market going to prevent criminals from getting a gun? (I assume you refer to more than one or two criminals in the country - otherwise the statement would be just another leftist attempt at diversion and misinformation).
Or are you foolish enough to think that if something is illegal to buy (marijuana, for instance) that the underground economy in the country won't step up and provide it outside the law?
Your mis-guided ASSUMPTION that "Criminals" or "Would Be Criminals" could just Wake UP, walk outside, stroll down to the "Local Black Market" , whip out a few hundred, and buy a Gun just as easy as buying a "Head of Lettuce" is absolutely ABSURD ~
You actually expect us to "BUY" that Ridiculous Nonsense ? ~
It happens, but it's not that easy, and furthermore, Tighter Gun Laws will REDUCE the "STREET" Gun Inventory ~
""Would Be Criminals" could just Wake UP, walk outside, stroll down to the "Local Black Market" , whip out a few hundred, and buy a Gun just as easy as buying a "Head of Lettuce" is absolutely ABSURD"
About as ABSURD as thinking it will be considerably more difficult than going to a gun store, working with a salesman to find a gun, filling out the forms, going home and waiting a week, going back to the store, waiting for the salesman to find the paperwork, check it out and finally produce the gun you wanted. You expect the "good guys" to put up with a load of malarkey to get their gun but think the bad guys will simply give up when it's even easier for them - I don't think so!
"Tighter Gun Laws will REDUCE the "STREET" Gun Inventory"
You're right - make it a 10 year sentence for a felon to have a weapon in possession and then fund the necessary cops to find that felon and it will REDUCE the "STREET" Gun Inventory. But background checks won't - all they will do is encourage and expand the already existing black market. Maybe keep some of the guns going to Mexico or Canada within our borders. Unless you can show otherwise - can show that underground sales to criminals won't grow if it's illegal to sell to them? After all, we control the sale of marijuana to the point that there is no one using it anymore - surely we can do it for guns just as well?
Sorry - I forgot that sales of weed have grown to the point (in spite of nationwide laws) that it's not only being ignored by cops but the laws are being canceled as well.
Let me give a tip to the "progressive" that thinks it can control access to something millions of people want - IT WON'T WORK. It didn't work when the Christians tried prohibition, it didn't work when both sides tried to keep hard drugs out of the country, it didn't work for marijuana to the point that those laws are going the way of prohibition, and it won't work for guns.
We now see 3D printers that are cheaper than a gun is, and plans freely available on the internet to print out a plastic gun that will go through airport security. And you think a background check is going to reduce the street gun inventory! If this is the "progressive" thought process - you want something to be true, so it is - it belongs back in the dark ages behind the church pulpit.
You are wasting time and energy using facts and logic on closed minds. Yes, there is a long, long list of politicians and political elitists who most definitely want to disarm America, but when those closed minds refuse to read it and attack the messenger instead, it's time to give it up as a waste of time:
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 and Kurt Schmoke
Communitarian Network's The Case for Domestic Disarmament
HC is the Former Secretary of HUD, KS was Baltimore Mayor
Why should America adopt a policy of near-zero tolerance for private gun ownership? Because it's the only alternative to the present insanity. Without both strict limits on access to new weapons and aggressive efforts to reduce the supply of existing weapons, no one can be safer. ... [W]ho can still argue compellingly that Americans can be trusted to handle guns safely? We think the time has come for America to tell the truth about guns. They are not for us. We cannot handle them.
Editorial, Taming The Monster: Get Rid of the Guns, Los Angeles Times, B6
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
Gun violence won't be cured by one set of laws. It will require years of partial measures that will gradually tighten the requirements for gun ownership, and incrementally change expectations about the firepower that should be available to ordinary citizens.
New York Times
Wills has also written "Every civilized society must disarm its citizens against each other. Those who do not trust their own people become predators upon their own people. The sick thing is that haters of fellow Americans often think of themselves as patriots."...
(On?) Worldwide Gun Control, Philadelphia Inquirer
By a curiosity of evolution, every human skull harbors a prehistoric vestige: a reptilian brain. This atavism, like a hand grenade cushioned in the more civilized surrounding cortex, is the dark hive where many of mankind's primitive impulses originate. To go partners with that throwback, Americans have carried out of their own history another curiosity that evolution forgot to discard as the country changed from a sparsely populated, underpoliced agrarian society to a modern industrial civilization. That vestige is the gun -- most notoriously the handgun, an anachronistic tool still much in use.
Repealing the Second Amendment is no cause for the faint-hearted, but it remains the only way for liberals to trigger an honest debate on the future of our bullet-plagued society. So what if anti-gun advocates have to devote the next 15 or 20 years to the struggle? The cause is worth the political pain. Failing to take bold action condemns all of us to spend our lives cringing in terror every time we hear a car backfire.
USA Today column
We are inclined to think that every firearm in the hands of anyone who is not a law enforcement officer constitutes an incitement to violence. Let's come to our senses before the whole country starts shooting itself up on all its Main Streets in a delirious kind of High Noon.
No presidential candidate has yet come out for the most effective proposal to check the terror of gunfire: a ban on the general sale, manufacture and ownership of handguns as well as assault-style weapons.
Editorial, Guns Along the Campaign Trail, Washington Post, A18.
The [American Academy of Pediatrics] believes handguns, deadly air guns and assault weapons should be banned.
American Association of Pediatrics
"Where We Stand," available at http://www.aap.org/advocacy/wwestand.htm (visited Jan. 21, 1999)
Our goal is to not allow anybody to buy a handgun. In the meantime, we think there ought to be strict licensing and regulation. Ultimately, that may mean it would require court approval to buy a handgun.
Michael K. Beard
Washington Times, p. A1
President of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence
The best way to prevent gun violence is to ban handguns.
Michael K. Beard
Letters to the Editor, Wall Street Journal, p. A19
Coalition to Stop Gun Violence
Banning guns is an idea whose time has come.
quoted by AP
I don't know why people carry guns. Guns kill people.
Time national correspondent Jack E. White one-upped Mr. Thomas: "Whatever is being proposed is way too namby-pamby. I mean, for example, we're talking about limiting people to one gun purchase or handgun purchase a month. Why not just ban the ownership of handguns when nobody needs one? Why not just ban semi-automatic rifles? Nobody needs one."
L. Brent Bozell III
Lock-and-Load Mode Against the 2nd, Washington Times, A12
Yes, I'm denying you your rights.
on constitutional rights at a "Save the Brady Bill" rally. Steve Comus, Western Outdoor News
For target shooting, that's okay. Get a license and go to the range. For defense of the home, that's why we have police departments.
To me, the only reason for guns in civilian hands is for sporting purposes.
Jackson, Keeping the Battle Alive, Tampa Tribune
We must get rid of all the guns.
Phil Donahue Show
The NRA is bound and determined not to allow the Brady Bill to be enacted. And they're a fearsome opponent. They see this as `threshold' legislation. Because they realize if we get the Brady Bill to President Clinton and he signs it into law, then the door will be wide open for further gun control legislation. Of course, we hope that's true because, as you know, our campaign to enact a National Gun Policy to combat gun violence doesn't end with the Brady Bill - it just begins.
It [the Brady Bill] is not a panacea. It's not going to stop crimes of passion or drug-related crime.
It makes no sense for assault weapons to be around our society.
George W. Bush
I don't think there is a Second Amendment right to own a gun. But I think it's a loser political issue.
We must be able to arrest people before they commit crimes. By registering guns and knowing who has them we can do that... If they have guns they are pretty likely to commit a crime.
Mary Ann Carlson
State Senator (VT)
We are taking the law and bending it as far as we can to capture a whole new class of guns [to ban.]
Los Angeles Times
Clinton Administration White House Official
As you know, my position is we should ban all handguns, get rid of them, no manufacture, no sale, no importation, no transportation, no possession of a handgun.
John H. Chafee
U.S. Senator (R-RI)
I believe all handguns should be abolished.
John H. Chafee
U.S. Senator (R-RI)
Mr. President, what is going on in this country? Does going to school mean exposure to handguns and to death? As you know, my position is we should ban all handguns, get rid of them, no manufacture, no sale, no importation, no transportation, no possession of a handgun . There are 66 million handguns in the United States of America today, with 2 million being added every year.
John H. Chafee
The Congressional Record, 102nd Congress
U.S. Senator (R-RI)
Defensive gun ownership is "anarchy, not order under law--a jungle where each relies on himself for survival," and an insult to government, for "[a] state in which a citizen needs a gun to protect himself from crime has failed to perform its first purpose.
Ramsey Clark, former U.S. AG
Crime in America, p. 107
[P]eople who like assault weapons, they should join the United States Army; we have them.
CNN Crossfire, 2003-06-25
We need much stricter gun control, and eventually we should bar the ownership of handguns except in a few cases.
William L. Clay
Robert L. Koenig, NRA-Backed Measure May Derail Brady Bill, St. Louis Post Dispatch, 1A
Representative (D-MO) [St. Louis]
I stand in support of this common sense legislation to license everyone who wishes to purchase a gun. I also believe that every new handgun sale or or transfer should be listed in a national registry, such as Chuck [Senator Schumer] is proposing.
If you know of any guns in your house or in the houses of your uncles, cousins, friends or neighbors, I want you to promise you will never, ever go near them. I want you to promise you will never, ever play with anybody who goes near them, and I want you to promise you will never, ever pick up a gun with any idea of using it against another person.
Valley Cottage Elementary School
And we should -- then every community in the country could then start doing major weapon sweeps and then destroying the weapons, not selling them.
Assault weapons in the hands of civilians exist for no reason but to inspire fear and wreak deadly havoc on our streets.
We've banned these guns ['assault' weapons] because you don't need an Uzi to go deer hunting, and everyone knows it.
Weekly radio address, the Roosevelt Room, the White House
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.
We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans to own handguns and rifles that we are unable to think clearly about reality.
press conference in Piscataway, NJ, reported in USA Today, p. 2A
If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the government's ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees.
"You know the one thing that's wrong with this country? Everyone gets a chance to have their fair say.
The constitution is a radical document. It is the job of government to reign in people's rights.
(MTV, 1992 or 1993?)
It is our aim to ban the manufacture and sale of handguns to private individuals . . . the coalition's emphasis is to keep handguns out of private possession -- where they do the most harm.
Recruiting flyer, "The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence"
The goal of CSGV is the orderly elimination of most handguns and assault weapons from the United States. CSGV seeks to ban handguns and assault weapons from importation, manufacture, sale, transfer, ownership, posession and use by the general, American public. Reasonable exceptions would be made for the police, military, security officers, and gun clubs where the guns are secured on the club's premises. Gun dealers would also be permitted to trade in antique and collectable weapons kept and sold in inoperable condition. Hunting weapons, such as shotguns and rifles would un affected by these bans,as those weapons do not pose a large threat to the American public in comparason to handguns and assault weapons.
Coalition to Stop Gun Violence
[All firearms] ... should be outlawed. Our organization will probably take this stand in time but we are not anxious to rouse the opposition before we get the other legislation passed.
Washington Evening Star
Secretary, National Council For A Responsible Firearms Policy
If it was up to me, no one but law enforcement officers would own handguns...
Federal Gun Legislation Press Conference in Washington, D.C.
Guns have a place in the theater of war, they have no place out on the streets.
You know I don't believe in people owning guns, only the police and military. And I'm going to do everything I can to disarm this state.
in conversation with Mike Yacino, MA Gun Owner's Action League, and Roy Innis, CORE
I want to make it as hard as possible. Gun owners would have to be evaluated by how they scored on written and firing tests, and have to pass the tests in order to own a gun. And I would tax the guns, bullets and the license itself very heavily.
Mother Jones magazine
U.S. Surgeon General
I think you have to do it a step at a time and I think that is what the NRA is most concerned about, is that it will happen one very small step at a time, so that by the time people have "woken up" -- quote -- to what's happened, it's gone farther than what they feel the consensus of American citizens would be. But it does have to go one step at a time and the beginning of the banning of semi-assault military weapons, that are military weapons, not "household" weapons, is the first step."
ABC News Special, Peter Jennings: Guns
Stockton, CA Mayor
The national guard fulfills the the militia mentioned in the Second Amendment. Citizens no longer need to protect the states or themselves.
U.S. Senator (D-CA)
Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of Americans to feel safe.
quoted by the Associated Press
U.S. Senator (D-CA)
If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them ... "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in," I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here.
U.S. Senator (D-CA)
Because less than twenty years ago I was the target of a terrorist group. It was the New World Liberation Front. They blew up power stations and put a bomb at my home when my husband was dying of cancer. And the bomb didn't detonate. ... I was very lucky. But, I thought of what might have happened. Later the same group shot out all the windows of my home" "And, I know the sense of helplessness that people feel. I know the urge to arm yourself because that's what I did. I was trained in firearms. I'd walk to the hospital when my husband was sick. I carried a concealed weapon. I made the determination that if somebody was going to try to take me out, I was going to take them with me.
during Senate hearings on terrorism, 1995-04-27
U.S. Senator (D-CA)
There is no reason for anyone in this country, anyone except a police officer or a military person, to buy, to own, to have, to use a handgun. I used to think handguns could be controlled by laws about registration, by laws requiring waiting periods for purchasers, by laws making sellesr check out the past of buyers. I now think the only way to control handgun use in this country is to prohibit the guns. And the only way to do that is to change the Constitution.
Glut of Guns: What Can We Do About Them?, USA Today, 9A
then president of NBC News
In fact, only police, soldiers and, maybe, licensed target ranges should have handguns. No one else needs one.
then president of NBC News
We look upon authority too often and focus over and over again, for 30 or 40 or 50 years, as if there is something wrong with authority. We see only the oppressive side of authority. Maybe it comes out of our history and our background. What we don't see is that freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do.
speech at a forum on urban crime
former NYC mayor, 2008 Presidential candidate
Any 18 year old can walk into a gun store, pawn shop or gun show and buy a handgun.
almost 30 years after the Gun Control Act of 1968 set the age to buy a handgun from a FFL at 21.
U.S. Vice President
These automatic, semiautomatic handguns and assault weapons, they really have no place in our society.
Larry King Live
U.S. Vice President
And nobody is talking about taking guns away from hunters or sportsmen or banning all guns. Nobody is talking about that.
Larry King Live
U.S. Vice President
I think that we should ban so-called junk guns. I think we should ban assault weapons like the weapons used here [in Fort Worth], yes. I think that the kinds of weapons that have no legitimate use for hunting or the kind of weapon that a homeowner would use, I think they should be banned, yes, those kind of weapons."
Larry King Live, on the 1999 Fort Worth shooting. The "assault weapons" mentioned are semi-automatic handguns
U.S. Vice President
We don't need more concealed weapons in our malls, in our movie theaters, and our streets. We need fewer concealed weapons in our society.
on concealed weapons licences, Houston Chronicle
U.S. Vice President
Indeed, that the Second Amendment poses no barrier to strong gun laws is perhaps the most well-settled proposition in American constitutional law. Yet the incantation of this phantom right continues to pervade Congressional debate.
Erwin N. Griswold
Solicitor General under the Nixon Administration
Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA - ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State.
The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed the subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty."
Edict of March 18, 1938, H.R. Trevor-Roper, Hitler's Table Talks 1941-1944 (London: Widenfeld and Nicolson, 1953, p. 425-426)
This administration has consistently favored the reinstitution of the  Assault Weapons Ban. It is something that we think was useful in the past with regard to the reduction we've seen in crime, and certainly would have a positive impact on our relationship and the crime situation in Mexico.
U.S. Attorney General
Holder goes on to mention a current bill by Ms. Malloney that the administration feels is a good starting point for new gun legislation
I don't believe that assault rifles ought to be sold in America.
U.S. Senator (D-MA)
In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea... Ultimately, a civilized society must disarm its citizenry if it is to have a modicum of domestic tranquility of the kind enjoyed by sister democracies such as Canada and Britain. Given the frontier history and individualist ideology of the Unisted States, however, this will not come easily. It certainly cannot be done radically. It will probably take one, maybe two generations. It might be 50 years before the United States gets to where Britain is today. Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic -- purely symbolic -- move in that direction. Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation.
Disarm the Citizenry, But Not Yet Washington Post, p. A19
No one has the right to destroy another person's belief by demanding empirical evidence.
Director, Handgun Control, Inc.
One man with a gun can control 100 without one....Make mass searches and hold executions for found arms.
Vladimir I. Lenin
As much as I oppose the average person's having a gun, I recognize that some people have a legitimate need to own one. A wealthy corporate executive who fears his family might get kidnapped is one such person. A Hollywood celebrity who has to protect himself from kooks is another. If Sharon Tate had had access to a gun during the Manson killings, some innocent lives might have been saved.
Joseph D. McNamara
"Safe and Sane", pp. 71-72
San Jose, CA Police Chief, HCI spokesperson
I don't care about crime, I just want to get the guns.
What good does it do to ban some guns? All guns should be banned.
I am one who believes that as a first step the U.S. should move expeditiously to disarm the civilian population, other than the police and security officers, of all handguns, pistols and revolvers... no one should have a right to anonymous ownership or use of a gun.
testimony before Congress
Director, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration
We will never fully solve our nation's horrific problem of gun violence unless we ban the manufacture and sale of handguns and semiautomatic assault weapons.
Better Yet, Ban All Handguns, USA Today, 11A
Legislative Director, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence
We are beyond the stage of restrictive licensing and uniform laws. We are at the point in time and terror when nothing short of a strong uniform policy of domestic disarmament will alleviate the danger which is crystal clear and perilously present. Let us take the guns away from the people. Exemptions should be limited to the military, the police and those licensed for good and sufficient reasons.
Patrick V. Murphy
New York City Police Commissioner
I would like to dispute that. Truthfully. I know it's an amendment. I know it's in the Constitution. But you know what? Enough! I would like to say, I think there should be a law -- and I know this is extreme -- that no one can have a gun in the U.S. If you have a gun, you go to jail. Only the police should have guns.
Shannon Hawkins, Rosie Takes on the NRA, Ottawa sun, p. 55
I honestly think, and I am not an expert on the amendments, I think the only people in this nation who should be allowed to own guns are police officers. I don't care if you want to hunt, I don't care if you think it's your right. I say, "Sorry!" It is 1999, we have had enough as a nation. You are not allowed to own a gun and if you do own a gun, I think you should go to prison.
Rosie O'Donnell show
I'm consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry.
IL State Senator
I think it's a scandal that this president (Bush) did not authorize a renewal of the assault weapons ban.
Illinois Senate Debate #3
IL State Senator
I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manufacturers lobby.
The Audacity of Hope
Q: When you were in the state senate, you talked about licensing and registering gun owners. Would you do that as president? A: I don't think that we can get that done.
Democratic Presidential debate in Las Vegas
"I just want you to know that we are working on it," [Sarah] Brady recalled the president telling them. "We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar."
meeting between Jay Carney, Jim Brady, Sarah Brady, and President Obama, quoted in the Washington Post, 2011-04-12
Mr. Speaker, my bill prohibits the importation, exportation, manufacture, sale, purchase, transfer, receipt, possession, or transportation of handguns and handgun ammunition. It establishes a 6-month grace period for the turning in of handguns. It provides many exceptions for gun clubs, hunting clubs, gun collectors, and other people of that kind.
Congressional Record H9088 at H9094
Representative (D-Brooklyn, NY)
We have to start with a ban on the manufacturing and import of handguns. From there we register the guns which are currently owned, and follow that with additional bans and acquisitions of handguns and rifles with no sporting purpose.
Representative (D-Brooklyn, NY)
Forget what our forefathers said.
ATF Special Agent (Retired) "On the Inside: The BATF," Discovery Channel
My own view on gun control is simple. I hate guns and I cannot imagine why anyone would want to own one. If I had my way, guns for sport would be registered, and all other guns would be banned.
Dean of the Harvard School of Public Health
I believe with every ounce of feeling that I have that there are far too many guns.
?[Assault weapons] are used on school yards, at airports, in bank lobbies, on trains, in traffic and in front of the White House. They have no legitimate sporting purpose, and you won't find them in a duck blind or at the Olympics.
Washington Times, p. A4
U.S. Attorney General
What we have got to do is make sure that before a person possesses a gun, they have exhibited by test that they know how to safely and lawfully use the weapon and by experience that they are capable of doing that.
U.S. Attorney General
Nobody should be owning a gun which does not have a sporting purpose.
U.S. Attorney General
Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal.
U.S. Attorney General
Gun registration is not enough.
"Good morning America"
U.S. Attorney General
If it were up to me we'd ban them all.
on CNN's Crossfire
When anyone uses a firearm, whether it's the kind of terrorism that we are trying to combat with al Qaeda and these non-state terrorists, or as a former district attorney involved in the conviction of an individual who used firearms against innocent citizens - regardless of how we define terrorism, that individual and that family felt that they were victims of a terrorist act. Brandishing a firearm in front of anybody under any set of circumstances is a terrorist act and needs to be dealt with.
Senate Governmental Affairs Committee Testimony
Secretary of Homeland Security
To hell with the constitution...
on the constitutionality of the Roberti-Roos assault weapon ban
My guess [is] ... that the great majority of Americans are saying they favor gun control when they really mean gun banishment. ... I think the country has long been ready to restrict the use of guns, except for hunting rifles and shotguns, and now I think we're prepared to get rid of the damned things entirely -- the handguns, the semis and the automatics.
(Time Magazine columnist), Get Rid of the Damned Things, Time, p. 38
The Democrats ran away from gun safety in the 2002 elections, and look where it got them... Whoever is advising them on gun control should be shot.
Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, spokesperson
My staff and I right now are working on a comprehensive gun-control bill. We don't have all the detauls, but for instance, regulating the sale and purchase of bullets. Ultimately, I would like to see the manufacture and possession of handguns banned except for military and police. But that's the endgame. And in the meantime, there are some specific things that we can do with legislation.
Evan Osnos, Bobby Rush; Democrat, U.S. House of Representatives, Chicago Tribune, p. C3
We're here to tell the NRA their nightmare is true! We're going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy. We're going to beat guns into submission!
quoted on NBC nightly news
U.S. Representative (D-NY)
We're going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy! We're going to beat guns into submission!
quoted on NBC
Like flat earth fanatics, Second Amendment fanatics just don't get it. Facts are facts. The earth is not flat. And Constitutional law is Constitutional law. The Second Amendment is not absolute. It does not guarantee the mythical individual right to bear arms we will hear argued for today. The gun lobby and its friends in Congress can line up professors of history and law from here to NRA headquarters and back. They can all swear what they think the Second Amendment means, and how many angels can dance on a pinhead. But the settled law is flatly against them.
statement before the House Subcommittee on Crime
U.S. Representative (D-NY)
Gun traffickers have found a new avenue for dealing guns to criminals, to the mentally ill, and the under-aged--the Internet. The firepower available on the Internet is chilling. Machine guns, assault weapons and cheaply made pistols are available in cyberspace for the taking. And they are available to those who could never buy a gun under the Brady law.
Class III applications are easier to get approved than Brady paperwork?
Those who push the gun lobby's absolute view of the Second Amendment, get over it! The earth is not flat and the Second Amendment is not absolute. You're wrong.
...the NRA, which is an extremist organization...believe people should be allowed to have bazookas and tanks...
PBS debate with Bill McCollum
U.S. Senator (D-NY)
...the only people who use them [so-called assault weapons] are mass murderers...
PBS debate with Bill McCollum
U.S. Senator (D-NY)
We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily -- given the political realities -- going to be very modest. Of course, it's true that politicians will then go home and say, "This is a great law. The problem is solved." And it's also true that such statements will tend to defuse the gun-control issue for a time. So then we'll have to start working again to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with a half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal -- total control of handguns in the United States -- is going to take time. My estimate is from seven to ten years. The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get them all registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of *all* handguns and *all* handgun ammunition -- except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors -- totally illegal.
Nelson T. "Pete" Shields
"A Reporter At Large: Handguns", New Yorker, at 53, 58
Chairman, Handgun Control, Inc.
We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily -- given the political realities -- going to be very modest. Of course, it's true that politicians will then go home and say, "This is a great law. The problem is solved." And it's also true that such statements will tend to defuse the gun-control issue for a time. So then we'll have to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with a half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal -- total control of handguns in the United States -- is going to take time. My estimate is from seven to ten years. The problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns sold in this country. The second problem is to get them all registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of *all* handguns and *all* handgun ammunition -- except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors -- totally illegal.
Nelson T. "Pete" Shields
"A Reporter At Large: Handguns", New Yorker, at 53, 58
Chairman, Handgun Control, Inc.
Yes, I'm for an outright ban [on handguns].
Nelson T. "Pete" Shields
60 Minutes interview
Chairman emeritus, Handgun Control, Inc.
The goal is an ultimate ban on all guns, but we also have to take step at a time and go for limited access first.
Deputy Commissioner, Florida State Health Dept.
Mr. speaker, we must take swift and strong action if we are to rescue the next generation from the rising of tide armed violence. That is why today I am introducing the Handgun Control Act of 1992. This legislation would outlaw the possession, importation, transfer or manufacture of a handgun except for use by public agencies, individuals who can demonstrate to their local police chief that they need a gun because of threat to their life or the life of a family member, licensed guard services, licensed pistol clubs which keep the weapons securely on premises, licensed manufacturers and licensed gun dealers.
Stephen J. Solarz
The Congressional Record, 102nd Congress, 1991-1992, Daily Edition E2492-2493.
Ideas are more dangerous than guns. We wouldn't let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas?
If the [political] opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves.
Assault weapons... are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully-automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.
"Assault Weapons: Analysis, New Research and Legislation"
... many Americans do believe that handguns are effective weapons for home-defense and the majority of Americans ...believe the Second Amendment of the Constitution guarantees the individual right to keep and bear arms. Yet, many who support the individual's right to own a handgun have second thoughts when the issue comes down to assault weapons. Assault weapons are often viewed the same way as machine guns and `plastic' firearms -- a weapon that poses such a grave risk that it's worth compromising a perceived constitutional right.
"Assault Weapons: Analysis, New Research and Legislation"
You can't get around the image of people shooting at people to protect their stores and it working. This is damaging to the [gun control] movement.
Washington Post, regarding Korean shopkeepers during the L.A. riots
Executive Director of the Violence Policy Center
A gun-control movement worthy of the name would insist that President Clinton move beyond his proposals for controls -- such as expanding background checks at gun shows and stopping the import of high-capacity magazines -- and immediately call on Congress to pass far-reaching industry regulation like the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act introduced by Senator Robert Torricelli, Democrat of New Jersey, and Representative Patrick Kennedy, Democrat of Rhode Island. Their measure would give the Treasury Department health and safety authority over the gun industry, and any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns.
Dispense With the Half Steps and Ban Killing Machines, Houston Chronicle, p. 45
executive director of the Violence Policy Center
One tenet of the National Rifle Association's faith has always been that handgun controls do little to stop criminals from obtaining handguns. For once, the NRA is right and America's leading handgun control organization [Handgun Control, Inc.] is wrong. Criminals don't buy handguns in gun stores. That's why they are criminals.
"The NRA Is Right," Washington Monthly
then communications director of the Violence Policy Center
The semi-automatic weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons -- anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun -- can only increase that chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.
1988, Violence Policy Center
We believe that if any gun dealer, manufacturer, or gun owners wants to test the law in court, they should be given every opportunity. Arrest them. Put the burden on them to prove the law is too vague.
on HCI's position concerning CA's Roberti-Roos assault weapons ban
Handgun Control Inc.
Every good Communist should know that political power grows out of the barrel of a gun, and that gun must remain firmly in the hands of the state.
Mao Tse Tung
It is also interesting to note that the top officials of Handgun Control Institute are gun owners themselves. They also intend on keeping them. It's other people's guns that bother them...
If someone is so fearful that, that they're going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, makes me very nervous that these people have these weapons at all!
Henry A. Waxman
Whatever right the Second Amendment protects is not as important as it was 200 years ago ... [The government should] deconstitutionalize the subject by repealing the embarrasing Amendment.
Mutual protection should be the aim of citizens, not individual self-protection. Until we are willing to outlaw, the very existence or manufacture of civilian handguns we have no right to call ourselves citizens or consider our behavior even minimally civil.
John Lennon's war, Chi. Sun-times
Investigate the NRA with renewed vigor. It may be on the run, but its spokesman claims membership ($25 annual dues) is up 600,000 over 10 years ago. Print names of elected officials who take NRA funds. Interview them. Support all forms of gun licensing; in fact, all the causes NRA opposes.
Step Up the War Against Guns, Editor & Publisher Magazine, p. 24
editor of the Boston Globe
Will, nobody has the disposable time to read ALL these "OPINIONS", Valid or NOT ~ Furthermore, for every individual you've listed, there are probably 10 who disagree ~ Nice Try though ~
A mind so closed that he refuses to even look at the hard evidence of valid quotes from the political class that establish beyond any reasonable doubt that the true goal is disarming We, the People.
So don't waste your time on a closed mind.
Now, Will - you get that huge list of politicians and VIP's that want guns banned OFF this forum! It is not wanted, it is damaging to the idea of "just a little control is all we want" and most of all, it causes "progressives" to say things like "I don't have time to look at facts" and "Yes, but there might be (might be!) people that really don't want your guns".
And when you get the expected response, all you have to say is "See?" is just mean. You are a mean, mean man, WillStarr!
I have yet to see the 'reasonable' gun control that progressives love to talk about. Their new buzzword phrase is 'universal background checks', which actually means universal gun registration, an act that has always resulted in later confiscation.
I have repeatedly asked progressive gun controllers to specify exactly what they want in new laws and then guarantee that those laws will actually work. They respond by scoffing at the notion that any law would actually stop a criminal from getting a gun.
Why then do they want a new law that will only burden the law abiding citizens and violate their right to privacy from government snoopers? There is only one logical answer...a ban on guns.
I've done the same - ask why background checks, or registration, etc. Some do truly seem to think that a law denying a criminal a gun will keep them from getting one, but most understand any such law will be as effective as laws against marijuana, or alcohol in the '20's were.
Which comes back to just what you said - they are proposing to hassle innocent gun owners in the start (middle) of a long term campaign to remove guns from the population. They won't even pay the financial cost, but want a gun buyer to do it for them under the theory that it is up to the buyer to protect society from killers...and run up the cost, in both $$ and effort, of buying a gun.
If one right can be regulated, what about all the rest?
If, as it is said, the pen is mightier than the sword, then shouldn't all writers have to pass a background check? Shouldn't they have to demonstrate that they understand the possible consequences of their actions before being granted a license to write? Shouldn't they lose the right to write if they are on a no-fly list? Shouldn't all writers be registered?
Shouldn't protesters have to pass a test to see if they understand that committing arson, looting stores, attacking police officers, or committing various other crimes is not protected free speech before exercising their right to assemble? Why not require that they be trained, certified, and registered or otherwise face arrest?
Shouldn't those wanting to exercise their property rights be required to demonstrate a need? Why does anyone 'need' more than one car? Why does anyone need more than one home? Why does anyone need a home in Hollywood?
After all, we don't even have the right to life itself if we cannot demonstrate 'personhood' and our mothers cannot be bothered, so why not regulate all rights?
I'll be happy to write the rules.
Well, yes, of course all rights should be regulated. Or at least the people that they apply to - it is the way of the future!
*sigh* Somehow we've lost sight of responsibility and self-reliance. We must always have the Great Father in Washington to solve all our problems for us. It didn't used to be that way - what has happened?
To ensure that people are treated as equally as possible, the "rights" be it laws, rules or regulations have to be recorded in written form and reviewed by many so that those rights are indeed as equally as possible. Without the details that accompany our rights, we would be living in a constant state of chaos, much worse than the chaos you believe may now exist. It is a matter of assuring that the meanings of the rules are clarified in such a way that all are treated equally--even though though absolute equality cannot exist in mankind's present state.
"If one right can be regulated, what about all the rest? " Surprise, the rest are already, there is no right beyond regulation, for good reason. The best is what do you do when two rights conflict? What is behind regulating rights, the idea of "do no harm".
"If, as it is said, the pen is mightier than the sword, then shouldn't all writers have to pass a background check? " - SIMPLE, the pen was not designed to kill, the intent of using the pen is not to kill. The gun WAS designed to kill, the intent in using a gun is to kill. Granted, death may result from writing with a pen but that is just a subsidiary use of a pen, likewise, target shooting may result from using a gun, but that is just a subsidiary use. Background checks are needed for things whose intended use is to kill, not to write.
The rest of your reply is simply nonsense.
Ahh. The intent, then, of an inventor a thousand years ago governs the use and requirements for his invention today.
Can't you come up with something better that that? Or at a minimum expand on why background checks for guns are "needed", just what the expected (not desired, but expected) result will be and the mechanism of how it will happen?
"The pen is mightier than the sword ............ the pen was never designed to killed anyone ." Tell that to the Jews , Tell that to Adolf Hitler , would that pen include the tattooing pens of the concentration camps ? Those little strings of numbers on the wrists' of millions , like the children of Auschwitz or any dozens of other internment camps ?
One more argument of the activist agenda left that makes absolutely zero sense , holds no water , adds up to a lot of nothing .
The same left that wants heavy regulation of the Second Amendment for the purported reason of 'saving human lives' wants absolutely no regulation at all of the concocted 'right' of women to kill their babies, which takes 33 times as many human lives each year.
You might have a point if a GUN was "Conceived" within the confines of a woman's anatomy, which is certainly not out of the question in the FUTURE given today's mind boggling technology, but unfortunately for your ABSURD Comparison, today in the "Here & NOW" GUNs I believe are Conceived & Born in a factory ~
Radical Conservative Republicans are constantly trying to infringe upon the RIGHTS of Women in every way, but sorry Will, women have the RIGHT to Control their Bodies PERIOD, regardless of some Radical Republicans Perverted Historical Interpretations and or Religious Beliefs ~
I would love to see your source of information. A lot of numbers are tossed around here without any source sited, and without any assurance that the source is genuine.
The Supreme Court made the ruling on abortion, and it is the same court that has prevented reasonable gun control. Different people at different times make decisions that affect all of us for a long, long time.
Someone else mentioned writers should be licensed. As a journalist, to get a press pass to cover accidents and the like I had to agree to a background check. I attended a press conference by Gerald Ford, after he was President and the Secret Service ran my fingerprints. As a reporter or any writer, you are subject laws dealing with liable, language that seeks to promote attacks on fellow citizens, the stealing of writings from other people and the damage of facing damage suits if you improperly blame, accuse or defame any person. There is a limit on the access to many public records. People have the right to say no comment and government agencies can hold "executive sessions" or closed-door meetings. There are probably more restrictions on writing than there are on gun control. The difference is that responsible writers recognize those limitations and work within the law. Efforts are made to change laws and are sometimes successful but often not.
Comparing the freedom of speech and press to the right to bear arms, does not fall into the same categories. Any reasonable person should understand that..
You're right - there are a lot of numbers thrown around with no indication of where they came from.
But the term "reasonable gun control" is also beloved of many, and with just as much lack of what it actually means. We all know what is "reasonable" to one is likely to be horrific and completely unreasonable to another; what is your concept of "reasonable gun control"?
Perhaps a list of items, coupled with a reason why they are included?
Reasonable Gun Control:
Prohibit the sale of military type weapons.
Require a background on persons buying guns. This would not mean all persons with a criminal recorded would be excluded.
Persons that were convicted of non-violet crimes and those who had been clean for 10 years after a violet felony could purchase a gun.
First-time guy buyers would have to take a gun safety course.
I would raise the age when a child can start using a rifle or shotgun to hunt.
Persons would be taught that if their home is invaded, they have a right to defend themselves.
However, if the intruder attempts to leaves, the occupant shall refrain from shooting--to avoid the possibility of hitting neighbors, police offers or other innocent people.
It should be a crime to fire a gun into the air without a definite target. Falling bullets kill people.
Guns have to be accessible in the home, but gun safes can be quickly opened.
Individuals would be prohibited from altering the firing mechanism to avoid creating "hair triggers."
Sales at gun shows should be prohibited, and the purchase of a gun should require a three-day waiting period period from the time they register to purchase the gun.
A gun should carry a title, just like a car. When that gun is sold to another person or traded, the transfer shall be reported to the proper state agency.
You probably think these rules are excessive, but they are very similar to what you have to do to buy, own, operate and dispose of a car.
If a person is going to carry a gun on his person, he shall have a permit to do so. A ballistic signature, i.e. three fire bullets, should be on file with the appropriate agency as long as the person carrying the gun seeks to do so.
There are other steps that could be taken, but this is a start.
OK - we're getting somewhere, although that's quite a list for being "reasonable". Let's look at it:
Military weapons are already banned for citizens. Unless the "style" part is intended to give an open invitation to banning anything you want?
Background checks: why do you want them, what is the purpose and what is the expected result? And who will pay for them - the assumed purpose is to protect the citizenry; it would seem reasonable that general taxes should foot this multi-million dollar bill. Would you agree or would you put the cost on those people utilizing their constitutional rights in an effort to convince them (financially) not to do so?
Safety course: seems reasonable to me.
Age limit - you forgot to specify what you propose. Please do so, and keep in mind that many 12, 13 and 14 year old kids are helping to feed their families with a gun.
Fire in the air: how do you intend to enforce that law? If you can't enforce it, then don't make it a law. How would you handle bird hunting in this respect?
Guns have to be accessible: I'm failing to understand the law you propose. Can you elucidate?
Hair triggers: how would you enforce this? By testing every gun every month? Again, if you can't enforce it, don't make it a law.
Gun shows - why? What is the reason for no gun shows or for a 3 day period? Do you think you will prevent a substantial number of murders by forcing millions to wait 3 days for their right to own a gun and if so, what evidence can you provide for that belief?
Why a title? What is the purpose, outside of keeping a government record of who has a gun? You do realize that that is a major point for collecting all guns?
Cars have nothing to do with guns; there is no constitutional right to own or operate a car and there is no reasonable comparison between the two. Apples and oranges.
Why a permit, and why a ballistic signature? What is the purpose of such a law?
Yes, this is certainly a start, and I'm glad you recognize and agree that it is intended to be only a start; that the intent is to stretch it just as far as can be done. It's rare to find people that will acknowledge that.
I missed a couple - only invaders inside the home could be shot. Already in affect in most places I'm aware of, and with a vengeance. Pretty much the same for invaders attempting to make the gun owner think they are leaving before attacking once more.
Unfortunately, some of the laws would be enforced after the fact. However, knowing that your weapon could be checked for modifications, or if a bullet was traced back to your gun might act as a deterrent for some people.
Keeping guns secure at home, would just be a good precaution, might prevent an untrained neighbor from "playing with a gun>"
The age of 12 may be an adequate age for children to begin hunting, as long as they took a safety course geared to their level. They should always be accompanied by an adult.
Some of the suggestions I offered will not prevent needless deaths, but may help find the person responsible and set an example for other people.
The title is to trace ownership. A gun used in a crime can be traced back to the owner. If he says he lost it or gave it away, then additional information would be required. Guns should be treated like cars--you should be able to prove ownership. You should be able to prove you have taken a safe driver course (required in many states for cars).
The Gun safe keeps the gun away from children and allows you to keep it loaded, if that is your desire.
The balletic signature could help identify from what gun was a bullet was fired. I am not playing CSI, but I do know that the markings on a fired bullet can often be traced back to the gun.
The permit to own a gun would be paid by the gun owner just as I must pay a fee for a license to drive a car, an annual inspection fee, and a fee to register the title or transfer the title. The user pays the cost. This would be at the state level and therefore would not be in violation of the second amendment that says congress shall pass no law against the baring of weapons.
You have other objections, as I expected. I am offering a starting point. I am trying to be fair and suggest regulations that may save lives and teach users of guns their full responsibilities. I had a similar debate in a Hub I wrote. It turned out a hunter killed himself, when trying to get to pass a fence to shoot a wounded deer. He did not put the weapon on the ground, put the safety on or anything like that. He got caught up in the fence and shot himself. A life was lost--needlessly lost. He made a mistake, but someone one else could had been shot because of his carelessness.
I do not claim to have all the answer, but I know that a total lack of control is not wise. People die every year from accidental gunshots. Can you not agree that if we can reduce that number with regulations such as these, it would be worth the "inconvenience" the gun owner has to endure? I know a lot of gun owners. With my eyesight, there is no point in my going hunting or shooting at clay pigeons, but I would feel safe around these people and know they would use their weapons responsibly. As a former newspaper reporter I wrote too many stories about accidental deaths because children thought "daddy's gun was not loaded."
Will my suggested rules prevent all unnecessary gun deaths and injuries--absolutely not? Can they stop one unnecessary death? iI the answer is yes, then the suggestions are viable?
" Can you not agree that if we can reduce that number <accidental shootings> with regulations such as these, it would be worth the "inconvenience" the gun owner has to endure?"
Why not let the gun owner make that call? What right do you have to determine what actions another person takes to protect/care for themselves? While I agree that laws need to be in place (if enforceable) to protect children or other people, the gun owner himself has the responsibility for his own safety. Your tale of the man crossing the fence is a good example; he did a stupid thing and paid the price. It is unreasonable, IMO, to force someone else to pay the price for that.
Cost of checks/licensing, etc. - you blithely skipped over the whole point. All of these are for the benefit of a second party, not the gun owner. And that party (society in this case) should therefore be paying the cost, not the gun owner. While I realize that it has become popular to tax small, powerless groups for the "good" of all, it is neither ethical nor moral. Society wants to protect itself from criminals getting their hands on guns - good! Let society pay the price, not just a limited group that society can force, through will of the majority, into covering the cost for everyone.
It's much the same for registration and ballistics. We DO have the right not to self-incriminate, after all, and both of these are merely a step in that direction. Plus, of course, a governmental record of who owns what for when it comes time for confiscation. No, Larry, there is no reason to require that cops know I have a gun, let alone which gun. When it is used in a crime, then let them know, but until then it is a gross violation of privacy.
"Military weapons are already banned for citizens. Unless the "style" part is intended to give an open invitation to banning anything you want?" An M-16 IS a military-style weapon - buy it here http://www.gunbroker.com/M16/Browse.aspx?Keywords=M16
"Background checks: why do you want them, what is the purpose and what is the expected result? " That IS NOT a serious question. BTW, the current weak background checking system, has stopped more than 2.1 million gun purchases in the last 20 years, of which 118,000 were fugitives. Following your wishes, 118,000 fugitives would have guns ... happy? Oh, BTW, THAT is why I want them.
"Age limit - you forgot to specify what you propose. Please do so, and keep in mind that many 12, 13 and 14 year old kids are helping to feed their families with a gun." - oh, give me a break! Maybe in some third world country, but not in America. Any animals killed by these young children, which is not for the simple fun of killing another living thing (which is what most "hunting" is for) aren't necessary to put food on any table; it is much, much cheaper to just buy food.
"Gun shows - why?" Actually, I agree with you other than I think ANY sales or transfer of firearms there must be background checks and a 3-day waiting period
"What is the reason for no gun shows or for a 3-day period?" Isn't it obvious to you? The 3-day period is to reduce the number of suicides (I know, those people really aren't dead in your opinion) and reduce the number of crimes of passion.
"Fire in the air: how do you intend to enforce that law? If you can't enforce it, then don't make it a law. How would you handle bird hunting in this respect?" - Clearly, PeoplePower is referring to celebratory shooting and since virtually everything is videotaped now-a-days, it would be easy to identify most of these stupid, reckless, and irresponsible shooters.
"Hair triggers: how would you enforce this? By testing every gun every month? Again, if you can't enforce it, don't make it a law." - again, virtually all laws are there to dissuade people from breaking the law. The enforcement, like with every other law, is to prosecute offenders who have been caught. Simple, isn't it? Isn't that the way it normally works?
"Why a title? What is the purpose, outside of keeping a government record of who has a gun?" Again, simple - to help police track down people who commit crimes with a gun.
"Why a permit, and why a ballistic signature? What is the purpose of such a law?" - Obviously to help police solve gun related crimes; or don't you want them solved?
Most self-defense gun use is illegal - http://www.armedwithreason.com/debunkin … -use-myth/
So you want background checks so "fugitives" (from what, I wonder) can't get a gun. And we know they can't because current laws caught thousands of them trying. So - good thinking. The idea that it actually prevented 118,000 fugitives from getting a gun is foolish, of course, but at least they didn't get it when they got the check, and that's what counts, isn't it?
Sorry, Esoteric, but I killed my first deer at 13. A 32 "special" rifle, it was. Heck, we've got high schools not that far from where I live that have kids driving their pickups to school with guns in window rack!
But I'm not interested (here) in discussing suicides, although I would join in another thread dedicated to the topic. Will it reduce crimes of passion, though? We both know that gun ownership does not correlate with murders - how then can you believe 3 days without a gun will make a difference? Just pretend, and that makes it so, right? And while we're at it, pretend as well that there will be lot's of them to justify making millions of people delay exercising their 2A rights.
Agree that's what he's referring to. But it's rather stupid to say that because everyone video's their malfeasance we can catch them. Even you know better than that! Want to try again, then?
How will you catch someone without checking their gun? And how will you check the gun - get a search warrant for anyone with a gun? Not sure, too, but don't competition target weapons have just such a trigger?
Yep - help cops find people with guns. You can kick that one out right now - just a little too obvious what the ultimate goal is.
Not interested in destroying privacy to help cops. We've already crossed the line pretty badly with the TSA - let's not go any further down that road. Nor am I interested in telling cops that I own a gun so they can come get it in a few years - you of all people should understand that.
And I was a little sloppy in saying that military weapons can't be bought. They can, although it is extremely pricey and special permits are needed.
Of course, there hasn't been one used in a murder in decades - why go any further then? Just to take them away, maybe along with anything else that sounds bad?
You have your point of view. I disagree. We are not going to reach any common ground... Your views and the people who agree with you will prevail for the immediate future, possibly the rest of my lifetime. That does not mean you are right. It just means that the possible consequences are of little concern to you, and you do not want any inconvenience. I recognize your position. I just think you are wrong--but for now that is only my opinion. Reply if you wish, but I will not read it. I usually avoid the forums because few people read them, and they accomplish little.
I see I touched a nerve. Progressives wail about do-it-yourself suicides and dead criminals, but they don't give a hoot in hell about 50,000,000 totally innocent dead babies in the last 42 years.
http://www.politifact.com/new-jersey/st … s-have-be/
BTW, it's very easy to find these statistics if you actually want to.
Probably because 49,999,990 of the "corpses" weren't babies at all.
Can't go with you on this one, Will. The problem is a deep disagreement on what constitutes a "person" - a "human being" - and has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Just definition and religious belief. No facts to look at, no data; nothing but pure opinion without anything at all to base it on.
Not to reasonable people. Baby, fetus, etc. are actually just stages of life terms, and all of them are human. When a human sperm and a human egg unite, the real absurdity is arguing that this new and totally unique life with ts own DNA is not a living human. Of course it is.
For years, abortionists argued that it was just a 'shapeless blob'. When that proved to be a bald-faced lie, they argued that it was not a 'person', claiming the authority to define terms.
Anyone who has ever seen an abortion in progress is appalled by the sheer cruelty of it as limbs are ripped off a writhing little body:
I understand that it's not politically correct to oppose abortion, but thankfully, Americans are getting fed up with political correctness and lies about what an abortion kills.
Hm. Sounds much like "reasonable gun controls", meaning outright ban of all weapons. Words like "absurd, "of course" and "reasonable" translate to nothing more that "it's my opinion" and you're fully smart enough to recognize that.
You go on to point it out yourself: the zygote you claim as human is indeed nothing but a shapeless blob. Again, sounds like an "assault weapon" as a .22 with a tubular magazine, doesn't it? Just another gross exaggeration designed to raise emotions but without a factual basis at all.
(Your pretty video isn't about abortions at all; it is about "late term abortions", legally termed "murder" in this country. If, that is, those people actually came from a womb with the intent to end a pregnancy early. Such false emotionalism and lie is beneath you).
"Such false emotionalism and lie is beneath you."
My wife is a labor and delivery nurse and lots of our friends are doctors, so much of our life is about unborn babies. Calling my fact-based views 'false emotionalism and lie' is out of line.
But this thread is not about abortion, and my reference to it was to compare lives to lives.
I'm sure we all appreciate your relationships with those individuals who may be in the Medical Field, I also have friends and relatives in this field, but that still dosen't change the FACT that "Gun Violence" and "Abortion" are as similar in relationship to each other as the Atmosphere on Earth vs the Sun ~
Will, I but attempt to show you how the tactics you are using are so similar to those of the gun haters.
For instance, you claim that a zygote (fertilized egg) is human, AND that it is not a "shapeless blob". The first is a matter of definition only (your definition, not the court's) and the second is flatly untrue. The same thing the gun haters do; consider what an "assault weapon" is and what it referred to before the gun controversy decided to include it in their repertoire of emotion based arguments.
"You probably think these rules are excessive, but they are very similar to what you have to do to buy, own, operate and dispose of a car."
I wish you folks would decide whether the car/gun comparison is valid. I was told that it is not by a gun control advocate in this thread after I countered a car/gun argument (and I actually agree).
Or is it valid only for gun controllers?
The very strategic stability of America depended on the "we the people " possession of guns in the beginning , HENCE , the second amendment , hence the supreme courts constant vigilance of and protection for that second amendment ! As in the protections of the American people by ALL constitutional law , AND that has remained unaltered .
So just what is it that the left cannot fathom about constitutional law to begin with ?
The right of the citizen to keep and bear arms has its basis in old English law:
For years, those who did not want an armed populace tried to sell the notion that The Second Amendment applied to militia members only, due to the admittedly awkward wording. However, there is no language that actually restricts ownership to militia only because that was never their purpose, and the legal scholars knew it all along. Obviously, some of our opponents here refuse to accept the Supreme Court decision in The District of Columbia VS Heller:
The Heller decision:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm UNCONNECTED WITH SERVICE IN A MILITIA, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but
does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative
clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it
connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear
arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms bearing
rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately
followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious
interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals
that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts
and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the
late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation.
Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor
Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individual rights
interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not
limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather
limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by
the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.
2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed
weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment
or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast
doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by
felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms
in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or
laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of
arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those
“in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition
of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to
self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban
on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an
entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the
lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny
the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional
muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.
BTW, for those of you that think the Second Amendment does not protect military weapons, that was previously addressed in the Miller decision, which the left tried to sell as upholding their claim that the 2nd applied only to militia members:
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individual rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, BUT RATHER LIMITS THE TYPE OF WEAPON TO WHICH THE RIGHT APPLIES TO THOSE USED BY THE MILITIA, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.
In Reality, this is just an OPINION my friend, a Nonsensical one at that ~ I suppose the court which issued this OPINION was present at the table with our Founders to discern such detailed information ?
Sorry Will, but the 2cnd Amendment articulates NOTHING with regard to "Weapon Type" ~ By any standard, there is much "Guessing" going on in this ill-conceived "OPINION" ~
I understand the FACT that it's Inconvenient, but when a sentence begins with the words "A Well Regulated Militia", unless "Ulterior Motive" is at PLAY, you acknowledge the FACT that they do indeed exist ~ Republicans ALWAYS ignore or find the NEED to CHOP off the first 13 words of the Amendment, it's expected by now ~
No, the court was not present at the table any more than you were.
But they are a lot closer to it than you will ever be, having spent their life studying law and working with it and within it's confines. Plus, of course, they don't try and convince people that there are invisible words like "only the militia" that aren't there.
You never present any historical evidence to back up your claim of what the Founding Fathers intended. You simply bluster and bluff, so why should we pay any heed to your baseless claims?
I am going to have to take up Will's side on this as to the effect of the 2A, but maybe not in the details. I just finished the biography on Madison and have previously read the one on Jefferson and Adams (although he doesn't play in this narrative). Both Madison and Jefferson talk about a "well-regulated militia" and the need for one.
What is very clear is that at the top of the mind of these two individuals and most of the others in the late 1700s is the recent experience they had in defeating an autocratic central gov't. They also saw that an "unregulated militia" ultimately helped the British, albeit unintentionally, through their ineptitude at conducting war; Jefferson was particularly vocal about this.
There is no doubt in my mind that what lies behind the wording of the 2A is this fear of an out-of-control central gov't and the need for the STATES to have the ability to organize militias to protect themselves from it; hence the first phrase. But, since the men who made up the militia brought their own personal weapons with them (and horses, if they had them) it was necessary that the central gov't be prohibited from disarming the People; hence the rest of the 2A. There was nothing more nuanced or hehe esoteric beyond that reasoning.
Does it apply today? Some say no because there is no way states could defeat the federal standing army and navy. I say yes, however, because 1) the states have, in their own right, powerful weapons and 2) a determined people, properly led and organized, can stand up to overpowering odds; Vietnam being one of the best examples I can think of.
People of the 17 and 1800s carried around their own weapons because most of them needed to hunt to put food on the table because their was no other alternative. They didn't carry around automatic weapons, bazookas, anti-tank and anti-are missiles because, even if such things existed, they didn't need them to hunt. Further, I doubt, for the same reasons as today (public safety) the state or the federal gov'ts would have allowed it had these types of weapons been available.
Since they didn't have these types of weapons, then it is up to the SC to decide, on a case-by-case basis, whether any given weapon that one man can shoulder falls under the category of "arms". So far, sawed-off shotguns and maybe machine guns have been determined not to fall under the protection of the 2A.
My Esoteric ~ I appreciate your passion for the subject but you are simply OFF Base on this one ~ The "FOUNDERS" "Talked" about many things, including how to Protect the States from another Foreign Invasion which was indeed the PRIMARY Threat at the time, or to protect from the indigenous peoples who actually OWNED the land upon which the Europeans Encroached ~
"Autocratic Government", "Tyranny" etc are "Fantastical Claims" which I guess make the subject a little more ROMANTIC for a read, however, neither word is Mentioned in the Amendment, therefore, you are indeed "Guessing and or Pretending" this was the intent which it wasn't ~
P.S. ~ A "Well Regulated Militia" would need EXPERT Military Officers such as George Washington to Organize etc, not drunken, mentally un-sound prilgrims, or even criminals ~ I seriously doubt if George Washington would have TRAINED a Militia to use AGAINST Himself ~ ???? ~ George was an arrogant, immoral, un-ethical Immigrant, but certainly NOT Stupid ~
The insertion of the word "TYRANNY" into the Amendment would have been quite simple to achieve, just a few drops of pigeon ink as well, but guess what, it's NOT there, at least it dosen't appear in my copy of the Amendment ~ It's NOT there for very good reason ~
My Esoteric is absolutely correct in his historical view of the 2nd Amendment. I did study history, but it has been a long time.
The Supreme Court chose to ignore the "well-regulated militia" regulated militia" clause because we had a federal militia. Thus, you basically are dealing with half of the original amendment.
The problem is, and it is a problem. The NRA and others want an absolute interpretation of that clause and will not recognize that changes in the fabric of the country, the growth of the nation and the increase in the population mandate by virtue of common sense that reasonable regulations to protect those people who do not carry guns, are unable to use guns (blind people, for example) can be safe and secure. I do not want to take away your guns. I just want to keep track of them, keep illegal weapons out of the country and make certain those own guns know how to use them, and that they face penalties for not following any laws that may be enacted. Any control law going to end up before the Supreme Court, as the Constitution requires. If you trust the Court to dismiss the first part of the original amendment, then you should trust them to rule on this matter in greater detail. It will get to the court one day.
Everything that was originally written in the Constitution is not valid today. The three-fifths compromise, which was rescinded, is a perfect example. Others will say that the Prohibition amendment was a failure, and it was because it sought a total ban on alcoholic beverages instead of reasonable regulations.
The Second Amendment needs to be revisited. The current Congress is not going to do it, thus, the matter is moot for the near future.
Keep Studying Larry and you might Discover the TRUTH ~
Of course they conveniently Omitted "A Well Regulated Militia", because those 4 words virtually DESTROY the "Individual Citizen Gun Ownership" Contention ~
Once again, conservative republicans ALWAYS Omit the first 13 words of the Amendment, it's the ONLY way they can salvage a SLIGHT Case ~ I've yet to meet a republican who will acknowledge the COMPLETE sentence ~
I belong to no political party because neither of the major parties have it together. The Supreme Court changed the second amendment from its original intent to the current use. The attitude that there can be no regulations dealing with safety, use, and possession by convicted felons, the mentally ill, the blind and others should not be ignored.
Some NRA members are willing and agree that changes are needed, but like the major political parties, the rank and file are seldom heard.
You have your guns and as of now you are continuing to have your way. Someday, a change will take place.
Mr. Prime, I have studied the issue, probably more than you have. Because you do not agree with me, does not give you the right to assume that I lack knowledge on the issue. The only assumptions are that we do not agree, and it appears you are not will have to concede that some additional regulation is needed.
I am a strong advocate of the First Amendment, freedom of the press, but I never let anyone working under my direction engages in anything that could lead to libel, a lack of objectivity or anything that would incite riots or other acts of damage or terror. Everything has limits. Someday, the 2nd amendment may be changed by court action because of some action we cannot foresee. At that point, you will probably wish that you were more open to reasonable revisions.
Your implying that the right's political ideology "forgets the first thirteen words"....Blah ,blah, blah is pure horse manure . -A well regulated Militia - was then and is now made up of the second half of that sentence ! ............Of the people ! Of all of the supposed intelligence of those who would change the meaning of the second amendment , I would think that English composition might be one important requirement !.
The meaning of the phrase "well-regulated" in the 2nd amendment
From: Brian T. Halonen <email@example.com>
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.
"The Supreme Court changed the second amendment from its original intent to the current use. The attitude that there can be no regulations dealing with safety, use, and possession by convicted felons, the mentally ill, the blind and others should not be ignored."
What on Earth are you talking about?
Let's settle this car/gun issue.
While we can compare death rates between cars, guns, falling off ladders, etc., we cannot compare licensing of guns vs cars unless we want to use those guns in a government owned shooting range.
We do not need a license to buy a car or to own one. We do not need a license to drive a car or a license for the car, nor do we need to register it or insure it UNLESS we want to drive it on government owned roads, and yes, government owns the roads, so they get to make the rules.
A friend of mine owns property in a rural area that has miles and miles of private roads. Lots of his neighbors have old Jeeps and pickups that they use solely on those private roads, and they haven't been licensed in years! Lots of ranchers and farmers have similar old trucks that never leave their property and therefore do not need to be licensed, and neither do their drivers.
So if you want to apply car-owning requirements to gun owning, go right ahead. One of my neighbors was born blind. He has never driven a car and obviously has never had a license, but he owns two cars. He needed no license to buy either one.
You conservatives are funny, the roads are publically owned roads. The Government is US, not some foreign entity from another planet. The rightwinger continues to exist as an anachronism, hopelessly out of date and out of time. When do they ever stop fantasizing and grow up to greet reality instead of always clingling to some spectre of the past?
Conservatives hate Government so much, how do 300 million people get along without it?
Actually , you're wrong , the conservative loves his government , yet he loves it small , the way it was designed , the way all government should be . It isn't the conservative who needs a government like a father or mother , perhaps even as a god , to coddle his very existence . That's on the wish list of the liberal . AND this federal government and the NRA know this .
This is a very complex world, ahorseback. We libs recognize the need for regulation over a broad swath of interactions between people and corporate entities. Just what is small for you folks, anyway? Regulation is necessary in the modern world, if you can't see that then.......
Quite frankly , the problem with this attitude and statement is that we are already over regulated . But let me inject this , I own or have owned dozens of guns of different types , what good are more regulations now , I'm "grandfathered " , right ? Unless you go retroactive . Or unless more regulation is simple attrition . Every regulation now followed by law abiding citizens should be enough right ,- no ? , and you want more regulation still .
Here's a problem , unlike the constitutional rights of free speech or whatever , you now have a list of me and my friends names ,address' , phone numbers and social security #'s, on a piece of paper , held by the federal government , for simply enjoying my constitutional rights . How fair is that , Now the federal government is monitoring particularly -----MY rights , but not yours ?
Ahorseback, I have told most of the gun people here that I want background checks, ids and waiting periods to continue. If that stays unchanged that is good enough for me, no more laws are necessary. Conservatives sure want all this for the person that wishes to cast their ballots.
How do you think that you are going to get your Social Security if the government does not have your number? This Hatfield and McCoy world that conservatives seem to wallow in never works in reality.
You want to be sure that the milk you buy at the store is milk and not infested with bacteria, right? Who do you think arranges the checks?
You want to make sure that the plane that you are travelling on has a requirement for regular inspection for safety, not just leaving it in the hands of the profit motive driven airlines, right? Who do you think arranges that?
Here's another, you want to make sure that the 'job creators' and their companies are not free to dump their effluent into the water table to leach into your drinking water, the private sector could care less, so who is regulating it?
Every thing from the stop lights to proper disposal of nuclear waste material is handled by all these 'regulators' that you seem to dislike.
The problem with the conservative is they want to win at the game by cheating and for that to be successful you have to do away with the referees, the government regulators.
The world that you folks you keep talking about are things of the past, if ever true, and quite illusionary, today. Just how far back do we need to go, ahorseback, to dredge up the America that you remember and would be considered the 'free society' you talk about.
Whether you like it or nor, socialism is already here to a great extent. And if the muzzle is not kept on the greedy types, they will take it all, as that is what they do. A true 'free market' is just an illusion, today
Regulating guns and ownership have some merit in some cases.
If a gun is used in the commission of a crime, I want the person caught. Identifying the bullet and related detail, along with the location, the crime, etc., may help the police find the weapon and the person who shot it.
Go hunting. If you have to cross a fence, put the gun down first, then cross. If you want to carry a weapon, you should have a permit. This would be a state law and not a violation of the 2nd amendment.
If you own a moving vehicle, even if you use it on your own land, you have to have it registered, at least in my state and the driver has to have a license.
If you buy a car from a dealer, you better have your chauffeur with you or that car is going nowhere.
I know we are not going to prevent the use of guns, but I want to use every possible means to track down people who use guns for illegal purposes. If one life is saved, it is worth the effort.
And as I have stated here and elsewhere , enough is enough , as gun owners we are already over registered and over regulated , we have been for what ,forty plus years ! EVERY SINGLE TIME there is an infraction that catches the eye of the liberal media and liberal activists , some newbie to this issue wants a NEW law , a NEW regulation , a NEW restriction ., so we comply and we comply again . This stage we are in isn't the beginning of gun regulation , its well into the continuance of the insanity . So has all of this mass insanity of over regulation stopped the criminal element that cares little or nothing about ANY of this , ? No ? Why ?
Maybe It's time to try something else .
The justice system is a joke in America , You have a sex offender registry to know who lives next door to you , but no felon registry ? And this makes sense to you ?
Every time I read the court news , I see the same names in the court registers , Does a "revolving door" incarceration policy come to mind ?
So you do not dispute anything I said because it's all true. Good. Now we're getting somewhere.
BTW, the test of ownership is whether or not you can sell it. If you cannot sell it, then you do not own it.
"And as I have stated here and elsewhere , enough is enough , as gun owners we are already over registered and over regulated , we have been for what ,forty plus years ! EVERY SINGLE TIME there is an infraction that catches the eye of the liberal media and liberal activists , some newbie to this issue wants a NEW law , a NEW regulation , a NEW restriction ., so we comply and we comply again . This stage we are in isn't the beginning of gun regulation , its well into the continuance of the insanity . So has all of this mass insanity of over regulation stopped the criminal element that cares little or nothing about ANY of this , ? No ? Why ?"
Very well said. No one wants armed criminals, but no law has ever put a dent in armed criminal activity and probably never will no matter how harsh we make the punishment! If you steal in a Muslim country, they cut off your hands, but people still steal!
The controlling types seem to believe that if they just create enough legal hoops, it will discourage criminals from trying to get a gun, but since criminals don't get their guns legally in the first place, the only real effect it has is discouraging the law abiding and making us ever more vulnerable.
Please don't ask me to link it , lol, -I read a report of FBI origins , In the report , during the sixties Warren Supreme Court years , an over wave of lessoning of arrests , prosecution , and incarceration began in America . For whatever reasoning , in my opinion , this has not only continued but increased ! As to violent gun crimes ;
I say cut off the hand ,Will .
Hey, maybe Sha'ri law has some useful points, lol.
"I read a report of FBI origins , In the report , during the sixties Warren Supreme Court years , an over wave of lessoning of arrests , prosecution , and incarceration began in America . For whatever reasoning , in my opinion , this has not only continued but increased !"
The 'soft on crime and criminals' progressive attitude is indeed baffling. Progressives claim their intent is to cut down on gun crimes, but when it is pointed out that right at 70% of all gun murders are committed by black and Latino gang members, progressives are either silent or angrily labeling any mention of inner city crime rates 'racist'.
New York City gun murders are committed overwhelmingly by young black and Latino males, so they were the main targets of the 'stop and frisk' campaign. As a result, gun murders were reduced dramatically, but the soft-on-crime progressives like Bill de Blasio called it racial profiling, and now the murder rate is back where it was.
Racial profiling is actually a PC term and it's intention is to demonize the perfectly legitimate police practice of criminal profile awareness. If, for instance, if a high percentage of murders are committed by young, inner city minority hoodlums wearing gang colors and hanging around dark street corners at 2:00 in the morning, guess who the cops are going to target with suspicion?
But progressives want that obviously correct police practice stopped because liberals view minority criminals as 'victims' and unfairly targeted.
Utter nonsense, WillStarr, Is the rightwing fascist view, guilty until proven innocent? This issue was litigated in the courts before and this kind of harrassment of minority communities will not be tolerated, you can bet on that. So, I have a black skin, that makes me a criminal?
So, I, as a black male, am walking down a Harlem street, that constitutes probably cause or reasonable suspicion in of itself to be accosted by police and searched? Where did you learn your junior high school civics, or were you sleeping in class?
The sort that you represent makes me ill to my stomach. According to the dopey rightwing reasoning all minorities are criminals.
Law enforcement will conduct equal enforcement of the law regardless of color or anything else or we will snarl the rightwinger advocates in courts and sue the pants off from anyone, so don't even think about, period!!!
In this case the left shall rule supreme!!!
I've said this before , Take a look at the top ten most violent cities in America , the ethnic ratios , gang affiliations , Anyone in their right mind understands race shows differences related to violent crime . Want to call the messenger the racist , fine ............but look at the numbers anyway !
Like a good progressive, he simply ignored the numbers and facts, preferring to employ the usual worn out leftist rhetoric and insults like ' the rightwing fascist view', and then playing the victim or misrepresenting what was said: "According to the dopey rightwing reasoning all minorities are criminals."
No one said that, since most blacks are not criminals. Less than 4% of the population (young black males) commit over 50% of all gun murders in the US and almost all of their victims are other young, black males. Why? Because they have no father in the home to keep them in line! God only knows what would have become of me if not for my own father's strong guiding hand.
My own nephew's father walked out on him when he was a little boy, and although my sister did her best, he is currently serving 22 years in prison for aiding and abetting a double murder. He is a redhead with very pale skin. It's not about race. It's about out-of-wedlock babies, fatherless homes, and the liberal idiots who said that a father is not necessary.
There are reasons why more black families suffer from the single head of household syndrome. You fail to mention the disadvantages blacks face in employment opportunities. Are we an equal, color blind society, not in a pigs eye. When more of that is corrected, then you can talk. The problem is much more complicated in minority communities than the mere fact that daddy is not home...
Young black males, who make up less than 4% of the population, commit over 50% of all gun murders and most of their victims are also young black males.
Explain why that is.
I will, after I revisit responsible sources of information, I will get back with you.
You are using the wrong numbers.
Consider the following:
In 2013, the population of African Americans including those of more than one race was estimated at 45 million, making up 15.2% of the total U.S. population.
Those who identified only as African American made up 13.2% of the U.S. population-over 41.7 million people.
The US Census BureauExternal Web Site Icon projects that by the year 2060 there will be 74.5 million African Americans including those of more than one race in the United States, making up 17.9% of the total U.S. population.
http://www.cdc.gov/minorityhealth/popul … black.html
There are other sources that dispute your numbers. You have the right to your opinion, but if you are quoting facts, get them right and cite the source.
I have found information that corroborates the information you provided. We, as black people bear the blame for much of their community's problems, but not all of it. I certainly will give institutional and structural racism, an American malignancy that is hard to eradicate, half of the blame.
But inspite of all this, that does not justify the establishment of police state tactics in these communities. These young men are citizens of US, all the same, and the provisions of the Constitution apply to them as well, regardless or whether or not you like it or think it appropriate.
So what do you propose be done, and please, be specific with no vague generalities. Tell us step by step.
If I knew all the answers, I would qualify as the Messiah.
One thing that you do not do is subject poor, crime ridden communities and their residents to a disregard of their rights under the Bill of Rights.
I would increase police presense, but they are to behave within constitutionally mandated parameters, keeping a look out and detaining and arresting suspects with proper evidence and procedure.
Look at the underlying employment issues in the communities, inspite of what rightwingers say, there is a correlation between poverty and crime.
The parenting issue is a factor, but the blind cannot lead the blind. We can talk about a parenting environment that existed in the past, but is no more relevant than a nickel pepsi, today.
Maybe, if the racist disparity in police encounters, arrests and function of the judicial system could be rooted out, fewer of the men, fathers, in jail would be there.
This deterioration is found in white families as well, their relative wealth insulates them from experiencing the effects found in the minority communities, (for now). It is just going to take a little longer.
It is hard to derive a positive integer when we deal with 0 or negative numbers.
The President of the United States of America is a black man, and that means that an awful lot of white people voted for him, not just once but twice. How could that have happened, if American whites are so racist?
And since Obama is the first black president, why has he done so little for blacks? Why, in fact, has the entire Democrat Party done so little to solve the generational crime problem?
The sociologists tell us that a child born out of wedlock to a single mother is almost certainly doomed to poverty, and nearly 75% of all black babies fit that category. Yet we are told by the hard left that it is not even a factor, much less the root cause!
Instead of addressing nearly 70% of all gun crime, the left wishes to impose harsh new restrictions on the law abiding gun owners. What sort of logic is that?
If all of the white only had the vote we would have had McCain and Romney as president. The people of color put Obama over the top. Things have improved, but the fact that I continue to have this conversation says the issues are far from resolved. Structural and institutional racism are still a part of the American fabric, are you going to have to force me to gather stats from reputable sources to prove my point?
What makes you think that Obama was elected 'to do things for Blacks"? Oh, now I get it, that is where the conservatives' inane idea that blacks voted for Obama because he was Black derives....
1. According to the oath of office that Mr. Obama took, he is obligated to serve all of the people equally. 'Equally' a concept foreign to the conservative mindset?
1. He had to deal with a useless obstructionist GOP congress, the stimulus was designed to help middle class families and the poor from the center out, instead of from the top down. As more minorities proportionately fall into that economic strata, so who is being helped?
2. Relative to Obama, McCain and Romney would have been kissing the arses of the plutocrat and to damn with the rest of us.
I know about the tragic statistics of out of wedlock births and how black families are more affected as a group. I did not tell you that this was not a factor in poverty and crime, I TOLD you that it is not only the reason. Two generations ago, racism was still going strong when the out of wedlock statistics were no where near what they are today. So, is it a sign of the times?
So, two generations ago racism was with us when large quantities of out of wedlock births were not. So what conclusions can YOU draw from this?
As a lefty, I want registration, background checks and waiting periods, and they should be doing all this now. I have no further desire to keep you from your toys beyond that....
What precisely, did I say that was not true? For instance:
"In New York from January to June 2008, 83 percent of all gun assailants were black, according to witnesses and victims, though blacks were only 24 percent of the population. Blacks and Hispanics together accounted for 98 percent of all gun assailants. Forty-nine of every 50 muggings and murders in the Big Apple were the work of black or Hispanic criminals."
http://humanevents.com/2013/07/19/black … te-racism/
Now you can make all sorts of emotional appeals and play the race card all you wish, but facts are facts.
The real problem in America is the absolute refusal of progressives to deal with the source of most of America's crime and gun violence, and that is the fatherless young males OF ALL RACES who commit most of the crime.
Instead, as Credence2 just did, they prefer to paint anyone who dares tell the truth as a heartless, racist bully, and the criminals as victims.
Yeah, that'll work!
So, you drag in evidence from a right wing rag to support your position?
I sure that those figures are exaggerated like they exaggerate everything else. How about using mainstream publications to make your point with credibility.
As Paul Harvey once said, 'now it is time for rest of the story'. Is it any wonder that I dislike conservative thought so much?
"young, inner city minority hoodlums wearing gang colors and hanging around dark street corners at 2:00 in the morning"
There would seem to be quite a bit of difference between that scenario and that of a black male walking the streets of a predominately black neighborhood. It reminds me of the New Mexico(?) published police guidelines for finding illegal aliens that was savagely attacked because one of a dozen or so attributes were given for profiling. Of which being Hispanic was but one, and grossly insufficient to check for ID, but of course the detractors chose to present race as the only thing being looked at.
Will suggested 7 different attributes all at once; you suggest that he really means only 1 - that of race. Police profiling is a very useful tool, but it does not depend on race alone (and sometimes not race at all). When race IS a part of the profile, it is only one piece of the pie and insufficient in and of itself.
Yes, Wilderness, your last paragraph is correct, but the kinds of 'stop and frisk' policy is not about looking at all components but only one. That is why the policy was shot from the sky a couple of years ago as inappropriate search and seizure over far to broad a population. How does 'stop and frisk' operate with the 7 different attributes.
This policy was shot down in New York, because of the helter skelter search and frisk of any and all black males in the vicinity, the courts shot it down. So, why do you think that it did not meet constitutional muster?
This is very touchy, law enforcement needs a reasonable justification to search and frisk, there is no crime in being out at 2Am, being young, black and wearing gang colors. There needs to be justification that a crime is imminent besides these things. Like you about your gun control stuff, we regards these outrages as 'slippery slopes' as well. There will be trouble in River City, if the wrong ideas circulates too far, too fast.
I think that you and I read Will's post with a different eye. Both "stop and frisk" and reasonable profiling were briefly mentioned, but you grabbed one and I grabbed the other.
Yes, the stop and frisk, based solely on race, is highly unconstitutional. Effective according to Will, but unconstitutional and should never have happened.
But the reasonable profiling carried out by all police as part of their training IS constitutional. It is the difference between reasonable cause and simply being of a specific race (whether black, hispanic, chinese or something else depending on the location).
Now, being black, young, wearing colors and a suspicious lump under the jacket (carrying a gun)? THAT is reasonable cause. Being black isn't. Not even being black with colors at 2AM justifies a search, but that lumpy jacket might, depending on the location, size and shape of the lump.
Truly a paragon of wisdom, Wilderness, nice call. My attack on Will is based on your correct comment. I would say that a law officer spotting a gun on a person in that situation at 2 am may well have reasonable suspicion, a somewhat less level of certainty than probable cause. But I can live with that. The gun is what makes the difference.
I consider good police work (appropriate criminal profiling) as different from racial profiling. There should be many aspects found in a profile of a criminal suspect and they all have or should have to come together before justification for detaining a suspect, questioning, searching etc. I put the 4th amendment right up there with the 1st and 2nd.
"I consider good police work (appropriate criminal profiling) as different from racial profiling."
Absolutely! Profiling is necessary for decent, let alone good, police work - without it a cop's life is worth nothing at all and nothing would ever be accomplished. But it is a far cry from simple racial profiling - the two are so far apart as to be unrecognizable to each other.
Your arguments are commonly based on a cookie cutter perspective; all the ducks in a row; all "i's" dotted and "t's" crossed. In a perfect Idaho, perhaps many of your arguments would at least move in a direction of making sense. But this is far from a perfect Idaho. I have lived all over the United States. I have been an entertainer most of my adult life. I have performed in biker bars, gay bars, redneck bars, casinos, reservations, weddings, concerts, local dive bars, and fancy yacht clubs.
I have on many different occasions seen a black man, or woman come into a bar, or show up at an event I was working. At least 99.9% of the time after the black person, or person's leave, that's when the "party" starts: the racial epithets, and "black jokes" start to flow like wine. It is a predictable pattern I have seen over, and over again at functions where whites are the majority.
However, I have noticed that when white people have shown up at predominantly native, or black events where I have performed, such back biting usually does not occur. Another thing I have noticed is that when only one black person shows up at a predominantly white event, no one seems to worry about it. But when 3,4, 5 or more black people show up, the white people start to get uptight. They don't like it. And it's not that they are afraid, because I have worked yacht clubs where professional black people have rented banquet rooms for special events. And on more than one occasion I have heard white people complaining about it; as if the mere prescence of black people was an indication that something was wrong, or that the "neighborhood" was going downhill.
In my line of work I have dealt with rich people, poor people, and people in-between, and the attitude of whites towards black people has invariably been the same, with very few exceptions. And so, all of your "reasoning" is meaningless in the real world. A great majority of white people simply do not like black people. They used them as slaves for nearly 400 years, and now they have no use for them, nor do they want to take responsibility, or help to repair the damage that was 400 years in the making. The inner city ghettos were created by white supremacists. The economic disparity between whites and blacks has been perpetuated by a system of white supremacy. There is much work for the Americans to do, and they are running out of time. Unless the Americans accept responsibility for the past, and make substantial changes in the racial dynamic; compared to what is coming, the Haitian Revolution will appear to be nothing more than a walk in the park.
As usual human kind is the first to recognized prejudiced in oneself . Perhaps you do not speak for what others think Wrench , That's the biggest mistake humans make , especially "intelligent " ones ! More than likely it is YOUR OWN heart that you reveal . America TODAY , has as much of an apology to make for slavery as we do for the roman conquests .
Most liberal interpretation of history lacks one important ingredient , fact ! AS with the cause , the beginning and the continuation of slavery and the greatest perpetrators of it , Look outside of the USA Look before the US was even an entity .
We all know however that the greatest and freest voice of today's great apologists is the freedom of speech that America provides uninformed Americans !
Since most of what Wrench wrote was observation over many years of many events, ahorseback, she is describing reality, a reality you simply don't want to admit exists. I can amplify on what Wrench has said with my own 68 years of life where I observed roughly the same thing while
1) in and out of the military all over the world,
2) in federal gov't working with all sorts of civilians in the defense industry all over America,
3) in interfacing with many others vis-a-vis my own company, and
4) most telling, most, but fortunately not all of my own step-family members in rural Florida (and Cleveland, OH) who think exactly as you do.
Racism is endemic in America among many conservatives, and some liberals, and it seems to me it is getting worse since 1980. Through 75% of its history, America has been an extremely bigoted, and often racist country. First it was conservative Democrats and Southern Republicans/Whigs, and now it is conservative Republicans (and a few liberals). Why would expect that to change? Human nature changes very slowly if it changes at all. What actually does change in a country to puts egalitarianism up front is toleration. The bigotry does not go away, it simply becomes more tolerated.
This was an excerpt from a Washington post article, that I can link upon request.
This might explain a little to Will why we seem to have so much trouble..
Here is how the authors of the report describe the crowds in the report’s summary:
The lynchings we document were acts of terrorism because these murders were carried out with impunity, sometimes in broad daylight, often “on the courthouse lawn.” These lynchings were not “frontier justice,” because they generally took place in communities where there was a functioning criminal justice system that was deemed too good for African Americans. Terror lynchings were horrific acts of violence whose perpetrators were never held accountable. Indeed, some “public spectacle lynchings” were attended by the entire white community and conducted as celebratory acts of racial control and domination.
Large crowds of white people, often numbering in the thousands and including elected officials and prominent citizens, gathered to witness pre-planned, heinous killings that featured prolonged torture, mutilation, dismemberment, and/or burning of the victim. White press justified and promoted these carnival like events, with vendors selling food, printers producing postcards featuring photographs of the lynching and corpse, and the victim’s body parts collected as souvenirs.
These things happened no more than a century ago. What are we supposed to think? I don't care how far back into history I choose to look, where is there even an example of this kind of savagery? This is several magnitudes beyond the gangbanger of today. The Nazi while, cruel, did not exhibit this level of savagery and callousness toward their victims. How about the Salem witch trials or the Spanish Inquisition? Perhaps we need to go back to the Middle Ages? People that are capable of doing this to others have to give me the impression that they are beyond reform. The malignant cancer of racial hatred is merely in its latent stage waiting for Demagogues like Trump to stimulate the return of what has always been there. A truly dark and ugly part of the American experience.
There is some of your answer, WillStarr and I will address you directly very soon.
Thanks for making the point, Esoteric. And while your account is correct, the extent of this problem go beyond what people want to acknowledge.
Credence 2 ; "Most conservatives and a few liberals "----are prejudiced , how ELITIST a statement that is Credence , government employment is ,as I can imagine, the pettiest kinds of politically played out bias that rests with all government entitlement jobs . BUT , Racial problems in America had all but dissolved in the American society until the Obama administration came along most willingly reopening not only old wounds but injecting his activist agenda into an entirely new kind of prejudiced culture - Reverse Prejudice ! And There are no prisoners of war in the new bias against anything conservative in America ,than comes from this new apologist elitist pseudo - socialist left ! Period .
Some white guy in the middle of 'nevernever' in Vermont is qualified to make that statement?
This bias has always been part of America, it was latent for a while. But with the election of the first Black president, the latent all the sudden becomes the patent.
The rest of the melting pot are voting democratic, Asians, Jews, Hispanics, that is, if you haven't noticed.
You don't consider the military or civil service, government entitlement jobs do you? I am sure that there are a lot of veterans that would love to have a chat with you!
What else am I missing from your comment?
How about common sense , how about the fact that , to you ,because I live in Vermont , I'm not qualified to speak of life and culture in America , I've probably lived and traveled in America more than most , first of all , so take your elitist attitude and stick up there with your own bias. Yes government , civil service jobs are entitlement jobs , not the same as military jobs , Does affirmative action mean anything to you ?
Racism in America had all but disappeared by mostly positive moves and attitudes until President Obama injected that he believed that it clearly should be revisited and welcomed it into modern discourse ! He has also fueled the fires of it consistently , and any denying that is naïve . He is a divisive "leader " who has little respect for the accomplishments of America's past . Instead using his sophomoric collegian activists attitudes to fuel this new wave of lame new social design .
Want to see a people who don't complain constantly about the inequities in the American culture , talk to the Native American , The legally immigrated Hispanic's , the Italians , Irish , or the Canadian -Americans , Most people in America believe that ALL LIVES MATTER . Not just some .
No one in America right now is making as much political correct noise as Black Lives Matter .
So, you don't have a problem with inequities in American culture as long as you are the benificiary.
You have lied and misrepresented Obama since your first word in these forums, you don't know what are talking about, but that is nothing new.
What are you angry about Civil Service jobs for, people have to qualify and compete for those, what has affirmative action have to do with it? Large private sector firms use the same programs. You are anti-black in all your arguments and perspectives and as such must be basically dismissed from any idea of civilized discourse.
Maybe you ought to visit the psychiatrist couch along with Trump, as resentment seems to be an underlying theme.....
In the Seventies, it was divulged to me that the owners of the discos kept the air conditioning running deliberately to discourage patronage of these establishment by black male patrons.
Did you ever hear anything about that?
There are many people who are more at ease with the simple minded approach to life. As an example: Since a majority of women who are raped are being raped by men, then the simple minded approach tells us that by incarcerating, or "eliminating" all heterosexual men we could significantly reduce the number of sex crimes in the United States. The homosexual men could be used as sperm donors. Anyone with an IQ under 15 should find this to be an appealing, and practical solution.
This forum just lost any credibility it may have displayed.
"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."
- Abraham Lincoln
Will is right about that , Yet the liberals cannot see beyond the correctness of being cultural apologists , check out some statistics people , be brave ! NYC, Baltimore , Detroit , Philadelphia , .........Federal studies do not care what color the skin is , and you know what , neither does the honest heart !
One day liberal America will stop blaming , and stop apologizing for the problems of our race issues on poverty . Poverty itself doesn't create the problems we're seeing in inner city neighborhoods , poverty no more created gang warfare than being more affluent does , poverty is how most of your great-grandparents grew up in and from ,their race being black green or white !
It is just plain naïve to blame all the problems of inner city black America on poverty , some perhaps , but I'll tell you this I grew up poor , poverty didn't drive me to leave my children not knowing who their father is , it didn't reduce me to gang warfare and being a drive by shooter , nor cause me to devolve into a world of heroin , speed or coke .
Poverty itself actually isn't such a bad thing .
Look at the statistics !
When making the cake please add some form of oppression after the poverty.
Instead of Oppression I think I'll substitute Regression , that seems to be where the media led direction of the American sub-conscience's headed , What history of any nation in the world ever led it to become as apologetic to its own history - or the rest of the worlds . Did the romans apologize , no , The Asians , never .
I guess we'll have to leave it to America to apologize for the rest of the worlds mis-fires in humanity , after all America is such a bad ,bad place . ......... Gee , I wonder why everyone still wants to be here ?
Except , ummmm , race baiters ?
The bare bones truth about the NRA is this. It is a fundamentalist religion that worships all things guns, and often and surprisingly, Jesus as well. Anything having to do w guns is sacred and sacrosanct. Don't expect the NRA to get into reasonable discussions about govt. gun controls. They shrink from reasonable discussions on the topic of gun legislation the way vampires shrink from the sun. They demand the total inalienable right to own ALL guns and weapons that can fit under an arm. Its no secret that the members of the NRA are for a weaker Federal govt. Even if Jesus himself appeared they would not listen to reason.
"Racism is endemic in America among many conservatives, and some liberals, and it seems to me it is getting worse since 1980."
Liberals claim to want to stop the gun killings in the US, so we look at the stats to see who is primarily responsible, but if we correctly identify who is doing all the killing, we are called racists.
Then, if we correctly identify the root cause of all the violence, we are once again called racists.
That's their only defense because they know we're right, and they also know they have no case for gun control because most of the killings are taking place in cities with very strict gun control.
What I have seen on this thread are many racist, and useless arguments that only serve to vilify those of African blood. Here are two perspectives that destroy all racist arguments pertaining to crime in the inner cities of the United States.
Irrefutable argument no.1
Pamela Smart was sentenced to life without parole for the killing of her husband, Greg Smart. Although it was ultimately agreed that she was not the one who actually killed her husband, it was decided by a jury that she was the "mastermind" behind the killing. It was determined that she was the author of a conspiracy; that she coerced and influenced a teenager to kill her husband, and that she bore the greatest responsibility for that murder. Consequently, Billy Flynn, the 16 year old triggerman, received a lesser sentence. However, we must keep in mind that his "lesser" sentence amounted to 25 years in prison, prior to his recent release on parole. We can understand from this tragic tale that although Billy Flynn was held responsible by a jury, Pamela Smart's crime was considered to be the greater evil.
Irrefutable argument no.2
If children in a particular area are being infected with poison ivy, it is important to treat the symptoms in order to ease their suffering. But that is not the most important thing to do. Our greatest concern must be to define a common denominator, seek out and identify the source, and then either eradicate the source, or separate the children from the source. Otherwise, the children will continue to play amongst the poison ivy.
The greater issue is not whether or not violence exists in the ghetto. Nor is the greater issue identifying who is directly responsible for the violence. It is the "mastermind", and it is the original source, or root of the violence that we must eradicate. Otherwise, we are only treating a symptom of a disease, rather than providing a cure. The problem has clearly been identified as institutionalized racism, and a system of white supremacy. Demeaning black people by presenting half-truths isn't going to help the whites, the blacks, or anyone else.
"What I have seen on this thread are many racist, and useless arguments that only serve to vilify those of African blood."
You haven't seen any on my part unless you call telling the truth about gun crime in the US 'racism'.
Is there Racism , yes , incidentally of course , there always will be . But is it systematic ? Only in the minds of twenty year old college activists and politically correct wannabe utopian apologists .
It is always easy to take a cavalier attitude when you are not the victim
You speak without knowledge. Many of our people were slaughtered. We do not have the numbers as the blacks do. Consequently, many Native Protests are not covered in the media. "A.I.M." ( American Indian Movement) has been fighting against white oppression and genocide since the late 60's. "The Mexica Movement" has been speaking out against white oppression for over 20 years. The Mexica Movement also has what amounts to an online university on YouTube that exposes many of the fallacies and lies that have been injected into Eurocentric, mainstream, revisionist history. "Idle No More" began in 2012 as the voice of aboriginal rights in Canada.
All of these groups pre-date the Black Lives Matters Movement. Many of my people stand in solidarity with "Black Lives Matter". "All lives" have never mattered in America. Only the lives of the white wealthy European have ever truly mattered in the United States. The great folksinger Woody Guthrie also knew this many years ago when he wrote the song "This Land Is Your Land".
Woody Guthrie wrote this song in 1940 as a critical response to Irving Berlin's "God Bless America", which Guthrie considered unrealistic and complacent. (Woody would have found Lee Greenwood to be equally unrealistic and obnoxious) But his song was gutted and perverted by the mainstream. Here are the two political verses that were omitted by publishers:
Was a high wall there ... that tried to stop me
A sign was painted ... said: Private Property,
But on the back side it didn't say nothing —
This land was made for you and me.
One bright sunny morning ... in the shadow of the steeple
By the Relief Office ... I saw my people —
As they stood hungry, I stood there wondering if
This land was made for you and me.
When we re-insert these two original verses it gives a whole new meaning to the watered down Pollyanna version we have become accustomed to. This is just one of the many examples of how an evil system has insidiously over the years brainwashed, and made fools of the working class American people.
Woody Guthrie was a far-left socialist who did not believe in private property rights. As far as he was concerned, all land was public land and there was no such thing as private ownership, thus the song:
'This land is your land; this land is my land'.
Yes, Woody Guthrie was a very intelligent man. Private property is a great evil that has caused much hardship among the people, and it should be abolished. No man has the right to claim, and to create a commodity out of the land; that which God has freely provided for all men, and what is as basic to life as air, food , and water. The capitalist has no right to demand tribute for the air that I breathe, nor the land upon which I build my home. We are only stewards of the land, not owners. As such we are only entitled to what we need, and nothing more.
So you dislike Lee Greenwood , well there's a surprise Wrench , why not after all , he's a man that loves America . And Oh my God , is that the most un-politically correct thing to be today . A patriot .
Do you really believe that to be , say Irish -American , and still love ones home country is a plague ?
I'm not sure where it all began for the modern liberal but man , I wish I could go back to the sixties and reform a few idiotic morons who thought that getting high and co-miserating about it all was the new cool !
Does it really pay off to claim to be a Native American say ,more than others ? Much like "racism " if most American broke down their DNA to the dots and dashes , we would find we have a lot of "ingredients " . We are all about 10% , each of what we wouldn't expect . I was at a ranch in Montana last summer where I met a beautiful Blackfoot woman and became good friends with , still. She received friends one night that had her DNA test results , she also graciously allowed her new friends [ us ]to be present at the reading , ..........She found out she was 28 % Irish -Scots - English for one thing .
My point. None of us 'know ' who we are . Trust me , we need to be more open minded than even the coolest of us think we are .So , I believe the biggest ingredient we could possibly be is American . That's , after all , who we are so Sorry , but the opinions you hold are shallow in reality . And deep in political correctness . So "roll on " with your shock jock mentality . You prove nothing except that some people are closed minded in a very big space .
Ahorseback, if you think that the sixties were about idiotic morons getting high and comiserating about it, then you flunk the history lesson and need to retake the course.
You speak for yourself and reveal your own confusion. I know who I am, and I understand my purpose. I am not an American. That is the illusion that you have subscribed to. The world is at war, and your perception is limited by your 5 senses. I can see that it is true by your commentary.
I am simply fulfilling my purpose in the world. It is quite telling, and very American of you to suppose that my purpose is to enlighten you, when I am often speaking to God. As I have stated before, I grew up on a farm, but not once did I entertain the notion that I could enlighten a herd of swine or cattle. You mistakenly believe that these forums, as well as such platforms, are the sole province of men, and are simply a modern form of recreation. But you know all that you need to know, and I owe you no further explanation. Thousands of people are dying each year, many of them children, as a direct result of the evil business being conducted by the NRA, and death merchants around the globe. It is also no secret that many of these killings are ritualistic in nature. I am a promoter of life, which makes me the antithesis of what you espouse.
A little enlightenment for the un-enlightened , The NRA has never killed anyone ., it has never robbed anyone , assassinated anyone , it has never committed a mass killing , like all human lead organizations , it is merely that . An empty office space .
It is the human element that is responsible for ALL transgressions , a human against a human - I'm rather surprised actually that someone so entitled to the worldly enlightenments as yourself would blame an entity lacking even the ability to breathe for mass killings . Come on wrench catch up with the rest of us .
Yes, the NRA is responsible for some of all of those things! The NRA is a very powerful organization who lobby and bribe legislators in order to try to abolish any and all restrictions on purchasing a firearm. They are quite successful and as a result, thousands of needless or preventable deaths by gun occur every year.
Absent their propaganda, lobbying, cajoling, threatening political demise, and bribing, many more people would be alive today that aren't.
A combination of Socratic logic and statistics make that assertion HIGHLY probable.
"They are quite successful and as a result, thousands of needless or preventable deaths by gun occur every year."
" They are quite successful and as a result, thousands of needless or preventable deaths by gun occur every year."
"The NRA is a very powerful organization who lobby and bribe legislators in order to try to abolish any and all restrictions on purchasing a firearm."
"many more people would be alive today that aren't."
Nice statements. I particularly admire the assumption that without a gun there won't be any deaths, but is there any evidence at all to back up such statements? Or is it all just opinion?
This thread was initiated by someone who is either woefully ignorant of the NRA and its true goals or deliberately misrepresenting those goals:
"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?"
That is blatantly untrue. The instant background check to see if a attempted gun buyer is disqualified had, and still has, the full support of the NRA!
He also misrepresented the goals of the anti-gun progressive left as benign and helpful, when we have quote after quote from the political elitists that their true goal is confiscation and banning of all privately owned firearms:
"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."
None of which will stop the deaths they claim they are trying to prevent. Most gun deaths are suicides, and there is no reason to believe that banning guns will stop suicides when there are hundreds of other methods easily available, among which is the assisted suicide the same progressive left enthusiastically supports. Most of the rest of gun deaths are young inner city drug-gang members killing each other or an occasional customer.
Despite the hue and cry over 'thousands upon thousands' of children dying each year from gun accidents each year, 505 people died in 2013, of which 59 were children and some of those lived with careless inner city drug gang members.
"If it will just save one life, you should all give up your rights" they cry. Utter nonsense. Should we all drive around in bumper cars with a 5 MPH speed limit? After all, "If it will save just one life, it's worth it!", right? Progressive people are more than willing to give up other people's rights, but not their own!
Mental heath professionals are restrained by both HIPAA laws and fear of lawyers from reporting dangerous patients to authorities so that they can get a court order to institutionalize them. As a result, many of the shootings like the Aurora Colorado theater shooting, the Tucson Arizona, Gabby Giffords shooting, and the Virginia Tech shooting were committed by people known to be very dangerous to mental health pros, but unreported due to fears of lawsuits, so they were able to pass a background check when they should have all been in institutions.
Now we have the menace of Muslim terrorists, and once again, progressives are perfectly willing to risk American lives for their religion of political correctness. We just learned that the woman who participated in the San Bernardino shooting was a radical for years before she came to the US, but our inept and PC State Department failed (or more likely, was unwilling) to connect the dots. On top of that, they are now welcoming thousands of largely un-vetted young, military age Muslim males and females over the objections of far more level headed Americans.
As I have said repeatedly and without one challenge, if you are not suicidal, not a gang member, do not use illicit drugs, are not a brave police officer, not a criminal, and stay out of bad neighborhoods, your chance of being shot in America is near zero.
However, that may change if we do not stand up and oppose the Obama Administration's attempt to flood America with hundreds of thousands of poorly vetted and potential Muslim terrorists.
(And yes, I realize that it is not PC to actually call Muslim terrorists 'Muslims', but it's about time we learn to speak the truth again and tell the PC cops to go straight to hell!)
The "one drop rule" is a racist convention, and is scientifically invalid.Obama cannot possibly be "black" if his mother is white. We could just as easily say that he is a white man. There is no difference, other than racism against blacks. And it does not matter if Obama, or any other person of African ancestry accepts the one drop rule. It is not uncommon for an oppressed minority to accept the false definitions of the majority. For instance, many of my people refer to themselves as "Indians" or "Latinos", or "Hispanics", when these labels are actually derogatory racist terms that have no correlation in the Indigenous culture.
I think framing the argument as BANNING GUNS is non starter as it is way to general. if your going to ban certain types of weapons or ban guns for certain people the legislation needs to be very specific so gun owners can judge the law on its merits rather then NRA rhetoric.
"Banning Guns" period would be much MORE Productive if the law is Uniform, Concise & Universal, versus trying to Detect Mental or Physical Shortcomings which may not be evident without Professional Evaluation ~
The ROOT Cause of Gun Violence is the USE of a "GUN", not whether or not an individual is Mentally Competent etc etc ~
Despite Absurd Historical "RHETORIC" to the contrary, "Guns KILL People, People do NOT Kill People" ~
An immediate UNIVERSAL BAN on Military Style Arms would be a good, logical, common sense start, then we can work from there ~ An Executive ORDER is possible to achieve this if Backward Thinking Congressional Republicans continue with their "OBSTRUCT EVERYTHING" Political Posture ~
Unfortunately, too many people are going to look at your universal ban on anything that looks kind of military like and ask "Why?". When you can't give any answer at all except that they look scary and you don't want one yourself, any "productive" effect is going straight down the tubes.
You might want to try for something that would be useful, rather than just a sop to the people that don't like guns. It's much more productive.
"An immediate UNIVERSAL BAN on Military Style Arms would be a good, logical, common sense start, then we can work from there ~ An Executive ORDER is possible to achieve this if Backward Thinking Congressional Republicans continue with their "OBSTRUCT EVERYTHING" Political Posture ~"
And there is the stubborn ignorance of the progressive leftist, who is obviously and blissfully unaware that far more people are murdered each year with fists and feet than by the weapons he wants banned.
Why does he want them banned? Because he blindly follows the lead of others in his ignorance.
Will Starr, ~ You obviously FAIL to understand the distinct difference betwen a Gun and a Knife, I would expect no less ignorance when trying to EQUATE a GUN to "Fists & Feet" ~ ~
Aside from "NEVER Was Has BEEN" Chuck Norris whipping Up a MANUFACTURED KARATE Frenzy in his B & C Rate M*O*V*I*E*S, how many "MASS Murder"s can you name where the perpetrator used HIS / HER FEET ?? ~
Chalked Up to MORE Diversionary Tactics to IGNORE the REAL "Gun Violence" Issues here in the United States ~
Are you being deliberate obtuse? I'm trying to point out that very few murders are committed with 'military-looking' rifles! So few in fact, that more people are murdered using feet and fists.
But I think you understood my point.
Um.... Will, are you interested in REDUCING Gun Violence or NOT ? ~
Personally, I'm not addressing the apparent "FIST & Foot" Crisis in America, and once we resolve and or Mitigate the GUN Violence Issues which are pressing, maybe then we as a collective group can TACKLE your "Fists of FURY" ~
WHY try to Convolute a SPECIFIC Issue with rhetoric, dubious statistics, questionable opinion etc like ALL Gun NUTZ seem to do ~ Stick to the important subject at hand ~
I'm trying to point out that since more people are killed by fists and feet than with all rifles and shotguns combined, including so-called 'military style', there is no crisis and no basis for vilifying those arms! Good grief!
In the latest year FBI stats available (2011), there were 679 people murdered by all rifles and shotguns combined (including 'military style'), while there were 728 people murdered by fists and feet!
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/c … ta-table-8
I cannot believe that you are so obtuse that you do not understand this argument or dismiss it as irrelevant! But if this really is over your head, then do not be surprised if you are simply ignored from now on.
Why is it so darned important to convert gun violence into some other kind? You really need to stick to the important issue at hand - that of saving lives from senseless murderers. Pretending that dead people care what tool was used to kill them doesn't do your case any good at all.
Obviously, the real target is guns, not death or murder.
WHAT!!?? You mean that the "SPECIFIC Issue", the "important subject at hand" that "ALL Gun NUTZ" fill with "rhetoric, dubious statistics, questionable opinion" is just how best to do an end run around the second amendment? Not how to help people or save their lives?
What is this world coming to? It's almost like control freaks, wanting nothing more than to control others, are running rampant anymore!
"End around the constitution" ?? ~ C'mon wildernes ~ I don't know about your 2cnd Amendment, by mine reads as FOLLOWS ~
"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."
Clearly, the RIGHT to OWN Arms is Reserved for individuals who are Affiliated with a "Well Regulated Militia" ~
At least that's what my 2cnd Amendment Says ~
And to clear that up , The people then were the militia , but then you already know that ! AND, They still WILL BE when leftist cronies march to collect guns ! Of course no leftist in America ever marches when it gets serious ! That was ,of course , back when the "people" were still the government and the militia !
The Marxist left is so blind !
Well said. We, the People, are 'the militia', but what good is a militia if We, the People are disarmed? It's no more complicated than that.
I can't even COMMENT on this, it SPEAKS for itself ~ But then again, maybe I will ~ ~ Just like the ARMED Forces of today, those who are AFFILIATED with a "Well Regulated Militia" have the RIGHT to "Keep & Bear ARMS" ~ TRANSLATED to the QUEENS English ~ SINGLE Shot Muskets & Cannons and Accessories thereof ~
Considering the FACT that most Gun Nutz around here are stuck in the 1700's anyway, here's the obvious SOLUTION ~ BAN ALL Arms other than SINGLE Shot Muskets & Cannons ~ And there you have it, The PERFECT Compromise ~
If you need more than ONE Shot to slaughter an innocent animal, you suck anyway and should just take Up something a little safer and more exciting like "Curling" in Ted Cruz's Home Country of Canada ~
Hmm. Seems more likely that a reasonable translation would be that keep & bear arms means anything the person could lay their hands on and afford. No limitations whatsoever - the most modern weapons possible were available to anyone that could afford them.
After all, that's exactly what they did, and the amendment gives no other instructions, now does it? The perfect compromise, then - the only weapons banned would be those that no one could afford. Just as they were when the amendment was written.
That's fine wilderness, let's add your AMENDMENT ~
"Whatever a person could lay there hands on" ~ Muskets, Cannons, Knives, Sling Shots, Tree Branches, George Washington's Choppers, Fishing Poles, Bones, Body Parts, A Partner You're Trying to Get Rid of, a Horses Rear END.......etc etc ......
So there you go ~ DONE Deal ~
Keep in mind that the 2nd amendment was a change to the original constitution and therefore, it could be changed again. It probably will not. I just wish the people who are so adamant that no reasonable restriction can be added, such as prohibiting babies from using guns as teething rings--babies are citizens and there are no exclusions for infants, even though any reasonable person would expect some restrictions.
I do not think any views have been changed. The good thing is that I assume most people were typing without having a gun in their hands.
I don't think you will find anyone in the country fighting reasonable restrictions. The key word, of course, being "reasonable"; so far I haven't seen but a couple of things proposed that are reasonable and useful. Certainly banning "assault" guns isn't, and neither is requiring registration and ballistics information for law abiding citizens. Mental evaluations before buying a gun is unreasonable, as is the requirement that your name not be on a secret, unproven "no fly list".
So there is your problem; you (meaning the anti gun crowd) keep on making proposals that are either totally unreasonable, clearly aimed at eventual confiscation or useless in reducing the death toll. Fix that not-so-minor problem and you'll undoubtedly find lots of agreement.
Yes, yes. We've all seen how you choose to twist and change the amendment to conform to your desire to deny people's rights.
But no one cares, and no one even remotely thinks that your version, opposite that of the Supreme Court, means anything at all.
For once, we AGREE Will, the Target is indeed Guns which do the ACTUAL Killing ~ I think I've been pretty clear on that one ~
Well, I have safe full of guns and none of them have ever killed anyone. People kill people, so let's be honest here and discuss the methods they use.
As I said, fist and feet are used far more often than the 'military style' guns you want banned, so why don't you target the handguns that criminals prefer? Why ban guns that are almost never used in crimes?
And could we please have a straight answer instead of the usual snark and sneer?
Why? Simple. Because if we can get a scary, if grossly misleading, label to firmly attach to them we might be able to get them banned. Emotional arguments are so much more effective that factual ones! It's too easy to get a fearful, ignorant population to believe a lie if they think it will save them from harm.
They are no longer called 'assault rifles' because they're clearly not assault rifles, so now they're called 'military style' weapons because they're so scary looking to today's feminized men.
~ Will Starr, I would have commented sooner but I just finished Laughing after reading your post about 20 minutes ago
"FEMINIZED Men" ?? ~ I'm surprised I can write while L*A*U*G*H*I*N*G so Hard ~ --------> REAL Men like yours TRULY don't NEED GUNz....We simply TAKE em' away from the Bad Guys and then KLONK em' over the head with their OWN Weapons ----->
Honestly, we don't NEED to walk around with a proverbial "Phallic Symbol" like a Gun to try and COMPENSATE for you know WHAT.......
"Yes, the NRA is responsible for some of all of those things! The NRA is a very powerful organization who lobby and bribe legislators in order to try to abolish any and all restrictions on purchasing a firearm. They are quite successful and as a result, thousands of needless or preventable deaths by gun occur every year."
Really? Bribing a member of Congress? Now you accuse the NRA of committing felonies? If that's true, you should be able to prove it with hard evidence, so show us your sources for once.
This is so typical of the progressive left...they simply say whatever lies they want to say about the NRA and make any accusation they want to make without sourcing any of it because they are seldom challenged.
Not one accusation this man has made against the NRA in this thread is true. Whether that is due to ignorance or a deliberate attempt to falsely smear an opponent is not clear, but it is all false nonetheless.
Bur he can prove me wrong by providing reliable sources to back up his accusations of criminal or any of the other NRA activities he claims transpired.
The difference between an "Assault gun " and a "Gun "
Watch Out , the black one is far more dangerous !
ALTERNATIVE PRIME WROTE:
For once, we AGREE Will, the Target is indeed Guns which do the ACTUAL Killing ~ I think I've been pretty clear on that one ~
Will Starr Wrote:
Well, I have safe full of guns and none of them have ever killed anyone. People kill people, so let's be honest here and discuss the methods they use.
As I said, fist and feet are used far more often than the 'military style' guns you want banned, so why don't you target the handguns that criminals prefer? Why ban guns that are almost never used in crimes?
And could we please have a straight answer instead of the usual snark and sneer?
Will, until you are willing to Understand & Acknowledge the FACT that the person exhibits the "Intent to Kill" in a MASS Shooting but the GUN does the ACTUAL Killing, how do expect to make any PROGRESS ?? ~
What would have been the RESULT if the Perpetrator walked into Sandy Hook with his "Fists" ?? I would assume it would have been a much BETTER Outcome for ALL ~ C'mon Will, get Serious ~
"I just wish the people who are so adamant that no reasonable restriction can be added, such as prohibiting babies from using guns as teething rings--babies are citizens and there are no exclusions for infants, even though any reasonable person would expect some restrictions."
Show us where anyone ever said such a thing! Where do you people get such absurd notions? Good Lord!
You totally missed Larry's point in using such an absurd example. He was trying to find an extreme example that any reasonable person, even you, would agree that babies shouldn't be allowed to have guns.
But then you answered the way you did in order to side-step saying you agree, babies should not be allowed to have guns.
And reasonable people should seriously reply to such absurd examples? Don't be silly - it's no more than another attempt to ridicule, and not worthy of a reply.
Everything you said about the NRA is a blatant lie and you know it. You have lost all credibility.
I have stated I do not agree with the NRA. That is not a lie. I do not agree with the organization, and it is one of the most powerful lobbying forces in the country, concentrating most of their money at the state level where rules can be enacted.
My example was absurd--it was intended to me--if anyone did not get that, it raises my concern about your right to bear arms.
I want a limit on the type of guns. I cannot identify that limit, because I am not an expert.
I do not want college students carrying concealed weapons, was once proposed in my state. They are too immature.
I want every gun to be registered, just like every car is registered.
I want people to defend themselves when necessary. If a home invader or other criminal is running away from you, there is no need to shoot him in the back.
I do not want armed civilians patrolling my neighborhood. I have a 14-year-old Beagle that will let me know if a stranger is trying to enter the house. My Beagle has had all of his shots and is properly registered. I had three. I had to put two down, one for age, another for an illness that could not be corrected.
I want secure places where guns can be stored and kept away from children--even in your home.
I want to see some common sense applied to this issue.
I will not get everything I want. I may not get any of it. I would be happy with the increased in common sense.
"I want a limit on the type of guns. I cannot identify that limit, because I am not an expert."
May I suggest that automatic weapons and other military gear (tanks, cannon, SAM's, etc) are the proper limit?
"I do not want college students carrying concealed weapons, was once proposed in my state. They are too immature."
This sounds more than a little prejudicial - don't forget that our military, protecting your freedom, is mostly the same age. As are many of the police that protect you from harm.
"I want every gun to be registered, just like every car is registered."
We've discussed this before, but until you can come up with something more than a tool in the cop's repertoire to find criminals or that of the government to eventually confiscate weapons, we'll have to agree to disagree.
"I want people to defend themselves when necessary. If a home invader or other criminal is running away from you, there is no need to shoot him in the back. "
No problem. The woman that shot at a fleeing shoplifter was just wrong.
"I do not want armed civilians patrolling my neighborhood."
Unless you refer to armed neighborhood watch (where I would agree), I cannot go along with this. You have a dog, but most do not and this would prevent them from protecting themselves.
"I want secure places where guns can be stored and kept away from children--even in your home. "
Presumably you refer to mandatory gun safety, and that seems reasonable. Whether it is a gun safe, a simple locked trigger or even high tech guns that won't fire outside of the owners hand, it seems reasonable.
"I want to see some common sense applied to this issue. "
Unfortunately, probably not possible. There is very little "common sense" to be found in a primarily emotional argument, and that is exactly what we have at this time.
But, tell me why should there be any limit, like you say the bad guys get guns and can probably obtain uzis and other fully automatic weapons. How are you drawing the line, is it arbitrary?
I don't agree with the college student thing, military personal are properly trained for the use weapons in and at appropriate times. They certainly are not allowed to carry weapons on a campus without supervision and control. Do you want drunk college students carrying weapons, starting fights that end in fatalities? Were you not ever 19 once, carrying on with bravado and false confidence that a gun gives people that are generally insecure, and immature anyway because otherwise they have a hard time making a case as to why they need one in this environment. This is something for adults only, 21 and over, minimum. Larry is right, it is a dumb idea to allow concealed carry in a campus environment except by trained law enforcement professionals.
Well, Larry wanted a limit but had no idea what it might be so I offered him one that should really upset no one. One everyone could live with, or at least anyone that can be bothered to actually think about the matter.
Yes, I was 19. But did not have a false confidence from a gun - anytime I carried a gun it gave rise to a vastly increased sense that extra care was necessary.
But "need"? Very, very few people in this country have a "need" for a gun. Not even hunters - they can use bows or go to the grocery store. But then, the law isn't about "need" at all - it's about "want", "freedom" and "choice".
It's always kind of surprising that "need" comes into the picture from so many people, somehow thinking that our rights - ethical, constitutional or anything else - has anything to do with "need". It doesn't, and "need" has nothing to do with guns. Unless you feel a need for freedom, to be responsible for yourself and your actions, to be able to make your own choices? A need to be considered and treated as an adult rather than a spoiled child being raised by a faceless politician thousands of miles away?
I will say, though, that to tell an 18 year old that he is old enough and mature enough to carry a gun onto a battlefield to protect our country, but not mature enough to carry one when around us...well, that just seems more than a little ridiculous.
So according to your "rational" thought, as long as an 18 year old can kill strangers abroad, it is OK for him to kill his neighbors at home! And you maintain that it is anti-American to deprive any citizen of the right to kill. Does the fact that guns are being used to kill, dismember, and disable people, on and off the battlefield bother you in the least?
Intentional and vicious misrepresentation of your opponent's argument is the work of an immature child. So is the nasty questioning of his morality.
If we disagree with a progressive, we're mean people. These are typical Saul Alinsky 'Rules for radicals' tactics...demonize your opponent and misrepresent what he said.
Do you even bother to think about what you're typing, or just put out the biggest, most ridiculous lie you can come up with?
Wilderness, so the restriction on private purchase and ownership of 'tommy guns' is ok with the gun people on the political right?
I have to admit, you ensnarled me in my own argument. I was and remain a strong supporter of a 18 year old drinking age for just the reasons that you mentioned regarding their subceptibility of being in a position to make the supreme sacrifice in military service.
I still believe that tavern and other business establishments should have the right to prohibit possession of weapons on their premises. For me, common sense dictates that guns, alcohol and 18 year olds do not mix well. It is an irresponsible concoction to create, it is no different than preventing people who are visible drunk to be served continuous drinks.
Well, I can't speak for the entire group of "gun people", but it's alright with me to severely limit automatic weapons. And history bears this out - there hasn't been a murder with one in decades, let alone the mass killing that they are made for.
Alcohol and 18 year olds don't mix. Which is why it's illegal for them to drink it, and why it's impossible for any 18 year old to imbibe. Oh, wait - illegal or not, the irresponsible ones do it anyway...just as the irresponsible ones will have a gun and use it improperly regardless of the law. So the law only applies to those that won't abuse (alcohol, guns) anyway, so what value is it?
But in any case, the military argument goes, I think, far deeper than the alcohol one does. We really ARE saying that they can not only carry a true machine gun (military) but use it responsibly as well. That these kids are mature enough to be tasked with protecting us, using a gun to do so, whether military or cop. But then we turn around and say they are not mature enough to carry a simple pistol in this country. It just doesn't work.
I just wonder if there are any 'gun people' that would not be satisfied unless they had access to all military ordinance.
Interesting, lets look at your argument in the second paragraph. I knew that when I was not of the age of the majority, I could really get the hooch if I wanted it badly enough. But, it was a big deterrent not to be able to buy from liquor stores, to risk having fraudulent ID's confiscated, or the be carded in the clubs. While, the determined ones would get through, it kept the vast majority of underaged drinkers in control for fear of running foul with the law. I was certainly not a criminal, and I wanted to drink on occasion, but there were enough road blocks to keep me from taking the risk of getting caught with consequences. So, there are many that take a drink if it could done without problems, opening the potential for abuse. If the law precludes them from drinking then the risk of abuse is minimized, is it not?
Besides if I am going to allow some 18 year old to brandish a firearm without training or license, why should they not be allowed to have a drink? I consider both privileges having grave responsibilities associated with them. I see no reason why one should preclude the other.
The military trained professionals are armed and tasked with protecting us under controlled conditions, I don't feel comfortable going helter skelter, allowing Bluto (Animal House) to do the same.
I yield to the idea of conceal and carry, but like I said, if I owned a tavern, NOT in MY ESTABLIHMENT. You have to check in your shooting iron, or don't come in.
Yes, you wanted a drink. But the one that will misuse a gun is a killer, and there is a world of difference. The killer won't let a little thing like a law stop them - if they did there would be no murders.
"I consider both privileges having grave responsibilities associated with them."
You may consider both that way, but the constitution does not and neither does a whole lot of people. Owning a gun is not a privilege; it is a constitutionally enforced right. And that makes a huge difference.
Somehow I don't think anyone on an active battlefield would agree that they are under "controlled" conditions, and neither would a SWAT team swarming a building with a hostage circumstance. Or something like Waco, Tx, for that matter!
There are many people that misuse guns that are not stone cold killers. Are there other reasons people have for wanting a gun without the express purpose or murder or maiming, perhaps they have had a record and want the weapon for protection.
I don't why you are so hung up about the government coming to collect your guns, sounds alarmist to me.
Sorry, the ability to bear a firearm is a right under the 2nd amendment, but as with all such constitutional rights, none are absolute. Otherwise a 16 year old would have the right to conceal carry, and we dismiss the idea of the significance of bein a minor verses part of the majority in the system. You, yourself, offered restraints on what that means and the kinds of 'guns' that should be available to anybody, anywhere, without question.
Is it so difficult for you to see the difference between trained law enforcement or miliary and a pimply faced kid with neither. You no more pick up a gun as drive a car without some training to how to use it.
Oh, BTW, something else, The gun people make the argument that there is no point in any checks, registration, or waiting periods and such, so, If I were a criminal, why go underground for my gun when I can buy it above ground at a retailer? I get the warranties a new weapon, etc. Listening to you guys talk, since checks are eliminated, there would be nothing to prevent discovery of a criminal buying a gun at a standard retail outlet, is that not so?
Our military is trained. They undergo extensive training, and I am grateful for the sacrifices they make. The 18-year-old freshmen who joins a fraternity and drinks to excess are the students I am talking about. You know the difference. A tank is not a reasonable weapon.
In Louisiana, you have to have a title to a car and a registration even if you are in an accident on private property. Insurance is also mandatory in this state, even if the car never leaves the garage. Every state has different laws.
Universal gun control laws would be nice, but it will not happen, because the second amendment prohibits it at the Congressional level. States can adopt the laws they want and set restrictions.
People who should not carry guns include: convicted felons, (unless they have received a pardon), mentally impaired people, blind people, children under the age of 12 (between 12 and 17, they can own hunting rifles and shotguns, but must be accompanied by an adult for hunting--not stalking), persons who have received excessive DWI citations (three or more and I am being generous on that), people who cannot prove they have taken a proper gun safety course, either from private trainers, police department or other agency.
There is much more I would like to see. I will not get what I have already mentioned. I worked for the oil and gas industry, people said it was a powerful lobbying group. The NRA puts it to shame when it comes to influencing laws--especially laws that can affect people, who choose not to own or carry guns.
Registration: Louisiana goes beyond the pale requiring registration for a car that never moves or moves only on private land. But beyond that, while you apparently see a solid connection between cars and guns, I don't, and still find no reason to register guns except to aid government in collecting guns. Because of that I cannot agree with registration and certainly not a ballistics record of personal guns.
I agree with your list of people that can't own a gun with two exceptions.
1. The mentally impaired, because we don't know who they are and it would be impossible to define just which impairments mattered and at what severity. In other words it's a nice idea but unworkable in a free society.
2. The people with DUI's on their record (whether alcohol or other). Keeping guns from felons is iffy, constitutionally - doing so to those that drink and drive cannot pass muster. The connection just isn't there.
But I'm a little confused on laws the NRA influences, but that affects people who choose not to own or carry guns. Which laws that could possibly be is beyond me, except for the matter of collecting taxes, whether gun tax (Seattle, for instance), sales tax or any other tax.
You don't own, so you won't register. You won't be concerned about the legality of your weapon because you don't have one. You won't take safety courses and you won't have a background check. So what laws affect the non-owner, but that the NRA objects to?
Wow! Now the man who started the thread has lost all credibility. Perhaps, since so many incredible people are posting on this thread, you should try posting on Stormfront.
That's correct. The progressive left makes all sorts of bizarre and totally unsubstantiated claims about the NRA, so until they source genuine proof to back up their charges, I will call them liars because they are.
One doesn't need to source common knowledge. The NRA's involvement in keeping reasonable gun-safety laws off the books and even preventing the study of gun deaths is well documented.
This is just the first one in a long list that popped up. http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015 … -us-agenda
and another - http://amanpour.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/1 … h-the-nra/
and then there is this - http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 … -influence
Really? British and American left-wing opinion articles? That's your source for posting bald-faced lies about the NRA like this whopper?:
"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?"
Good Lord! No wonder you are so ignorant about the NRA!
With Americas mass commercialization , it's incredible consumerism culture . Lets say a GUN confiscation were to occur . How long do you think it would be before a black market for guns would be created "under the table " in America ?
All From Outside Sources ?
Serious answers ?
"I want every gun to be registered, just like every car is registered."
It's a false analogy. Every car is not registered.
Lots of cars sit in garages and haven't been registered for years. Cars only need to be licensed, registered, and insured if we want to use them on government-owned streets, roads, and highways.
Some of my friends own cars that are used on drag strips only. They are not registered nor do they need to be since they are never driven on government-owned roads.
A correct analogy might be the need to register guns and license shooters in order to use a government-owned shooting range.
Now you are using the deflective technique of "sharpshooting". Any reasonable person knows there are exceptions to every rule, making a statement that is true in only 99.99% of the cases does not invalidate the statement (unless there is a claim that it is 100% true, which she didn't) or comparison, in this case.
No one balks, except Sovereign Nation and their like-minded nuts, to registering their cars for the purpose they were built for, which is transporting people from one place to another. So why should anyone balk at registering their firearms, an object whose sole purpose for existence is to kill.
In neither case does registering prevent or hinder possession.
I see cars at the top of a pole, being used as advertising for a junkyard or some such. Should those, too, be registered?
Or does registering everything only apply to guns, whether they are used for killing people or not? Unlike cars that are not driven (used for the purpose they were designed for), guns should be registered no matter what they are used for.
The liberal world needs to educate itself in that registrations and restrictions already apply to gun sales , purchases , ownership ! God , I just shake my head at the lack of knowledge out there among the "all knowing " lefties . Don't know much it seems ! Cars ......huh ....Guns ? Jess people ,get with 'getting in the know '! And then get back to us .
I have told the gun people myriad of times, that I know that registrations and restrictions already apply to gun sales, purchases and ownership. I just want to make sure that they stay there!
Sorry, you are both wrong. There is no federal registration requirement and only a few states require it in some form; Hawaii, New York, DC, California, Maryland, Connecticut, and New Jersey. Most of these states require registering assault weapons and/or guns .50 cal or larger; some include handguns as well.
These states PROHIBIT registration by state law: Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, and Vermont; the rest are apparently silent on the issue.
Here is the source: http://smartgunlaws.org/registration-of … y-summary/
As to the "restrictions", that is what the anti-gun safety crowd want to stop any more of and rescind any that exist. A few states have no or very few restrictions, e.g., Louisiana and Maine and a few states have very many hoops that must be jumped through in order to make sure guns are bought by responsible people, i.e. Massachusetts and Connecticut.
I am now all for removing ALL gun restrictions , I'm thinking , if liberals want my name on another list to hell with them , Recent polls show liberals are more for registering everybody , Christians , Muslims , Jews ........They support lists like these MORE than conservatives or even libertarians . Glen Beck talks about the polls where Liberals support registrations like these six -ten percent more than all others !
What a bunch of little Fascists !
You live in a reverse world, Ahorseback. It is the ]b]conservative[/b] candidate Trump who wants all of those things vis-a-vis religions.
It sad you oppose giving law enforcement a helping hand, you are clearly no friend of cops like my side is.
That's moron drivel , the cops want an armed citizenry to help them . Except in the inner city drug and minority gang cultures that you would or will do noting about .
Why exactly do liberals hate the truth so much , A liberal is the only living entity that believes it own lies . No animal on earth would eat its own young like a liberal anti-constitutionalist !
He knows that and he also knows that the gun/car argument is a logical fallacy...apples and oranges.
"No one balks, except Sovereign Nation and their like-minded nuts, to registering their cars for the purpose they were built for, which is transporting people from one place to another. So why should anyone balk at registering their firearms, an object whose sole purpose for existence is to kill."
You're not that dense.
Motor vehicles are registered only for the purpose of using government-owned roads. Since government owns the roads, they get to make the rules and they get to grant qualified and licensed cars and drivers the privilege of using them. That's why driving on government-owned roads is a privilege, not a right.
The Second Amendment protects a right, not a privilege. That's why the left insists that we accept licensing and registration, because then it becomes a privilege, not a right!
And that's why we must never allow it.
Here is something all of you refuse to address:
If you are not suicidal, not a gang member, not a criminal, not a brave police officer, and stay out of bad neighborhoods, your chance of being shot in America is near zero.
There is no gun crisis. There is an inner-city minority crisis and a suicide crisis. Why not address the root causes instead of attacking our rights?
Having come up the years,I remember a time when I was also in the 5th grade. And I do remember that for many of my peers, it was a struggle to express themselves with the written word.
Although my vocabulary was more limited in those days, I have never had a problem with self-expression. I remember one day I became embroiled in an argument with several students. The argument concerned a popular racial epithet directed at me which had been preceded by the word "prairie". The argument escalated into a fist fight, and I was thoroughly pummeled and humiliated by the two older boys. After my 5th grade teacher, Miss Carlsson, sent the older boys to the principles office, she sat with me in an empty classroom. She explained that she was Jewish, and at the time I knew very little about the Jews. Of course, she gave me the standard patronizing speech about how awful the mean little redneck boys were, and how brave I was to challenge them.
But that was old news. I already knew how mean they were, and how brave I was. After all, I was the one sitting there with a swollen face, black eye, a busted lip, and a bloody nose. But I didn't mind her patronizing approach since she was quite good looking. The attention of such a beautiful older woman, from the perspective of a 10 year old boy with an over-active libido, was almost worth the beating I had endured at the hands of Billy Bob and his friend.
However, there is something that she shared that day which I have carried throughout my life. And I believe that it has been responsible for a great amount of my success. What she shared was an old Jewish saying that goes as follows:
"It is a bigger fool that argues with a fool".
At the age of 10, this succinct soundbyte of truth was a grand epiphany. And so, after all of these years, I have now shared it with you, and carefully placed it in your Christmas stocking. You will find it especially appealing, as it works both ways. But as far as your question is concerned, I cannot speak for the others. Osiyo!
Apparently no one wants to dispute the truth:
If you're not suicidal, not a gang member, not a criminal, not a brave police officer, and stay out of bad neighborhoods, your chance of being shot in America is near zero.
There is no gun crisis. There is an inner-city minority crisis and a suicide crisis. Why not address the root causes instead of attacking our rights?
"It sad you oppose giving law enforcement a helping hand, you are clearly no friend of cops like my side is."
See? That is pure Alinsky...totally and dishonestly misrepresent what your opponent said. Two of our progressives have now stooped to that.
These guys know they cannot justify any new restrictions on the Second Amendment simply because it's unwarranted. There are 300,000,000 legally owned guns in the US, and about 30,000 people (mostly suicides) die from firearm related causes. That mean that 99.9999% of guns will not kill anyone, a little secret the gun-grabbing left does not want known.
"If you're not suicidal, not a gang member, not a criminal, not a brave police officer, and stay out of bad neighborhoods, your chance of being shot in America is near zero.
There is no gun crisis. There is an inner-city minority crisis and a suicide crisis. Why not address the root causes instead of attacking our rights?"
Have you seen one progressive gun-grabber dispute that? No, and they never will because they know they cannot justify any new laws.
"Near zero is not zero. There are accidental shootings of family members and there is the danger."
You demand life without danger? Well, I suppose you could simply stay in bed all day.
"I do not accept your numbers."
Then prove me wrong.
"Whenever there is an issue and one side is unwilling to give any ground, it always makes me suspicious."
When you are right, why should you give ground?
You are wrong on about 99.9% of what you have presented. After going through these posts I see you have mentioned ad nauseum your little collection of stats at least ten times. It reminds me of a broken record. And when someone else has you dead to rights, you simply say the data is wrong. Thats how children attempt to win arguments on a playground. They simply deny the truth and say it isn't so. But that's kind of like burying your head in the sand.
Listen , the little lock stepping pseudo - Marxist's know the facts , they look at the numbers and know , guns are not the danger , Yet why do they keep on with the drivel , They have no understanding of the importance of the strength of individual liberty stacked up against their craving 's of entitlements .
It's that missing lack of personal accountability and need for nanny state answer to all their [our ]problems . They simply don't and won't let truth get in the way of wants .
So, guns are not the danger, eh? Then you won't mind if they make ALL drugs available over-the-counter because, like guns, drugs "are not the danger" just sitting there. Do I have that right?
And by extension you fervently believe that tanks, F-16s, nuclear bombs, artillery pieces and mortars, etc ought to be available on the open market for anyone 1 year old until they are dead who wants one and has the money because none of those "are not the danger" either, just sitting there?
So what is it then , The real reasons for the higher death numbers than guns are too boring , cars ? heart diseases ? Lightning ? Are they too boring as issues ? What about women's health issues , got any cures ? Will you create a law against falling perhaps , register our step ladders ? Get a reality check my friend , all of you .
Try answering the question rather than deflecting. Do you believe there is NO PRODUCT that "is the danger" just sitting by itself and therefore does not require ANY laws regulating access and possession, regardless of age of the citizen?
Remember the old story of chicken little ," The sky is falling", - guns and gun violence are a non-issue and you who would ever look at reality know that too ! Check a few real statistics and you'd get the idea; But oh no ! We can't talk about minority issues can we ? We can't discuss inner city black on black violence can we ? Oh , That's racism, Oh my ! Take a look at minority drug gangs and drug -gun violence ,..........but no we can't talk about reality without throwing in a race card or three .
I love it when you guys paint yourself in a corner; apparently so high on pushing your hyperbolic rhetoric that you completely miss the irony of your assertions.
If I steal a car and get caught, whose fault is it?
If I shoot and kill a man who was sleeping with my girlfriend, because he found out I had been sleeping with his wife, whose fault is it that I must spend 25 to life in prison?
When you kidnap and enslave a race of people for nearly 400 years. When you discriminate against and oppress said race of people for over a hundred years after they are "freed". And after systematically herding them into inner city ghettos they start killing each other, whose fault is it?
Answer: The United States of America
• Dismantle system of white supremacy.
• Remove racial barriers to economic parity.
Once the above steps have been taken, the drug market, which is responsible for much of the violence, will become less and less appealing. Young people with better economic opportunities will be less inclined to take the risks associated with the sale and distribution of illegal drugs. Gun violence in the inner cities will be dramatically reduced. As a result, gun ownership will begin to see a steady decline, further reducing the potential for gun violence.
And what does that far-left hyperbolic drivel have to do with my right to keep and bear arms?
First of all, I was responding to onhorseback. Secondly, see my earlier post about Old Jewish Sayings. Goodbye!
It's 'ahorseback', not 'onhorseback', and since when is 'you guys' singular?
Its okay Will , Wrench lets his hatred of us 'white guys ' seep through after-all . We don't belong to the club you know .It's like that with the liberal hip crowd , they love all things but the realists !
In your own words, you have clearly made the distinction between a follower and a leader. Let the world marvel at this great teaching. Let onhorseback ponder the meaning.
The 'great lost left' would have us believe that the gun crowd is paranoid about gun confiscations , while much the opposite is true , The real argument is about honesty , yes such a small thing to the shallow left agenda's , but to normal Americans its more the dishonesty of an agenda that shows a sociopathic pattern .
The murder of Michael Brown , Ferguson , black lives matter , the great "assault weapons " debate , all the while when handguns are the most used homicidal tool , jees, ..........where will it end , Lies , all of it .
Keep it up though , the great lies continue . But why wouldn't the left want to have integrity and honesty injected into such important discussions about our cultural problems ?
Why does it bother the left so much to simply admit and then try to contain racial and cultural problems having to do with a culture of violence without mis-coloring the simple truths ?
Did you think somehow , that you could hide the facts that almost all violent gun - crime perpetrators are within inner city slums ?
What is this deficiency in honesty that , supposedly , the most enlightened people in America suffer ?
Why IS the left so honestly ,honesty challenged ?
"You are wrong on about 99.9% of what you have presented."
2000 Illegal Weapons Cross US-Mexico Border Per Day: Report
http://www.insightcrime.org/news-analys … -every-day
Chicago Police Have Been Seizing an Illegal Gun Every 75 Minutes This Year
Targeting big offenders is helping, but not enough to stem the tide of guns from states with looser laws.
by Adam Sege
·July 8, 2015
In preparation for this year’s Fourth of July weekend, the Chicago Police Department increased its presence on city streets by nearly a third, with officers working 12-hour shifts. The deployments may have helped slightly reduce the number of people killed by gunfire compared to the same period last year — the city had nine firearms fatalities over the holiday versus 16 in 2014. However, one thing that can be measured more precisely is the bounty of illegal guns they confiscated. According to Superintendent Garry McCarthy, officers seized illegal firearms at a rate of about one an hour over the course of three days.
http://www.thetrace.org/2015/07/chicago … this-year/
I absolutely agree that “disrupting the supply chain” of guns, passing into the hands of criminals is a wonderful idea. Of course, you’re not going to do that by closing down gun shops or shutting down gun shows or putting more restrictions on legal sales to law abiding citizens. You could, however, enforce our existing laws and aggressively channel the necessary resources into law enforcement to root out and eliminate the suppliers who are selling black market weapons to drug dealers and killers. But I suppose that makes too much sense to bother with, eh?
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/09/05/s … gun-shops/
Now it is readily admitted that you could find Internet sites that would counter all the information presented above--so what have we proved.
We have proven that we do not have enough information to support the right or left.
Keep this in mind:
All firearm deaths
Number of deaths: 33,636
Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.6
The source of these numbers is the Center for Disease Control, which tracks the number of deaths per year. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm
From a percentage standpoint, the number is very low. I cannot tell you if any of the 33,000 deaths from guns each year are justified. I just go back to my early story about someone shooting a run into the air on the fourth of July. A bullet fell from the sky a block away. A young child was killed instantly.
No one can justify such action, call it a mistake or just one of those things. It was an action that did not consider the consequences and as long as people take this attitude, there will be a need for greater restraint.
We have beaten this horse to death--figuratively--do not want to promote animal abuse--no views are being changed. So it would be best to end this debate.
by Don Bobbitt 3 years ago
It has become so tiresome seeing all of the radicals on both sides of the Gun Control issue, eacn proposing some "master plan" to control the sale of guns in America. Why can't we do this in "baby steps"?For instance, assault rifles! Just tell me who can justify owning an...
by zzron 9 years ago
As a legal citizen of America, how do you feel about guns?
by Jeff Berndt 7 years ago
I just noticed something about the Fast and Furious controversy.Leaving aside the question of whether the operation was a good idea or not (I think not), I noticed that the Left and the Right have both seemed to flip-flop on their usual arguments about gun control.The Left usually wants to restrict...
by strengthcourageme 5 years ago
I was just wondering everyone's thoughts on gun control, are you for or against?
by MR Black 7 years ago
Don't you think it's abot time America take a serious look at gun control?With the regular stories of young men shooting and killing peope, even in high school our kids are not safe. To keep the gun industry alive many claims gun don't kill people, people do. Well if there was no guns who could...
by Josh Ratzburg 3 years 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 really just controlling law-abiding citizens" ... maybe, but how many of...
Copyright © 2019 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.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|