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 automatic assault rifle that can spew dozens of rounds a minute.
I grew up with guns, and I was, for years an avid hunter. And, I don't know if a deer, or squirrel that it took that many bullets to kill.
Face it, assault rifles are made for killing people, not game.
In my opinion, if you want to own one for posterity or whatever reason, buy one with a hole drilled into the barrel and a steel bolt welded into the hole. Then try to shoot that gun at someone!
Don, the fallacy of any law is believing that everyone will fall into place and follow that specific law. We can write all the laws we want to but until those laws are enforced they mean nothing.
Many of our major cities have high murder rates from gang bangers, drug dealers, etc, with guns they illegally posses per the laws of those states. Yet little or nothing is being done to round up those guns and prosecute the people who had those guns in their possession.
A weekend sweep of these crime ridden neighborhoods would probably fill our jails to overflowing just with weapons charges. But to solve this problem we could build more jails.
To enact even one new law until we start enforcing the laws we already have and punishing the violators would probably not help the problem.
I'm not disagreeing with you, just pointing out that until we really start enforcing the laws we have writing new ones would gain us nothing.
You see , now this makes sense ! Why not use existing laws that AREN'T being used to the max. , Probably thousands of gun laws all across America ,The moronic use of more legislation alone makes about as much sense as nothing . We live in a nation that is over legislated by a do nothing congress , senate and even white house , we have a justice system that is almost non- performing and merely a revolving playhouse , an immigration system that lets in ever gang affiliation known to man , A lax and to the point of almost non- punishing justice system , We don't believe in the death penalty and where it is used , is only used token-ly . And , We have a white house that thinks global warming is the cause of Islamic terrorism ! There is , right now , an major epidemic of prescription and illicit drug use all over the place , AND MANY OF YOU WANT ONE MORE LAW .
I agree with your common sense here. We have more then enough gun laws, that are not being enforced by the present administration. We don't need more gun control laws. We need the psychopaths off the streets because we seem to have plenty of jihadists and thugs to go around.
From what I have read the US has plenty of empty prisons and jails to lock criminals in. (I did a little research on that a while back.)
The fallacy in this statement (emphasis added) "Don, the fallacy of any law is believing that everyone will fall into place and follow that specific law. We can write all the laws we want to but until those laws are enforced they mean nothing. -
Why is this statement false? Because it makes the case for having NO laws for anything!! If this is your rationale for not having any gun-safety laws, then it is your rationale for having no laws for murder, speeding, fraud, incest, rape, torture, etc, etc.
And if that is NOT what you and colorfulone and ahorseback mean for murder, speeding, fraud, incest, rape, torture, etc, etc., then you cannot mean it for gun-safety laws. None of you can have it both ways.
Don, the reason your good idea won't work is because 1) the anti-gun safety crowd want to roll back all safety regulations now in place and 2) the NRA has the money and power to make that happen.
OK, so I guess I'm replying to myself, now.
Reading all of your comments,"the great and the small", so to speak, I do have a few more thoughts for you (the sane and the insane, sic.).
First of all, I don't have the numbers in front of me but I suspect that, per capita, the US doesn't have nearly the extreme number of incidences of gun violence relative to other nations. Now, remember, I said, per capita. We are over 330-million people spread over a very large piece of land.
Secondly, our Press, is a juggernaut of journalists who take every car wreck (or shooting) and make hours of news reports, interviews, analysis and commentary that is then shared happily with the rest of the world.
So, those of you from other nations, and those of you from the US who think we are living in some kind of "wild west" where everyone is carrying an assault rifle and looking for another victim, please recognize these numeric realities.
To me, our problems with guns, in the US, at the moment is the intractable opinions of the two opposing sides on this issue.
Again, why not small steps!
Don - even long journeys are the result of one step at a time. Sometimes these steps take you to a place you want to go, and other times they take you to a place you wish you had not gone.
If I recall, the meat of this hub was about blaming random shootings on a single type of weapon, the so called "assault rifle." We have determined that these rifles are not full-automatic machine guns as many believed, and they are rarely used in the commission of most crimes.
I still believe that the real problem is with people, not a particular type or style of gun. Making new gun laws will not change a thing until we start enforcing the laws we already have before we make new laws.
Bill Clinton and his political ilk have been trying to sell the notion that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to protect hunting. That is absurd on the face of it, and they very well know it!
It's about forbidding government to disarm the people, because, as the Second Amendment points out, a militia made up of disarmed citizens (that's what a militia is...armed citizens) is useless!
This is now settled law...see the Heller and McDonald decisions. The very arms that progressives want to ban are the arms that the Second Amendment specifically protects...militia-grade arms (see US v Miller). That would obviously include AR-15's.
The question we ought to be asking is why the progressive socialists want to either disarm We, the People, or limit us to .22's and .410's?
Ok, Will, let me ask a question?
The gun people seems to be saying that any kind of registration, background checks, waiting periods and such are counterproductive. So, if that is the case there should be no more scrutiny for my gun purchase than there would be for pack of chewing gum at the checkout, Right?
So, if I were a criminal and I wanted a gun, why go underground when I can get my gun from a standard retailer, above ground? No one is going to track my Juicy Fruit purchase, and so not the gun purchase. I might get a warranty on my purchase and avoid all the unpleasant underground stuff, associated with 'honor among thieves".
Also, you guys seem oblivious to the body count that result from firearms as long as the Government does not know who has the guns, which for you folks seem more important. The deaths in the face of all this are collatoral damage. Seems sort of ridiculous to think, with the millions of firearms in circulation that any organized arm of the Government can pick them all up, even if they knew who owned them.
I mean, aren't you guys saying that an armed citizenry can push back any illegal Government incursion? That is the basis of your cling to the 2nd Amendment, right? If you all are so formidable, surely you don't think that all your guns can be surreptitiously taken from you under the cover of darkness?
I am putting the conservative on the spot with this one, how do you or any of your ideological kinsman answer?
"Also, you guys seem oblivious to the body count that result from firearms "
Umm...that would be zero, you know. Pretending that guns are killing people, or are the cause of people killing people, is foolish. The body count does not result from firearms; it results from people.
"Seems sort of ridiculous to think, with the millions of firearms in circulation that any organized arm of the Government can pick them all up"
And yet Australia did a pretty good job of doing just that. It didn't change the body count of course, but it DID make political points to some.
As for your first sentence, you know what I Meant.
I doubt that with as many guns that are here and the resistance from the gun people that is part of this culture, which is unique in the world, that so many guns can be taken without their owners' permission which would 'bring the house down'.
No, Credence, I do NOT know what you meant. It very much sounds like an excuse to deny guns to people, because guns cause deaths, but it isn't true. So why deny guns at all? Because they cause deaths, that's why!
The majority of gun fearing people continues to grow; at some point it will overwhelm the constitution and freedom, denying anyone the right to own a gun. Not in the near future, but it will happen.
Here is my issue Wilderness;
According to FBI statistics gun purchases has increased almost exponentially since Obama assumed office. So the fear of Government taking your guns ring hollow when you look at the increase. Whoever the gun takers are, they are doing a pretty poor job of it. More unjustified hysteria from the Right, as usual.
America is not Australia, Australia enjoyed the benifit of being a member of the British Commonweath, and the civility that comes with it.
People here are obsessed about guns in a way not found anywhere on the globe. The issue is a sacred cow, legislators won't touch the hot potato on either side of the isle. The infamous NRA will protect this 2nd Amendment from all who even think otherwise. Again, the Right is alarmist.
Correct me if I am wrong but I have heard that there were anywhere approaching 65 million firearms in the country. So all the gun guys think the government is going to collect all these overnight? Can't compare us with Australia, Austrialia has a more civilized tradition in this matter. We may agree to disagree but I think it unduly alarmist.
I have a question for you: in 2012, some 80,000 people tried to buy a gun but could not pass the background check. However, only 44 were prosecuted:
http://www.politifact.com/new-hampshire … enator-ke/
It is a federal felony to attempt to buy a gun when you know you are ineligible, so why don't you progressives demand that all of these felons be prosecuted and imprisoned? Why not go after criminals and leave the honest citizens alone?
You and Wilderness need to confer, do you want to eliminate background checks? So if I go to Walmart to buy my gun, who is to know that I am ineligible? That is why I am a criminal, right?
I do demand that all those convicted felons be prosecuted and imprisoned as appropriate. But If your approach won't allow authorities to identify criminals at the point they they attempt to break the law, kinda hard to go after them, isn't it?
I can't speak for other states, but here in Arizona there is paperwork and a check with the ATF database before any gun dealer can sell us a gun. I happen to have a Concealed Carry permit and I still have to fill out all of the paperwork, but the dealer is not required to call the ATF prior to the sale. The dealer than has my name, address, and the serial number of the gun I purchased.
I would have to assume there is paperwork required for a gun purchase in every state but I could be wrong. It is not exactly the same as buying a pack of chewing gum.
To get the Concealed Carry permit I had to undergo a background check, submit a fingerprint card, attend an 8 hour class, and qualify at a shooting range.
Do you suppose any of those gang members or drug dealers go through this process? Not when guns are readily available on the street. I'm thinking if we started taking guns away from the known bad guys there would not be as much resistance to background checks by honest citizens.
Glad to have you onboard, maybe we can tune down decibel level a bit.
The problem, OP, is that according the the forum participants that have taken the strong pro-gun stance, any paperwork and oversight is an unwarranted imposition and unnecessary impediment to their firearm purchase. I can't see how at some stage oversight can be avoided,
I am for the "paperwork', my adversaries are not.
Don't get me wrong, if you can legally identify a criminal with a gun, he or she should be arrested. But constitutional niceties are involved, we cant just use a trawler net to harrass an entire community in the search for illegal firearms Good and lawful police work is insisted upon in such a program.
I will get back with you, in the meantime all the best for a healthy and prosperous 2016!
But there is a wee problem here. The only positive result of all these checks is that you feel better, thinking you have accomplished something. But criminals still get their guns, people are still killed - the thing accomplished is to hassle innocent people in their quest of their rights.
So, again, what is the real reason for checks? Is it just to throw roadblocks in the path of would-be gun owners in the hopes that some of them will simply give it up and thereby reduce the number of guns in society? Is it to buy political points for politicians supporting irrational demands of citizens, demands for control of someone else for no other reason than fear? Is it to calm the fears without costing the nation as a whole anything?
What is it truly being accomplished by forcing criminals to get their guns through the black market? Is it the inevitable growth of that market? Is it to encourage 3D (or other) technology to build guns at home? Is it to grow imports from other countries? What is the goal here (a realistic one, not the fake one of reducing criminal gun ownership).
No, at the time I got my Concealed Carry Permit I wanted to be able to "legally" carry a concealed weapon either on my person or in my vehicle. Later they changed the law that anyone who is not a felon and is over 21 can "legally" carry concealed in the state.
Just as many believe that all assault style rifles are machine guns, there are those who believe anyone can order a gun on the internet and it will be shipped to their home. In truth all gun sales need to go through a dealer with a Federal Firearms License (FFL) and they are required to do the necessary paperwork and get an OK from the ATF prior to handing over the gun. They charge for this service but most do give a discount to those holding valid Concealed Carry Permits because they don't have to make the call to ATF.
There is just far too much misinformation circulating that causes people to come to conclusions that just are not true. And then even when presented with accurate information they will not change their beliefs.
It just doesn't matter how many new gun laws are written because the criminals will always have guns because we rarely enforce the laws we have now.
I doubt there will ever be a meeting of the minds over the gun issues.
"An assault rifle is a fully automatic selective-fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine." (wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle). An "assault rifle" is a fully automatic gun (a one person "machine gun" in common terms) and no mere semi-automatic need apply.
However, the "assault style gun" terminology, as used by the liberals today, indicates whatever they wish it to. Whenever a ban is desired on a gun, the immediate (and all too effective) tactic is to throw it into the "assault style gun" bin, scaring everyone into thinking it is actually such a thing and gaining support for another gun ban.
So I guess, the only positive thing about screening everybody at the airports is that we lefties. Crazy, reducing guns? Gun purchases have been going up since Obama came along, yet conservatives continue to whine about non-existent circumstances.
Why would a law abiding citizen be 'put upon' to register? You just don't want the Government to know that you have a gun, that is the real reason. Cmon level with us. It was just like the darned anti-government Freeman and the nutty survivalist types.
The problem is that there is not enough evidence for the run on the gun that you say every contemplates, but see little movement towards.
Well, that's the only thing I can see - that those afraid of guns are happier.
If it's not crazy, to simply reduce gun ownership by taking rights and freedom, what is it? What is the expected (not hoped for, but expected) result?
Be put upon? Because it costs money. Because it is step #1 in confiscation. Because privacy is violated. Because they don't want to and it's none of your d*** business! And the last one all by itself is sufficient IMHO - the others are just frosting on the cake.
If you don't think there is evidence, look for the list of VIP's in favor of banning all guns that Will posted. Must have been 50, powerfully connected people wanting that very thing. And then look at the new thread I just posted.
And when you've done both those things, think for a minute about how much is being spent in both time and money in fighting all the "new" efforts to take guns away.
Let me tell you a story!
When I was a young boy, delivering papers in my neighborhood, I made friends with a boy, my age whose family had become citizens and eventually moved to the next street.
One day, he showed me his Dad's prized possession.
It was a pistol, made of a hand carved piece of wood, a rubber band, a trigger and latch made of crudely hammered out pieces of metal. It also had several pieces of pipe. Each piece of pipe fit into another one, and one would hold a 22-caliber bullet, another would hold a 410-shell, and another would hold a 7.2-mm Japanese rifle bullet.
You see, they were from the Philippines, and his Dad was a freedom fighter during WWII. He and his fellow freedom fighters had to hide in the jungle during the Japanese occupation, eat what they could find, and use whatever guns they could make. This particular gun was very popular for their resistance to the Japanese tyranny during that period of time.
My point is, if you need a gun, you can get one, if you can't get one either legally, or illegally, the desperate can make them.
Think on this for a moment before you try to take a people's guns away from them.
I built several homemade guns as a kid out of pipe, pipe fittings, ball bearings, and match heads. We used to target practice with them, and those ball bearings would easily pass through a 1 X 4 garage wall and Mom's canning. (Don't ask!)
Anyone with a few dollars and access to a hardware store can build an effective gun. That secret hasn't been a secret for centuries.
I agree. It's hard for Brits and Australians to understand why Americans want to own guns at all - but since they apparently do, I also don't see why anyone needs an assault rifle.
This is a no-brainer Don. Of course that is what they need to do. I cannot understand how there is so much opposition to that simple proposal. That certainly needs to be the first step to ban the use of automatic and assault weapons to all but the military and police. No one else can justify needing to own them.
Jodah, even in America very few citizens are allowed to own an automatic weapon. I have semi-automatic hunting rifles that can fire as fast as any so called assault rifle. Many people believe all assault style rifles are capable of full automatic fire and that just is not correct.
Because the anti-gun safety crowd fervently believe that if you ban assault weapons, then tomorrow guns will be banned (even though the 2A says they won't), then the next day ... gov't tyranny! They believe this so intensely that it has shut down their ability to think critically.
Probably because the anti-freedom/pro-slavery crowd has lost the ability to think at all, merely accepting the words shouted the loudest and accepting it as truth. Even as their own nanny state calls for ever more controls (always on other people) and comes right out and SAYS they want all guns taken they remain with their ears covered, crying out that no one wants to ban guns. They have buried their heads so firmly in the sand that the ability to reason for themselves has atrophied completely and they are left believing the lies they have made up themselves - no facts needed.
(Isn't it FUN to grossly exaggerate, make false insinuations and ignore factual events in order to promote a false image?)
wilderness commented: "Isn't it FUN to grossly exaggerate, make false insinuations and ignore factual events in order to promote a false image?"
It is quite humorous that you would make such a statement when you have blatantly ignored the historical record. The atrocities of the Americans is well documented. The Imperialist aggression of the United States is well documented. Gun deaths in the United States are also well documented. The facts abound, and the truth is available for all to see at the click of a mouse. On one hand, you subscribe to the image of the "American Dream", which is a false image, but on the other hand you deny the existence of gun violence, when even a 5th grader knows that gun violence is real. Here are a few interesting words:
• PERVERSION: the alteration of something from its original course, meaning, or state to a distortion or corruption of what was first intended.
• EVIL: marked by anger, irritability, irascibility, etc.:
• IGNORANT: lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated
But the real topic isn't your fabricated evil of the US and it isn't even what tool is used to kill with. It is that the US has a violence problem. While you wish to pervert the discussion into one of Columbus it just isn't happening, is it?
So we'll insinuate all free people refuse to practice gun safety. We'll insinuate that they think tyranny will happen in two days if we just require them to pay more for a gun. We'll ridicule them because they actually listen when politicians and other VIP's admit they want to ban all guns instead of pretending it has never been said by anyone. It is a good tactic to use...on those that cannot or will not reason for themselves. Emotional arguments and ridicule are always more effective than facts and truth when belief trumps that truth.
Yes, the truth is actually fairly easy to find, and even sometimes with the click of a mouse. It is truly sad that ignorance is more important, but when it interferes with belief it is not uncommon to find a desire to remain ignorant.
Old Poolman - Actually, in case you didn't know this, all assault rifles are sold are modified to be non-automatic. The problem is, for a few bucks you can order a duplicate of the missing part to turn it back into automatic mode.
And, I used the most logical gun to ban or control for this conversation. Personally, in my opinion, selling these to the public is like selling a surface-to-air missile to the public.
Some things just cannot be justified by any sane person, gun owner or not, and assault rifles are a great example. DON
You're losing me here. There are no assault rifles being sold to the public, but they are modified? That doesn't even make sense.
In addition, no it isn't a matter of a few bucks to order parts to convert a civilian version of an assault weapon into a fully automatic, actual, "assault gun".
You have said that before, Wilderness, and you are wrong. An AR-15 IS an assault weapon in terms of federal and state classifications. It was the weapon of choice for the Army after the M-1 and prior to the introduction of the M-16, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15, It is NOT protected by the 2A per a Dec 7, 2015 Supreme Court 7 - 2 denial to hear an appeal (Scalia and Thomas dissenting). Since the sunset of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban Act in the early 2000s, AR-15s CAN be purchased by the public over the Internet and in most states.
Wilderness is correct Don, it takes more than a few bucks to convert a civilian model into a full automatic assault rife.
So your thinking is that if we just pass a new law banning the sale of assault "Style" rifles that all the bad guys will just get rid of theirs?
The war on drugs has taught us that laws just don't solve the problem. Even with constant enforcement and harsh penalties we are losing the war on drugs.
So back to my original point Don, write all the laws you want because the criminals just don't follow the law.
Bad guys don't follow laws.
But, we have to start somewhere, and I'm just so damned tired of the two sides digging their heels in and taking stands that are so far to the left and right that nothing is going to get done that shows some kind of progress on this issue.
And, really, I'd rather have some level of constraints put on new purchases of these killing tools.
I'd rather see some of the future sales ended or at least have them get harder to purchase than they are now.
And again, as to the crooks and bad guys? They aren't the ones who have a neighbor buy an assault gun so they kill 14 innocent people and wound 21 others in the name of some twisted version of a religion.
Let's do at least a little to make human life a little harder to take by the insane.
Don, I sense you are as frustrated as I and many others. I may be wrong but I believe the California terrorists did have someone else purchase the assault rifles they used to murder those innocent people. But so do the bad guys who have a record that would prevent them from buying it themselves.
Just like drugs, if we outlawed guns completely there would still be guns for sale on the street.
But on the other hand, I am also not the guy who is going to take a knife to a gun fight. I refuse to be a victim without at least a chance to defend myself or my loved one's from a bad guy. I live in a rural area and it takes the cops from 30 minutes to one hour to get here on a normal day. A whole lot of bad things can happen in one hour to someone who has no way to deal with a problem prior to the cops arrival.
To blame so called assault rifles for the problems we have today is not addressing the real problem. If every so called assault rifle disappeared overnight our crime rate and murder rate would not change hardly at all. It is rare that a crime is committed with a rifle with the exception of terrorists.
As I stated earlier, new gun laws are not the solution until we start enforcing the existing gun laws. Most of the proposed gun laws would only affect honest law abiding citizens, not the bad guys.
You make a good point Old Poolman. It is a waste of time having any laws if they are not enforced. Authorities need to take a firm stand on laws that are already in place first. That is probably the place to start.
Jodah - Thanks for the reply. The way it is now the laws as written only target the honest and law abiding citizens of this country. We have laws on the books now that would impose serious penalties to bad people who knowingly violate gun laws. But sadly they are rarely enforced and the honest citizens are fed up with them writing more laws they will not enforce. I don't know many people who would object to well written gun laws if they would use them the way they are supposed to be used to get bad people off the streets and in jail where they belong.
"If every so called assault rifle disappeared overnight our crime rate and murder rate would not change hardly at all."
That has indeed been the case in countries or places where it was accomplished (Australia, for example).
But it is also irrelevant. The American public has been pounded with rhetoric, with a fervor matched only by the NRA, that making guns hard to get (for law abiding citizens, anyway), and particularly the fake "assault weapons" that are soooo scary, will solve the problem. It won't, as history shows, but that is and has been the rallying cry for so long that people actually believe it without ever actually examining the statement.
So we'll go on, forever fighting the 2nd amendment in return for a growing pile of bodies and more cries to get rid of guns. I don't see that changing until we put metal detectors on every street corner - and then we'll have plastic guns being printed out at home to blame.
Wilderness - Your right, so called assault rifles get a really bad rap primarily by those with little or no knowledge of what they really are. Other than the greater magazine capacity, I have hunting rifles that are just as effective.
Even some of my friends with Concealed Carry Permits think that all assault rifles such as the AR-15 are machine guns. They are very surprised when they learn the truth.
With the current ISIS threat, and it is real, now is not the time to be taking guns away from honest law abiding citizens.
Thanks for adding your opinion to the list.
No, the bad guys won't get rid of theirs - but it will stop any more being issued.
If we follow your argument, then we'd say there's no point making a law to stop people buying nuclear weapons, because some people have them already. Let's let everyone have one!
And if we follow your argument all of America becomes a gun free zone. Won't the bad guys love that?
Take a look at crime levels in the UK, Europe and Australia, where proper gun control has been introduced. The bad guys don't seem to be any happier there.
It always amazes me how some Americans are so ill-informed about how things work in the rest of the civilised world.
We are well informed. The reason the US has far higher crime rates is our large minority population, something countries like the UK and your Australia simply do not have. The blacks and Hispanics that neither the UK or Australia have in any numbers commit almost 70% of all gun murders in the US.
If we back out minority crimes to be on par with countries that do not have those minorities (Australia is 92% white and 7% Asian), we find that the US is comparable. For instance, murder in unarmed Australia is 1.3 per 100,000, while the well armed US (with minority crimes deducted) is 1.5 per 100,000.
Again, guns are not the problem. Minority crime is the problem, and no, it is not racist to simply tell the truth.
The problem is: gun control laws and bans on assault rifles have absolutely no affect on terrorists. The ban on assault guns in California certainly did not stop the terrorists from killing people, did it?
You got it Phyllis, that is my opinion too.
No, of course not. But it DID give the governor a chance to exhort surrounding states to pass tougher gun control laws because they are gateway states providing guns to California citizens (even though the guns used were purchased, legally, in California).
Ain't politics great?
Politics would be OK if they were based on truth instead of lies.
Well, yes. But politics doesn't care about truth or lie - it cares about power and re-election.
Thus we get politicians all the way to Obama declaring that if we either take guns or make them very difficult to get, that killers will not be able to get a gun AND will not use alternative methods, either.
And our fear-filled population then becomes convinced that any gun with black paint must be used solely for military purposes. No need to think about it - our "leaders", ever truthful to a fault, has told them so!
There is no gun crisis in America:
1) Most gun deaths are suicides, and there's little reason and no evidence that would lead us to believe that banning guns would stop suicides to any significant degree
2) Most US gun murders are committed by the black and Hispanic minorities that countries like Australia simply do not have. Australia is 92% white and 7% Asian, two of the most law abiding of cultures. If we deduct the US minority crime, we find that we are almost identical to the Australian murder rate (1.5 per 100,000 compared to Australia''s rate of 1.3 per 100,000 even though the US is heavily armed!). We have a minority crime problem, not a gun problem.
3) More people in the US are kicked or punched to death than are killed by all long guns combined, including so-called 'assault rifles'. Banning guns that are almost never used in murders is typical of hysterical and ignorant gun haters.
4) If someone is not a minority gang member, not a criminal, not a brave police officer, does not buy illicit drugs and stays out of bad neighborhoods, their chance of being shot in the US is near zero. That too is a fact! Our streets are safer from assault that those of the unarmed UK!
I challenge anyone to demonstrate with hard facts any need to ban any gun in the US from private ownership by law abiding citizens. In fact, INTERPOL has just stated that the only way to protect people from terrorist attacks like those in Paris or the recent one in San Bernardino is by armed civilians. So too have many of the nations sheriffs, because they simply cannot be everywhere at once.
I will debate anyone, anywhere, and at anytime on this topic because I am armed with years of delving into the truth and facts about our Second Amendment protected right to arm ourselves.
You want facts?
Fact: Guns kill people. If you leave yours alone while going to work or the movies, it will break out of the house and go looking for a person to kill.
Fact: Guns encourage killing by people. A gun will, during your sleep, hypnotize the otherwise law abiding citizen into becoming a killing machine without equal. It will also re-program your TV and phone to whisper subliminal messages to the same effect.
Fact: Any gun given access to a few bucks will convert to a "big boys" gun, painting itself black and instantly becoming one of those dreaded "assault weapons" used only by SEALS and Rangers. Being black, or with a handgrip, it is far more deadly to any person in sight and this is the dream of every gun.
Fact: No gun is content to be used for target shooting or hunting. Every gun requires human blood periodically and will drive any owner mad with it's constant reminders to kill people, not animals or paper targets.
Fact: Without guns people will be unable to kill each other; this is well known because there were zero murders or wars prior to the invention of guns. Especially black guns with the word "ASSAULT GUN" printed on the sales tag.
Fact: Only criminals and murders own guns. There is no possible reason for a gun except to kill people and thus only those with a desire to murder would ever have one.
It is for these well-researched and thoroughly proven reasons that all guns must be eradicated from the US.
Will Starr , welcome to the forums , I couldn't have said that better , but you know what happens when you use truths against the left ? They conveniently ignore them !
According to you there is no crisis. But then how do you explain the white on white violence? Are the blacks also responsible for that? Are the black's and the Indigenous responsible for the fact that 64% of mass shooters are white, and their victims are also primarily white? Yes, this is a figure you necessarily had to leave off of your list, and I fully understand why.
You comment, " ...If someone is not a minority gang member, not a criminal, not a brave police officer, does not buy illicit drugs and stays out of bad neighborhoods, their chance of being shot in the US is near zero..."
That sounds like an excerpt from a script of "All In The Family". Perhaps you should email the families of the Columbine Massacre (perpetrated by two white males) and share your revelation about the Blacks and the Indigenous; right after you send a similar Tweet to the family members of the 9 South Carolina church members who were murdered by a white terrorist while praying in church. After you have finished with that, please share your epiphany about minorities with the good people at Sandy Hook Elementary. The fact that Adam Lanza was also white shouldn't break your stride. In all of these cases, stricter gun control could have made a difference. I don't know who you care about, or if you care about anyone at all. But to paraphrase your last comment,
"I will challenge any racist, anytime, to convince me that that they would "not" consider the killing of a loved one to be a crisis".
Of course, that is a rhetorical comment, because I am certain that every one of you would consider such an horrific event to be a crisis. When one child out of 20 million is killed, I assure you that it will be a crisis if that child belongs to you. There is no other way to look at the world if we are human beings. But if we are nothing but animals, of course, it is all just a matter of statistics and percentages. I said "could" have made a difference. And if the child at risk is your very own flesh and blood , that is a very important "maybe"; far more important than an outdated and obsolete Second Amendment.
Read, Comprehend, and Learn.
I gave you a list of provable facts and all you did was respond with the usual, baseless emotional appeals and PC nonsense.
If you want to address and and attempt to disprove the facts I listed point by point, then I'll be happy to counter them, but I'm not about to waste my time on long winded blather.
Wrenchbisquit gives us a great view into the mind of a gun hating liberal.
The part of his brain that allows humans to deal with and process facts is missing. Those who suffer from this missing brain part are forced to rely on the liberal playbook for all of their responses. The number one rule is this book is to avoid facts at all costs. The number two rule is to never change your mind even when presented with factual and correct information.
"In all of these cases, stricter gun control could have made a difference."
And because it is possible, although an extremely small probability, we should grossly inconvenience millions upon millions of people, even to the point of violating the constitution of the country?
Out of 300+ million people in the country you must be the only one to think so, or we wouldn't be driving automobiles, using butcher knives in our kitchens or fertilizer on our yards. The rest of us recognize that there is a point where potential return is too small to justify the cost (financial or otherwise) of trying to eliminate every possibility of someone dying.
Excellent point. We often hear that even if just one life is saved, it's worth doing. Well OK, if that's true, then why don't we just lower the speed limit to 5 miles an hour and all drive padded bumper cars?
Obviously then, we are all willing to accept a reasonable amount of risk rather than live drastically limited lives. In that light, we will point out again that the tiny fraction of Americans who get shot are mostly those who lead very risky criminal lives and unfortunately, those officers who have to deal with those criminals.
99.9998% of Americans will never be shot despite the fact that 1 out of 3 Americans legally own a gun. That's a remarkable statistic.
There is so much misinformation about guns being passed around , My advice would be for EVERYBODY to research guns a little bit . You will find first , that an "assault rifle " is simply a semi- automatic firing rifle .
One thing about Hub-pages Is that a lot of forum shock jocks love to pass around MIS- information .
A single action revolver . One pull of trigger = one bullet fired . Holds five or six rounds
Musket - one pull of trigger = one bullet fired . Holds one round .
"Assault weapon" one pull of trigger = one bullet fired . Holds ten to thirty rounds .
All of them legally owned and own-able .
Great lesson in your comment and the photos make it even better. But sadly to many have been raised with gross misinformation and will probably not believe you.
Its the misinformation ... deceptions if I may, that many fall for and change their minds because they don't know the importance of guns in the history of the United States.
Gun Facts: Criminologists are the experts on crime, criminals and motives. They do not support gun control because they know that where there are more guns there is less crime and the opposite is true.
Gun Free Zones are targeted areas for mass shootings in America.
What about an Uzi? I want an Uzi to keep on hand to protect my home and family and my little dog who is also family. LOL
Sorry, but more than one state will ban the last picture. Semi-automatic coupled with a handgrip makes it illegal in some areas. So does the large magazine, as does the (apparently) folding stock.
Such things as a folding stock or handgrips make it SO much more deadly that some places ban guns with those fearsome attributes.
Take a look at the 9/11 Twin Towers shirt the muslim is wearing with pride. These shirts are being sold on the streets of many muslim countries. THEY declared war!
More than 2,000 people died, and people are still dying because of that attack. How many Americans have died on American soil since 9/11 at the hands of muslims?
Really? And so, based on this one picture we are supposed to ascertain that America is under attack by Muslims, and that all Muslims hate Americans. LOL! Yes, this is stranger than fiction. Here is another picture from Marion Indiana:1930. Should we understand from this picture that all white people living in Indiana, then and now are racists who go around lynching black people for kicks?
I'm sorry, but I have known a lot of white people. I am also German/ Aniyunwiya. I grew up in Indiana; not far from Marion. I never saw anyone lynched. I never heard anyone talk about wanting to do it. I never wanted to do it myself. Of course there were white racists where I lived. But that doesn't paint the whole picture. I am sure there are Muslims who hate the United States. Big Deal! There are numerous hate groups in the U.S., primarily white, that hate minorities. What do you suggest? Should we send all of the white people back to Europe? Or maybe we should put them all in internment camps so we can keep an eye on them! What do you suggest?
Wrenchbiscuit's response is typical of Second Amendment opponents because he did not present a single fact based rebuttal. Instead, he appealed to emotions, and then attempted to employ diversions, distractions and logical fallacies.
There is absolutely no logical reason to disarm or further burden the one hundred million law abiding gun owners in the US, and Wrenchbiscuit utterly failed to convince anyone differently.
Bravo wilderness! I appreciate your honesty. You freely admit that the right to own and use a firearm is more important than the life of your own child. " The potential return of your own child's life is too small" . That is fascinating.
Deliberately and obviously misquoting your opponent earns you nothing but well deserved scorn. Shame on you. That was the cheapest of cheap shots.
Since when was telling the truth and repeating what someone says a "cheap shot". I understand that reading comprehension is an issue with many , but his comment , and the overall context of the argument, leave little doubt that he was referring to his children. Who else? A box of Cracker Jacks? The Tooth Fairy?
Can you produce, via copy/paste, where I said that? Or is it just one more lie?
You obviously did not say it. The progressive left will say anything rather than just admit that they are wrong.
Wilderness if you said that I can't find it.
Concerning my outlook on guns: Am I a gun hating liberal? You better believe it! I shouldn't have to tell you what I think about those who promote, sell, and perpetuate the murder of human beings throughout the world. The word "abomination" is not sufficient to express the emotion.
Concerning a man who would sacrifice his own son on the altar of the Second Amendment: of course he said it! Many here are quite adept at slinging mud in lieu of an intelligent response. But it appears that the Sons of the Pioneers are unable to pool their assets and collectively provide an answer to a very direct, and simple question: "If he didn't say what I said, then what did he say?" Anyone?
Tell us something we don't already know about yourself. The content of your comments pretty well makes it clear where you stand.
That was a nice evasive response. Would you care to answer the question now?
He's reduced to useless blustering because he cannot mount an effective argument based on fact. Everything he says is pure emotional appeal. Unless he presents a fact-based case, we should simply ignore him because he's wasting our time.
You have to ignore me because none of you can answer a simple question. How does it feel to get owned by a liberal? In public no less!
Your funny. Now ask a direct question without all the fluff and BS and we will try to get you an answer. We will try not to include any facts in the answer because that would destroy your liberal day.
If you don't know the question, then how could you possibly challenge what I said? But for your convenience, here it is again: First, let's look at the context.
The proposition of the superior intellect:
"...In all of these cases, stricter gun control could have made a difference."
" ... I said "could" have made a difference. And if the child at risk is your very own flesh and blood , that is a very important "maybe"; far more important than an outdated and obsolete Second Amendment."
The response of my subordinate:
" The rest of us recognize that there is a point where potential return is too small to justify the cost (financial or otherwise) of trying to eliminate every possibility of someone dying."
In context, we see that "potential return", is by default, directly referring to his own child. Thus my statement:
" ...You freely admit that the right to own and use a firearm is more important than the life of your own child." The potential return of your own child's life is too small".
Now that we have the proper context. I have been accused of misquoting a man who, by his own admission, places the Second Amendment above his own children. His very words reveal that he would rather risk the death of his own child than to deal with the cumbersome effect of stricter gun control. My question was:
"If he was not fundamentally saying what I have suggested, then what was he saying?
Will Starr - This is the problem some radicals have when they are confronted with reality. They twist your words to imply a totally different meaning. I agree, SHAME! DON
San Bernardino , proved one thing , what a perfect choice for a terrorist , no guns -no ones going to shoot back and interfere with this act before they were done ! Shame on the simple minds of anti-gun people ! How many victims do anti gun people Cause rather than cure !
Again, I presented a list of facts that prove we have no gun crisis in America. No one has addressed it because it proves they have no just cause to disarm law abiding Americans. We have no gun crisis in America, but we do have a massive minority crime crisis that is apparently invisible to the progressive leftists who want to disarm their opponents.
WillStarr - you have got to stop putting out those darn facts. Facts are very upsetting to about half of the population of this country. They prefer rumors, outright lies, and misinformation to spread among their friends. Some of them even become physically ill when slapped with facts. They have had to develop a whole new style of communication to steer the conversation away from those darn facts.
So, I opened the proverbial "can of worms", or so it seems.
This seems to be the real problem with this specific subject and our lack of progress on making sense of it.
The goal we should all have, in my opinion, is to have logical and common-sense dialogues on the subject of; gun ownership overall, and the definition of the specific desires of the majority of the nations people.
That's how we operate in a democracy, right?
The majority's decision is the driver for the nation's actions.
So, assuming this to be true (and I hope it still is), at this time, the majority believes in the sanctity of the people's right to own guns.
What this means in my mind, is that let's drop the radical leftist and rightist (??) pontifications and concentrate on a small piece of the problem, the ease of purchasing assault (style) guns designed to kill people.
Then, if this ever happens, we can see what the population thinks of further evolutions of our laws, OR NOT!
Don, the main issue is at least twofold. There is a huge amount of misinformation circulating regarding the assault rifles. They are not machine guns and will not fire hundreds of rounds per minute. Other than the shape and the size, they are no different than hundred of hunting rifles for sale on the shelves of the gun stores.
You could say that any gun is designed to kill and not pin that rap just on assault "style" rifles. I doubt that many who purchases one of these rifles intends to kill people after he takes it home. I own many different types of guns, and never purchased a single one of them with the thought of killing a person as my motivation for the purchase.
Do you really believe that senseless killing would stop if these assault style rifles were all gone? I doubt that would make much difference. Blaming a particular style of gun as our main problem is not logical. As pointed out in many of the comments, rarely are these guns used in killing incidents except by terrorists and insane people.
Killing other people would not stop if every gun in the country disappeared overnight. Take a trip through any hardware store and there are truck loads of tools and implements that could easily be used to kill another human being. Should we name just the claw hammers in that store or all the hammers in that store as a threat to society? Our murder rate is not a gun problem at all, it is a people problem.
To place the blame on a particular style of gun and not addressing the real issue of lack of enforcement of existing laws which is the real problem. The media almost never even mentions the number of murders in a given weekend in some of our cities. Why you ask? Because then they would have to round up these gang bangers and drug dealers and take them and their guns off the streets. We would need more jail space than we have available to house these prisoners.
I appreciate your concerns but really think you are looking in the wrong direction if you want to make the country safer.
Greetings Don, yes, you have opened the proverbial "can of worms," but this particular can must have a resealable lid, because it gets opened again and again after every horrendous gun related tragedy.
The problem, (as I see it), is that yours, like many others, is an emotional reaction that is not backed by real evidence. These reactions are driven by fear, not facts. More political "gun control" solutions, short of a total ban, are just pandering to the public's fears.
Take your suggested small step of banning "assault" weapons. Your ban is based purely on appearance, not capability, how much sense does that make? Those assault weapons you propose banning have no more lethal capability than any other semi-auto hunting rifle. They just look mean. Which would seem to say that if the logic for banning assault weapons is for their capabilities and not their appearance, then it would also demand banning any semi-auto weapon. But you don't hear that being suggested. Why not?
It should also be noted that even after the 10 year 1994 assault weapon ban, there was such a lack of conclusive proof of its success that it was allowed to sunset, and folks are still hotly debating the `yes it did, no it didn't' proofs.
Since preventing the criminal use of firearms is the supposed target of 'gun control', proponents of any new laws should be compelled to demonstrate that their proposed laws will actually serve to prevent criminal use of firearms without further burdening law abiding gun owner citizens. Otherwise, there's no point in doing it.
Unless the real target is the law abiding gun owners themselves.
What I don't understand is why those that are on the No Fly list or terror watch list cannot get on a plane in the US, yet they can buy a gun?
That makes no sense, and I would like to hear any Republican in Congress why they voted against banning gun sales to those that are on the no fly list.
Sam ~ There are several reasons at play as to WHY republicans Obstructed recent legislation which would have Banned "No Fly" individuals from purchasing guns ~ The Primary "Political" reason is the FACT that most republicans are Bought & Paid for by the NRA via campaign contributions, therefore allegiance to this Greed Driven entity takes precedence over the National Security of this country and her people if said republican politician wishes to remain EMPLOYED in Congress ~
Some Progressives may also accept contributions however, the primary difference is the FACT that most have no difficulty Voting AGAINST the best interest of the NRA ~
One other of many reasons is quite conceivably "Religious Fanaticism" ~ Unfortunately, we live amongst a segment of conservative republicans who are EAGER for Biblical Armaggedon to begin ~ These people live primarily in isolated, remote rural regions of the country ~ Just listen to the Nonsensical Rhetoric of radical republican presidential candidates like Mike Huckabee, Ted Cruz, Ben Carson, Jeb Bush etc and you'll discover the truth ~ They are absolutely Delusional and crave GLOBAL Conflict to get this "Revelation" Ball Rolling ~ ~
Just 2 of Many Reasons
Ever heard of 'due process'? Since most people on the no fly list have not even been charged with a crime, much less convicted of anything in a court of law, they cannot be deprived of their rights without due process. Obama knows that, but he thinks most Americans are too stupid to even know what their rights are.
On the other hand, maybe he's right about that part, since lots of ignorant Americans are suddenly up in arms about the no fly list.
I'm, quite familiar with "Due Process", however this does not dilute the FACT that your "Rights" are infringed upon and or suspended frequently without a Constitutional Amendment and or Law Alteration whether you realize it or not due to various justified circumstances including "Public Safety" "National Security" etc ~
So, an individual is BANNED from flying yet you're only upset with the Fact that the same individual who is apparently under close surveillance would be deprived of owning a Gun? Both are related to Freedom ~
No system is perfect and there will always be oversights and mistakes regardless, but this certainly Does NOT excuse a Negligent Republican Congress from Complicit Behavior only to satisfy NRA Donors ~
I have the Fifth Amendment on my side:
No person shall be...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
And that is why those nasty Republicans refuse to go along with Democrats and violate our rights without even being charged with anything.
""No person shall be...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."" Tell that to the IRS...sorry off topic.
There is a great deal going on right now that the republicans are fine with that violate the Fifth Amendment, like wiretapping laws, reading of mail, including emails, etc.
If someone really is suspected of being a terrorist to the point they cannot fly, they should not be able to buy guns either.
Absolutey ON Point Sam ~
Many people still do not realize the fact that most, NOT all republicans in congress are Bought & Paid for by the NRA ~ Therefore, the BEST Interest of the NRA takes precedence over the National Security of "We the People" ~ This unfortunately is proven to be FACT time and again ~
We would have to assume in secret rooms, most republicans would indeed like to see "Tighter" Gun Control measures enacted but they can't express this sentiment publically for fear of their jobs ~ Any public or private opposition to the NRA if discovered, would lead to an immediate deprivation of Campaign Contributions to said republican which in turn would lead to the inevitable DEMISE of his/her congressional career ~
We recently learned that individuals on the no-fly list were being allowed to work as baggage handlers in major airports. We also know there are people on the no-fly list that are there because of "errors" in the database or mistaken identity. My point here is I would not want to use this list for anything very important.
BTW, not one opponent of the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms has offered anything to counter my original post. Instead, it's all empty emotional rhetoric, just as predicted.
The NRA is about the third largest lobby in Washington , have a problem with free trade and corporate influence or is that only okay with Apple or GM? ? They've also been around since about 1870 , doing all kinds of good . Look up their history . They have only suffered recent poll droppings in the pseudo liberal P.C. controlled US media , coupled with a socialist president , all the while enjoying an almost doubling of members since the 1980's. Good luck hurting the NRA. reputation .
I'll be re-joining soon.
Over 80% of firearms deaths in America are suicides and inner city drug gangs killing each other. It seems to me that if the left is so concerned about the 'body count', that's where they ought to attack the problem.
Instead, they encourage 'doctor assisted' suicides, proving that their concern is not the body count at all. They're concerned only with the method.
In the same way, progressives all but ignore the soaring inner-city minority murder rate, lest they be seen as 'racists'. Can't have that!
Instead, they choose to go after the law-abiding citizens who simply want to exercise their right to keep and bear arms. It's politically safer for our spineless progressives.
But you fail to answer the question are you or are you not in favor of using background checks, registration requirements or waiting periods to screen for those people that are not going to volunteer information about whether or not it is legal for them to possess a firearm when you allow the merchant to sell to them without question? Let's not equivocate....
No one ignoring the rate of gun violence in the inner city, it is just that stand as much behind the 4th amendment as you do as in regards to the 2nd. You know, the one against unreasonable searches and seizures?
Neither waiting periods nor background checks have ever been proved to reduce gun crimes. Now tell us exactly how registering our firearms will prevent crimes.
In fact, tell us how any law at all will reduce gun crime, since they never have. The only reductions in gun crime came after laws against concealed carry were rescinded and the right to defend your home with deadly force was recognized.
Ok, then as a convicted felon, I will pick up my revolver along with my toaster from Walmart and no one would be the wiser. Hopefully you guys believe in some age restrictions on firearm purchases. Of course, we do not want to trouble any of the good people of Mayberry by asking for an ID, Geezzzz
C'mon Credence2, the Republican Brand has a Very Long History of Courting their OWN Teenage Cousins for Marriage, and U expect them to advocate for Age RESTRICTIONs on dangerous weapons ?? REALLY ??
All DRONEs are NOW Required to be Registered with the FAA for very Good & Obvious Reasons ~ If it's GOOD enough for Flying Robots, it's GOOD enough for Gunz ~
P.S. ~ Will Starr dosen't seem to understand the FACT that "Background Checks, Registration, and or ALL other Common Sense Gun Control Measures must be UNIVERSAL to be effective ~
I am trying to explain this to Will. What the Right fails to recognize is that there is no Amendment in the Bill of Rights whose provisions are absolute.
The 'gun guys' might take issue with my raising alarm about teenagers buying guns along with their Skittles.
When it comes to proper reasoning the Right is always Wrong!
You keep saying things like that as if felons can't kill without a gun, or can't get a gun any other way. Yet neither concept has any basis at all in reality - is there some other deep meaning or insinuation in the constant referral to WalMart or other legitimate gun stores that I'm not picking up on?
If it was so much simpler for felons to kill without a gun, why the concern that they are going to get one if they want it anyway. Of course, felons can kill without a gun. But if you needed to do away with someone are you going look underground for a bowie knife, claw hammer, or arsenic? I think that you are going to use the tool most effective for the job, that can create the largest body count in the least amount of time at the tug of a trigger.
Let me explain about the Walmart. What I am trying to say that in your world of no background checks, if I were a criminal why not go into the Walmart and buy since there is no way to know that I am a criminal, no background checks. I say that it easier to buy at a retail outlet, why go underground and face the risks associated with trying to acquire anything underground.
So my point is that if it is easier and no more risk more criminal types will simply avail themselves of the retail outlets since there is no risk of discovery or being identified in any way. I would do that, wouldn't you? So you have even more criminals with guns that now can get them far more easily.
"Gun Control Laws in Pieces" ?? Here's the REAL Deal ~
How can we possibly have a RATIONAL Discussion with Conservative Republicans, many of which are Eagerly ANTICIPATING that Big Epic Imaginary "PRETEND Battle" with their OWN Federal Government ???? ~
Yes, it's TRUE, believe it or not, there are still republicans holding jobs in our TAX Funded Congress along with pockets of Private Citizen Republicans living in the WOODS who honestly believe this will happen, and probably SOON ~ A BIG 'IMAGINARY' Epic Battle Insane Republicans will wage AGAINST our United States Armed Forces, For what reason ?? Who knows at this point ~ So honestly, how do you expect to negotiate with these Right WingNut Insane Asylum Inductees ?? ~
The REALITY ?? ~ Congress is Controlled by Radically Insane CONservative Republicans like Trey Gowdy, Ted "The Carpet Bomber" Cruz, Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnel etc, and as long as this remains the case there will be NO Legistaltive Action to Tighten Gun Laws in a sensible, common sense way ~ Right now, the only way to achieve it would be for the President to exercise his authority and unilaterally enact an Executive Order ~ It's the ONLY way to bypass a Judiciously Unlawful Republical Controlled OBSTRUCTIONIST Congress ~
If background checks actually work, why are criminals still armed?
More SPECULATION? ~
How do you know they are Armed? And how do you know ALL Criminals who wish to be Armed are indeed Armed? And how do you know the Current Diluted Gun Control Laws are NOT Working to some extent? And how do you know Tighter Gun Control Laws will not work?
Like the 2cnd Amendment, you do an awful lot of Speculating & Guessing Will Starr ~
The "Mathematical Certainty" still RULES regardless of anyones "Feeling" about the issue, and that is, if you are SERIOUS about REDUCING Gun Violence & Murder, you must REDUCE the Number of Gunz in Circulation, it's that simple ~
They are armed because they commit crimes with guns.
But turn it around - what makes you think that current laws ARE working to any extent at all? Given the number of criminals with guns, what evidence do you have that they are working?
But far more importantly, is that evidence (surely something more than your opinion) sufficient to deny constitutional rights to anyone?
"if you are SERIOUS about REDUCING Gun Violence & Murder, you must REDUCE the Number of Gunz in Circulation, it's that simple"
True. But not if you wish to reduce murders and violence; guns are not necessary for that and reducing them will not help. No matter how you claim differently, irregardless of how you claim it is a "mathematical certainty" with false assumptions and arithmetic, it remains false to fact. False to reality.
Which in turn brings into question your motives for proposing and promoting additional reductions in the number of guns in society. Can you elucidate on that question - why do you wish to reduce gun ownership? Just so that you can be happy the dead weren't killed with a bullet or is there some other reason?
Once again, CONCRETE Evidence from Math & Science are dismissed by republicans living in "PRETEND-Land" ~ A REDUCTION in Gunz will Mathematically Reduce the number of Crimes Committed with Gunz ~
It's the OLD CONservative Republican MYTH that ALL Criminals are "Armed " ~ I think the burden of proof is with Will Starr, wilderness, and any other Gun NUT to prove that ALL Criminals are indeed ARMED or Refrain from such Ridiculously Outlandish CLAIMS ~ The "MATH" says that stretch of the IMAGINATION is Improbable ~
So, if the highway patrol is so effective, why are there still drunk drivers?
The right is doomed to fail among insightful, intelligent people because its reasoning is always based on all or nothing, and nothing in reality can be evaluated this way.
Credence - Their are still drunk drivers because they still sell booze. If you recall with Prohibition, they tried to stop selling booze completely and many bootleggers got really rich making and selling illegal booze.
It is rumored that some of our most powerful politicians acquired their fortunes in the booze business during Prohibition.
Drugs, except those prescribed by medical professionals are illegal, but drugs are readily available from illegal drug dealers.
My point is that even if guns were totally outlawed there would still be guns available and those selling illegal guns would get filthy rich.
It is really not as easy to buy a gun as it is to buy a pack of gum as you mentioned in another comment. To the best of my knowledge, there is paperwork involved and a mandatory check with ATF before any licensed gun dealer can sell you a gun. It is far more controlled than many know and not as easy as you might think.
That of course are the rules while guns are legal. Once they are declared illegal one would have to purchase that same gun on the street at a higher cost and with no paperwork involved.
If Alcohol (Booze) were Banned there would be FAR Fewer Automobile Deaths as a Direct Result, the SAME is True if there were FEWER Gunz in Circulation there would be Far Fewer Gun Related Deaths as a Direct Result ~ The ROOT Cause of Drunk Driving Deaths is alcohol consumption, just like the ROOT Cause of Gun Violence is GUNz ~ It's pretty simple when you eliminate ALL the Republican Propaganda & Nonsense ~
Gunz Kill People PERIOD and the less you have in circulation the fewer Gun Crimes would be Committed ~ It's Basic Mathematical Science which I certainly don't expect Conservative Republicans around here to believe, so you can either ACCEPT the Scientific Evidence, or watch ALL these Distractions posted by the Gun NUTz that are Irrelevant to the Actual FACTS ~
This has to be the biggest bunch of nonsense yet.
Prohibition banned alcohol...and people kept right on drinking. Even in today's automobile world it wouldn't have affected drunk driving rates one iota. Same with guns - ban them and the killing goes right on, although you and a few others can rejoice that the deaths aren't from being shot. The rest of us care more that people die than what is used to kill them with, and thus don't care so much what tool is used.
If it's Basic Mathematical Science, show it. Show the math - show the data, the arithmetic and the final answer proving your false to fact assumption that guns cause deaths. Use math to show that guns jump up and kill people. Use it to show that more guns = more death. You've made these silly claims for months now - isn't it time to either put up or shut up? Show the math.
Wilderness, a simple question. When you say "Prohibition banned alcohol...and people kept right on drinking. " are you saying NOBODY stopped drinking because they couldn't get booze or didn't want to break the law in doing it?
Yes or No.
Another simple question. Do you think that the only time a law should be passed is when it is 100% CERTAIN that it will stop, in its entirety, the behavior it is designed to limit?
Yes or No.
Unlike you, I don't make blanket statements about 300 million people. Only fools do that.
But I CAN say that there was a massive amount of alcohol consumed during prohibition; records and statistics show that to be true just as it is known that guns do not cause deaths and that more guns does not correlate with more murders.
No - see paragraph above. A question for you, now: Do you think that expanding a failed law with extreme costs but zero results is a reasonable thing to do because unreasoning people think it might work this time around?
My Esoteric ~ Pleez, Try NOT to ask wilderness or Will Starr for a logical, FACT Based answer cuz it will throw their GAME way off into another Star System, Galazy, or even Universe ~
The correct answer to your question is YES, Prohibition Deterred MILLIONS of Americans from drinking Alcohol, and YES Millions MORE Americans Began to Indulge in a Proverbial Drinking Binge subsequent to the Lifting of said Ban and Legalization of Alcohol ~
CONservative Republicans simply REFUSE to FACE Scientific & Mathematical FACTs and until they do, Executive Orders MUST be issued to solve pressing problems ~
I notice you once more declined to actually produce that much described math. Just an observation, but one that says an awful lot about your opinions and "facts", doesn't it?
Yep, prohibition deterred some people (I'd like to see the proof of MILLIONS) from drinking booze. Now, how many of the people that would drive drunk today would have been among them? Those people that don't care what the law says, in other words? Or does that foul up your "math" or "science"?
One of the reasons I started looking into the firearms statistics was the widely quoted Brady claim that the majority of firearms violence victims were killed with their own gun! That conjured up the Hollywood image of a frozen and terrified woman allowing a criminal to take her gun away from her, or perhaps a gun just got out of a drawer in the middle of the night and shot its owner.
It was nonsense of course. I quickly that that statistic, cleverly disguised, was actually about suicides, and when I started looking deeper, I discovered that the vast majority of firearms deaths (over 80%) were suicides and inner city minority gangs killing each other, and that the much hyped gun crisis had nothing to do with the millions of law abiding gun owners who were the political targets of the progressive left.
I think background checks are largely a waste of time and money, since criminals don't get their guns that way anyway, but I am not calling for a repeal. I am very opposed to federal registration because that is a prerequisite to confiscation, and there's no need for government to know who has what gun. If progressives claim abortions are protected by privacy, then they should extend that to lawful gun ownership.
"Universal" background checks actually means that all American gun owners must forfeit their right to privacy and register all their firearms with the federal government even though they have broken no law. The progressives claim this will somehow cut down on gun crime, although they never explain how that would work.
Australian progressives claimed the same thing when they demanded registration and then ridiculed those who warned that it would lead to confiscation. Registration was quickly followed by a ban and then confiscation.
"Registration was quickly followed by a ban and then confiscation."
And that was followed by...nothing. Nothing at all. The death toll continued the same slow slide it had been one for years. Mass murders continued to happen, still with all too many innocent people dying. Politicians continued the same speeches they'd been giving for years about the necessity to control the population.
The only difference before and after the great confiscation was that some of the deaths were now by some means other than guns. The total was just as great, but gun opponents could then proclaim that because other tools were used more often that stripping people of their weapons was therefore a great success.
"You just don't want the Government to know that you have a gun, that is the real reason."
Of course it's the reason. Ever heard of privacy? Why does government need to know what guns a law abiding citizen has? To what purpose other than confiscation? It's appalling to actually hear an America citizen wanting to cede that much power over We, the People.
But Will, how can the Great Father in the East properly control us if they don't know everything about us?
It will not fly. We are Americans. We are not the Aussies and Brits who meekly complied. We have not kissed royal ass in well over 200 years.
California ordered the owners of an estimated 1,500,000 military style weapons to register them. So far, less than 1% have complied.
Tell me, Will, how do you come by such a statistic? While the numerator may be able to be determined, the denominator (number of assault weapons) cannot. Even so, registration percentages are meaningless because no more assault weapons are allowed to be registered (with rare exceptions).
You're correct. Out of an estimated 1,500,000, only 22,000 have been registered, which comes to just over 1%, not just under 1%.
I just saw on the news where California's new Gun Confiscation law goes into effect tomorrow. Don't know all the details but it shows the direction we are headed.
Try to get it right Poolman and not be hyperbolic - the California law IS NOT GUN CONFISCATION, it is the implementation of a version of the Assault-weapon ban of 1994. That is a world of difference!! Your formulation is unconstitutional, the assault-weapon ban is not.
That is why it is so hard discussing things or even taking your side seriously ... you either make things up or, more often, misrepresent the facts like the above.
Where did you get those numbers Will and Wilderness? Are they current? Were they taken the day after the law was passed or years later? Has the situation changed to make those numbers, even if they were true, irrelevant?
No, it's not confiscation - just a search and seizure of any weapons in your home or on your person. Not confiscation at all!
And sure it's an implementation of the assault weapons ban...expanded to anything that might be termed a gun. Hand guns, shotguns, rifles, assault weapon, semi-automatic hunting rifle, 22 target rifle, BB gun - anything that might be considered a gun.
What numbers am I supposed to have come up with?
My Esoteric - Hard taking my side? Just exactly what is my side? I clearly stated in my comment that I didn't know all the details. The news report called it a "Gun Confiscation Law" so I did the same.
Any law such as this one is just one more step toward losing all of the rights we have enjoyed our entire lives. I will do some more research on this law and then come back with details to state my opinion.
Was the source a right-wing source or an impartial one? How can we be on the slippery slope when this law was a national law once and people kept on buying other guns?
A quick Google search comes up with many links regarding the new California Gun Confiscation law. I didn't read all of them to determine their political leanings.
I don't think you're talking about the same law. The new one, taking affect tomorrow, allows cops to search your home and sieze any and all guns because a relative or a cop thinks you may be a danger to yourself or the community. They must be returned in a few weeks, unless a judge agrees, whereupon they can be kept for up to a year.
Of course, at the end of that year, the same relative simply makes the same report and they're gone again...
So nothing to do with any old law, except it expands the law saying that guns could be confiscated based on the testimony of a licensed therapist that you might be dangerous. Now it will be a family member or any cop. It is also not limited to fake assault guns, but any and all guns.
And that's why it's a violation of the Fifth Amendment due process clause. It's clearly unconstitutional.
Restraining orders are usually legitimate, but they are also used all the time as revenge weapons, and I'm sure this one will be no exception. For instance, your ex-wife to be is angry over a divorce and so she claims you abused her and takes out a restraining order, making your home and your possessions off limits for the time being. Now you will also lose your firearms, and it will probably cost you an arm and a leg to get them back. After all, you will be dealing with bureaucrats.
One guy I know had a restraining order taken out by his angry ex, and when he finally got his stuff back, all his mementos, old pictures, and family heirlooms had disappeared. He never got them back, and his kids told him that she tossed all of it in the garbage.
I'm sure this will be used the same way.
Two of my close relatives have had restraining orders filed on them, immediately followed by divorce proceedings. Both found themselves in front of the cop shop, penniless and without acceptable clothing. Homeless and no chance of a place to stay. One case was laughed out of court (literally - the judge was in tears over guffaws) and the other the DA refused to prosecute after sending threatening letters and offers for plea bargaining for several months. This will be similar, but with results just as severe.
Yes, it will cost you dearly to get your guns back, if it's possible at all.
Not only is it bureaucrats, but bureaucrats that want your guns gone permanently. Cops, judges and liberal politicians in other words - the very people exerting power and control over you
But, Wilderness, outside the 'Marlboro Man' scenario, what alternative world do you envision, as you speak of increasing negative influence of government and the left?
As is all too often the case, Credence, I'm not following you. Haven't a clue what that scenario is.
But the alternative world might (might!) be that that we saw, say 50 years ago politically. No, I don't mean socially or even legally, but politically.
A world where we are mostly responsible for ourselves. Where we accept blame for our actions, and where government is limited to what is needed by the country. Where cops might help a drunk get home, or take a 10 year old shoplifter to their Mom for punishment.
We've crossed a line, Credence, in the blame game and it's killing us. Someone else is always responsible for our screw-ups and government is always there to play Big Daddy instead of accepting responsibility ourselves and climbing back to our own two feet. It's killing us as a country, a culture and a society and it's going to get worse...IMHO, worse until it destroys us.
In my best wishes to you and yours and my thanks for your being so interesting an adversary, I try to explain myself. Ozzie and Harriet and the Marlboro Man are icons of a world long gone. Do you think Social Security was needed by the country in say, 1965? The fact that we had social and legal, technological change would make it most unlikely that politics would not also change. The world of 1915 was nothing like 1965, in almost every aspect. The changes over the last 50 years have been more pronounced and startling than that. Enjoy and cling to being 'the man from Idaho' with a world off the beaten path. It is not the reality for vast majority of us.
I am not unsympathetic to the things you speak of, I just think that in an ever more complex world and society what it is you are concerned about is not, in fact, retrievable.
Hey buddy, I hope you don't mind if I jump in, and I I sure do hope you are wrong.
The way I read Wilderness' point is not the caricature of Ozzie and Harriet, and the Marlboro Man as you put it. Although both portray essential elements of his point, (as I take it), they only represent snapshots of a time. I think he is talking about character and integrity, and neither of those are affected by the complexity of the world, nor the issues of the times.
I would also speculate that the politics of 1915 and 1965 aren't as different as you might think. The goals are still the same; get elected, stay elected, and either try to advance your position in life or advance the position of the citizens. The rules, and the plays have changed, but it is still the same game. Even the possible motivations are the same; Duty, Glory, or Gain.
In other words wilderness is saying:
"Stop blaming the racist for over 500 years of oppression".
"Stop blaming the white man for stealing what he stole: an entire continent."
"Stop blaming the capitalist for nearly 250 years of poverty and violence in the U.S. and throughout the world".
"Let's go back to a time when not just a handful of ignorant simians living in a trailer park in BF Idaho believed in the American Dream".
That's what he is saying. Another pathetic lament of an evil empire.
GAME OVER: 2016
Happy New year, GA, I hear what you say, my late aunt in discussions we had in the 1980's about social mores in the world in which she was a young adult, the 1920's said, 'Refering to Harding and the Teapot Dome scandal, 'In my day they stole thousands, now they steal millions'.
The point is that the game may never change, but those that play it have better tools than ever before to do what it is they always have done, but more efficiently to the detriment of many more people.
So, in my opinion, if character and integrity is the issue, we were no better off in 1965, or 1915 for that matter. The difference is just that between a flintlock and AK47, both having the same purpose but one being considerably more efficient than the other.
Ask Wilderness, who decides what is needed by the country?
Also: wilderness, You sound like the tinhat people, rising costs of living is a factor of inflation 'too much money chasing too few goods'. It is economic, not political. Everybody wants to live in California, who the hell wants to live in Texas?
A world where you are responsible for yourself? The next time you get that carton of creme from the supermarket, how much of that government bureaucracy is responsible for making sure that you are safe in consuming? The bureaucracy that conservatives always say is 'over the top' This is a complex world, today.
That reminds me, maybe I might revisit the film "Mr. Smith goes to Washington" to take a look at political activity during a less complex era.
The "burden of proof " is NOT on anyone on the right side of this debate , Why you ask ? Because of the presumption of innocence ! The moment that the courts begin allowing that to happen , there will be far more than an armed uprising in America , there will be judges hanging from lamp posts . I just love it though when laymen lawyers like liberal "intellectuals " activists here start deciding that the constitution and Bill Of Rights only apply to the over use of the first amendment . There is a definite disease among anti gun , anti-constitutional lefties ! That is called cranial -rectal reversal , just how is it that gun owners are the only ones NOT to be protected by that constitutional law?
"I think the burden of proof is with Will Starr, wilderness, and any other Gun NUT to prove that ALL Criminals are indeed ARMED or Refrain from such Ridiculously Outlandish CLAIMS"
First, show me where I ever said that 'all criminals are indeed armed'.
The 'outlandish claim' is yours, not mine.
California's new GVRO (gun violence restraining order) law allows police to confiscate a citizen's firearms if he is deemed a danger to himself or others in a court order. The order can be issued even if he has never committed a crime or has never been committed to a mental institution.
I suspect that it will eventually be deemed a violation of the Fifth Amendment right to due process and unconstitutional:
"No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or PROPERTY, without due process of law"
People convicted of domestic violence involving a weapon are already on the background check and their weapons are confiscated after due process.
California has been "Ahead of the Curve" on MANY Other Critically Important Issues as Well ~
Thankfully I am smart enough to not live in California.
After observing some of your Comments on Gunz and or related issues Old Poolman, No Offense, but California is certainly not a good fit for you anyway ~ Nor would New York, Washington, Mass, Oregon, and several other Democratic states be a good fit either ~
We here in the Great Golden State of California are VERY Progressive & Culturally Diverse in EVERY way, and YES, Way Ahead of the Curve ~ We believe in Mitigating Gun Violence through very tough Laws which will over time, begin to have a positive impact on our society, unlike some southern states that apparently believe the way to REDUCE Gun Violence is to simply FLOOD the Streets with even MORE Gunz, or to simply arm everyone with automatic weapons and have BIG Routine "Shoot-Outs" to clear the air ~ Those of us living in civilized societies believe this approach to be Backward, Nonsensical, Dangerous & INSANE ~ We NOW live in 2016, NOT in the Cenozoic Era ~
No hard feelings, but we just think COMPLETELY Differently ~
Alternative Prime, I lived in California for many years, probably before you were even born. I have to say that at that time I really enjoyed the California scenery and lifestyle at that time. I left because of a job transfer.
But now the high taxes and politics of that state would stop me from moving there again.
I and California are on the same channel, politically.
I am only put off by the cost of living, taxes, etc. Too much congestion these days for a man who wants some elbow room and is now in a position to act on his appreciation of open spaces. These things are anathema for retired people.
I certainly did have my fun as a resident of Riverside County for 5 years.
But of all the red states that I have travelled through, Texas is the worse, hands down. Oklahoma is not much better but at least it does not take up as much land area....
The BEST of Everything always Demands a Premium Credence2 ~
P.S. ~ There are Plenty of Rural areas in California, probably more than any other state in the union if that's your preference, it's just that once an individual gets used to ALL the Conveniences right at their FINGER Tips, it's very difficult to move out to the "Sticks" and live with the Owls & Sparrows ~
re: the cost of living, taxes, etc. - you ARE aware that all of those things come about primarily because of the political climate? It's what happens when liberals embrace the path of socialism and decide everything should be free; the cost of everything goes up.
Venezuela's socialist paradise is a nightmare. A toilet paper crisis!
wilderness ~ You've made many Ridiculous Comments on these forums, but this is simply Absurd ~ Just like Politics, it appears as if Economics, GUN Control, and Derivatives thereof, are certainly NOT the Forte' of CONservative Republicans ~
By now, I understand the Fact that ALL Radical CONservative Republicans need to survive in this world is a Semi-Sanitary Out-House, a Mule, Their OWN Distorted Version of the Constitution, a Few Rusty Gunz, a Few Bullets, a Semi-Polluted Water Well, a Sharp Whittling Knife, a Cousin or TWO for Companionship, a Home-Made Sling Shot, a Few Out-Dated Books for some Home Schoolin' and a Semi-Functional "Cup n' Wire" Hook-Up to Receive the "Fox Loser Snooze Channel", and so be it, I'm sure the Real Estate is Dirt Cheap in your Neck of the Woods for those very reasons ~ If it's NOT Cheap, someone's Bamboozlin' SOMEONE over there ~
California has the BEST of almost EVERYTHING, and that's an irrefutable FACT, and the BEST always costs a little more money to maintain, and that's the Truth ~ Once again, you get EXACTLY what you pay for ~
P.S. ~ Republican Politicians DEPEND on MORONS for Votes, and there are unfortunately plenty of those still living in America, for what REASON ?? Who knows, it's certainly NOT for Patriotism ~ Anyway, if you wanna' talk about "Free Stuff" maybe you should turn OFF Fox Snooze Loser Channel & Turn on something else, because the ONLY Politicians who are trying to Give Away "Free Stuff" are your beloved Republicans, they wanna' GIVE you an Entire COUNTRY for FREE, by LOWERING or Collecting ZERO Taxes, Now that's an Impossible Give Away ~
Progressive Democrats & Democratic Socialists will indeed TAX the GREED Driven Corporations to Finance OUR Programs and in Stark Contrast, Republicans will GIVE EVEN MORE of OUR Money to the Wealthiest only to let this Country Corrode to the point of NO return, which is the Actual Agenda of some Congressional Republicans ~
Alternative Prime - Do you have any facts to back up this comment or is this mostly personal opinion? It is darn hard to find the truth in any of the media these days.
Hi Old Poolman, YES, it's ALL Fact Based & with a little research it can indeed be confirmed ~ For example, if you watch the Republican DEBATES or what I like to Call "The RACE to be the MOST Offensive Racist Individual who will TAKE from Americans & GIVE to the Filthy Rich", you will discover the FACT That ALL Candidates on the GOP side of the isle have PLEDGED to REDUCE Taxes on the Wealthiest Individuals & Corporations, and to make it seem like a Legitimate Proposal, they offer a tiny slice of the TAX Reduction Pie to everyone else which is actually an INSULT ~
Lower Corporate Taxes = Un-Maintained & Crumbling AMERICA, and that's a FACT ~
WHY do something so ABSURD & Perhaps Illegal? Have you seen WALL Street Profits Lately? They are NOTHING Less than Obscenely LARGE ~
EXAMPLE 2 ~ The Republican response to our Gun Problem is to essentially FLOOD the Streets with even MORE Gunz ~ Simply INSANE & NOT Good ~
Alternative Prime - One thing I have learned in my long life is to never believe anything a politician says while trying to get elected. Those things rarely come true.
There is so much misinformation in circulation it is becoming much more difficult to separate fact from fiction. There is so much greed and corruption on both sides of the aisle that we citizens of this country take a backseat to everything.
Much needs to change before it will get any better for we citizens. Term Limits should go into effect immediately and lobbyists should be permanently outlawed. One a politician has been bought by a lobbyist they no longer represent the needs of the citizens of this once great country.
If we could eliminate even half of the waste in Washington there would be no need to even look for tax increases.
But that is all off topic for this hub and I apologize to the author.
When a Republican says he/she will TAKE from you only to GIVE it to the Wealthy, you'd better believe it will indeed come true ~
The last republican who made that Unconscionable PROMISE was George W Bush, a simple minded individual who proceeded to CUT Taxes on the Wealthiest Individuals and it resulted in a DISASTEROUS Economic Catastrophe, one which President Obama Masterfully PULLED us OUT of ~ That's just an unfortunate FACT ~
Moreover, although there is indeed corrution on BOTH Sides, Corporate Corruption, Unsavvory Wall Street Activities, Grotesquely Over-Paid CEO's etc lies primarily with the Republicans ~
That's a pie in the sky, utopian belief.
Alternative Prime - I could counter that by saying when a liberal says he will take from you to give to someone who refuses to work, that is equally frustrating.
What we are really dealing with is a broken system with graft and corruption on both sides. Many times, the left and the right are working together for personal gain with no regard for the citizens they represent.
But this is not the place to talk about that because we are way off topic. Your thinking is very rigid and no argument would ever change your thinking on any issue. Thanks for the comeback's to my comments but I think we should leave this for another time and place.
In REALITY Old Poolman, anyone who believes the "SYSTEM" is Broken has been Bamboozled by the Right Wing Nut Jobz ~
The TRUTH of the Matter is, Progressive Democrats are just FINE and we will continue to ADVOCATE for "We the People", NOT the FILTHY Rich Abusive Corporations ~ It's the OBSTRUCTIONIST Right Wing CONservative Republicans who are irreparably "BROKEN" and the proverbial PROBLEM, and therefore, whenever President Obama can simply BYPASS their Ulterior MOTIVES to do the JOB of "We the People", the Better OFF this country will be ~
Right NOW, in these very FORUMS you have CONservative Republicans who just yesterday, were running around this place ADVOCATING that Mentally ill individuals should be attended to in regard to GUN Control, then, ACTION is Taken and those very same individuals are NOW in a TIZZY because we are doing EXACTLY what they Wanted ~
So there you have it in a Nutshell, the same OLD "Run Around in Circles" by Republicans ~
I'm really amazed that you can blame all the current problems and issues on one party. Our government is a mess and you have to know that your liberals/progressives are at least part of the problem.
You talk as if you were brainwashed and your mind is completely sealed to any other course of action. There are two sides to every story my friend, but you have picked sides and are sticking with it.
It is probably a good thing you live in California with so many who think exactly the way you do. I hope it works out for you in years to come.
What I do blame one part of one Party for is the stalemate in Congress and the atrocious degree the South is gerrymandered. That would be the Tea Party and their like-minded allies.
Throughout modern American politics the two Parties were able to govern in spite of huge differences in philosophies. And that is because both Parties, when push came to shove, put America first and not their personal beliefs. This was true through the Reagan-Bush administration and, after the GOP-led government shut down, again in the Clinton administration. It also occurred, for the most part, when the Ds took back Congress in the last two years of W's administration. That all came to an end in 2010 with the election of the Tea Party and the elimination of any moderation in the GOP.
LOL It's always the other party - the one we don't identify with - that is to blame, isn't it? It's the other party that won't negotiate in good faith, that won't accept any compromise. It's always the other party that is destroying America, while my party is the salvation.
It's funny how that works, isn't it?
I just go where the facts point me and the facts tell me that extreme Right-wing has almost always been worse than the extreme Left-wing "in America". The fact is "extremes" of the political spectrum always, without fail, lead to a worse outcome. The worst of course is the extreme Right-wing in Germany and the extreme Left-wing in Russia/Soviet Union; it is hard to tell the two apart vis-a-vis the hardships they brought on their citizens.
The fact is the conservative-wing of the Rs, Ds, and Ws (Whigs) ALWAYS opposed expanding civil/human rights in America while the Progressive-wing of the Rs, Ds, and Ws promoted more civil/human rights
The fact is the conservative-wing of the Rs, Ds, and Ws ALWAYS opposed expanding the right to vote in America while the Progressive-wing of the Rs, Ds, and Ws promoted expanded the citizen's franchise.
The fact is the conservative-wing of the Rs, Ds, and Ws ALWAYS opposed universal liberty and denied liberty to specific groups while the Progressive-wing of the Rs, Ds, and Ws promoted expanded liberty to more and more Americans
The fact is the the philosophy of the conservative-wing of the Rs, Ds, and Ws ALWAYS opposes egalitarianism and universal equal rights while the philosophy of the Progressive-wing of the Rs, Ds, and Ws is to promote egalitarianism and equal rights.
Try to find examples in American history where any of those facts are untrue.
Although badly exaggerated some of the time, I agree with the basics of your post. Excluding moderates of both parties for the sake of this discussion, liberals typically provide more freedom for classes/groups of people than conservatives do. All while removing freedom and rights from individuals - the current gun control debate is just such an issue.
You wish to compare the governments of Russia and Nazi Germany to the spectrum ends here, and the comparison has some validity, but which was worse for the world? While their own citizenry suffered greatly in both, the whole world paid the price for Germany's philosophies. This, too, is typical of the far left; just as the far right wants everyone under their thumb, so does the left. Germany wanted the world, and because they were powerful, tried to get it.
But there is another side as well, and one that you are forgetting (or intentionally disregarding); that the far left has a distinct propensity for an absolute lack of freedom when it comes to wallets. Here we will have differing opinions, for I find that the liberal concept of socialism and all the "share the wealth" plans can and will cause economic failure and destruction. We saw it in our own depression recently, when the liberal concept of "everyone can have a house" eventually produced the biggest economic depression since the war. We see it in Europe where country after country is failing. Yes, there are some successes there, but overall the plan is a dismal failure - the same failure we will see in this country as we promote ever greater "freebies" for those unwilling or unable to earn their way through life.
So both sides have major failures in their philosophies; the far right for demanding that everyone conform to their religious beliefs and the far left for demanding that everyone switch from value based accounting (paid what your product is worth) to everyone gets what they want without effort.
Which one is worse? "Give me liberty or give me death" applies to both sides; the right with their insistence on playing moral god, the left with their own insistence on the same thing via wealth redistribution and ever more government control of everyday matters best left to individuals and companies. I do not see either side as being any better than the other; just different in their demands and "crimes".
Both great comments that point out our real problem is extremism on both sides. Somewhere around the middle would be a great place for compromise that would best serve all citizens of this country.
I see comments from some who are so radical in their beliefs their minds are completely closed to any new ideas. I see others who are open to information and new ideas that would benefit most of us.
Somewhere down the line we've forgotten how to compromise, or that someone else actually might have a better understanding or idea than we do.
Is it just because the extremists have grown such a loud voice (internet, mostly) and we aren't interested in spending the time to debunk their ridiculous claims? Or are we as a species that controlling of our neighbors?
Wilderness - When it comes to politics a huge part of the problem is the lack of accountability. No matter how bad the results of a poor decision nobody is ever held responsible for making the mistake. They will in fact keep the broken program in place rather than change or revise the plan to something that would work.
We will spend most of next year watching the battle of Obamacare. Some made a promise to repeal it completely and will not even consider just replacing the parts that are broken. Because of attitudes like this we will be stuck with Obamacare in its present form for years to come. I use Obamacare only as an example. Many other government programs do far more harm than they help.
Will we ever reach the point where supposedly intelligent politicians can actually sit down and work through those things that are not working to make things better for all? I seriously doubt it.
It would seem you are placing every problem in the world today on one party, the Republicans. I find that to be a very narrow minded view from someone who is blind to what is really going on in Washington.
But if you have to put the blame somewhere I guess you have picked your target and if that makes you feel better good for you.
In reality, there are good and bad ideas on both sides of the aisle. There are corrupt politicians and honest politicians on both sides of the aisle. To blame one party for everything that is wrong is being rather narrow minded the way I see it.
Amazing, isn't it? I had one progressive explain to me in all seriousness that we do not need to raise taxes to pay for 'free' stuff. All we have to do is print more money to pay for such things!
In REALITY Will Starr, by LOWERING or ELIMINATING Taxes, especially on Abusive, Greed DRIVEN Corporations & Filthy Rich Individuals, which ALL Backward Republicans Candidates are Now ADVOCATING, you are essentially "GIVING AWAY a Country" called the United States of America ~
So, WHO's giving STUFF AWAY ?? ~ ~
The LAST Time a president gave away OUR Country by LOWERING Taxes on Filthy Rich Individuals we ended UP in a Catastrophic Financial MELTDOWN, and the President who was responsible for that neglect was an idiot named George W Bush ~
NOW, with TOTAL Disregard for HISTORICAL Facts, Each & Every Numbskulled Republican Candidate for the Presidency in 2016 is advocating for essentially the EXACT SAME ill-Conceived Policy ~ Good Luck with that one ~
Prior to action taken, ALL conservative republicans around here were in favor of solving the "Mentally ill Gun Ownership Issue" ~ These are invaluable HUMAN Beings however, deficiencies for whatever reason make limiting arms ownership a sensible solution ~ But what happened, all of a sudden republicans are AGAINST this policy ~ WHY ?? What happened in 24 hrs ??
California is not perfect by all means, but we have ALWAYS been way "Ahead of the Ccurve" on important issues ~ So, instead of Ridcule by a few Backward Republicans around here, primarily for "POLITICAL Purposes", you should Embrace & Applaud" this Action ~
Perhaps if you stopped SHOUTING at PEOPLE with your silly CAPITALIZING, and hyperbolic ranting, you might be taken seriously. As it is, what you say is largely ignored because it's almost unreadable.
You ARE aware that "solving the "Mentally ill Gun Ownership Issue" does not mean indiscriminate confiscation of any and all guns?
Or is pretending to "solve" a problem just another tactic to violate the second amendment?
C'mon wilderness ~ First of all, you are Incorrect in your Characterization of the Policy, secondly, just like ALL other Republicans who are asked for reasonable ideas in which they always FAIL to Submit, where was YOUR Brilliant Plan to Reduce Gun Crime ?? I must have MISSED it ~
REDUCING the number of Gunz in Circulation gets to the Actual ROOT of the Problem and it is indeed the ONLY Logical Common Sense Action to take if you are Serious in an effort to Reduce Gun Violence ~ This is TRUE regardless of your OPINION to the Contrary or your OPINION as to what the U.S. Constitution Actually says ~
Remember, this is Cutting Edge Progressively Democratic California where we try to get things DONE, not make a career out of OBSTRUCTION like Republicans have evolved into ~
GOT a better Plan of Action other than FLOODING the STREETS with Even MORE Gunz?? I'm sure everyone is ALL EARS ~
Where does this "flooding the streets" with more guns come from? I must have missed that part. Unless they plan on giving every food stamp recipient a gun with their next monthly check how will there be more guns?
"REDUCING the number of Gunz in Circulation gets to the Actual ROOT of the Problem and it is indeed the ONLY Logical Common Sense Action to take..."
You're absolutely right...IF your concern is which tool is used to murder people with. If it is that people are being murdered it is a fool's quest, and we both know it.
No, the characterization (that the goal is to ban guns) is not incorrect - we've seen far too much of it right here on HP and dozens of statements from VIP's country wide support it too.
Just one plan, simply because I'm not psychologist enough to propose and answer myself: put our money, time and effort into finding out what is wrong with our society that it glorifies and requires extreme levels of violence so often. THEN, after we've found the problem, attack it in an effort to reduce violence rather than the chosen tool. Along the way we can quite pretending that world wide experience in banning guns shows something it doesn't, and quit lying about it as well.
So Pres. Obama's administration has warned us that an executive action for more gun controls is about to happen . To bad he doesn't apply executive action to fat people , as heart disease is a leading killer , maybe he could apply them to women , women's health problems are in the top ten of American killers , or maybe step ladder climbing , falling is in the top ten reasons for dying .
No , and he'll do this why ? Because its a deflection from the reality that the white house position in the balance of power has become directionless , while America burns P.C. rules this administration , Welcome to the age of Tin FOIL ! What's next , only the shadow knows ?
Actually, for starters, it should be EXPANDED to OBESE Presidential Candidates like Chris "I DREAM of SHOOTING Down Russian Fighter Jets" Christie, I mean really, the guy can't even Manage his OWN Diet and we expect him to Manage an ENTIRE Country ~
How "BIG & WIDE" will the White House Chairs need to be MODIFIED & Who's gonna' foot that HUGE Tab if this Frumpy Little Angry Man ever became our leader ?? ~
Really? We should pick our next president based on body weight? None of the candidates are actually movie stars so perhaps we should look more at their knowledge and ability to lead than how my much they weigh.
Just my opinion.
Actually, my comment was partially in GEST, but on the other hand, I would NEVER Trust an individual like Chris Christie who obviously has Serious "Self Control" Issues, Excessive EATING & Uncontrollable Verbal Blubbering" just to name two examples ~ Oh, and I almost forgot, his "Insatiable Appetite" to start WW3 so we can add another 10 Trillion in Wasteful Spending to our Deficit ~
Question for U Old Poolman ~ ALL Republican Presidential Candidates EXCEPT for Donald Trump and Perhaps Kasich that I know of, have Clearly EXPRESSED their intent to Terminate Social Security & Medicare, and in Delusional Ben Carson's case, he added TERMINATING the Veteran's Administration as well ~ NOT to mention "Flooding the Streets" with EVEN MORE Gunz ~ What are your thoughts and how do you feel about their extreme ideas ?
Can you produce even a single quote where any candidate proposes termination of SS without any replacement?
Alternative Prime - I would be very interested in where you got that information regarding terminating SS with no replacement. I follow the news and have watched all of the debates and this is the first I have heard of that.
I guess they can take me to the funny farm 'cause
I'm a radical, southern, gun owning, Bible thumpin',
tongue talkin', redneck who is selfishly clinging to my
gun, my Bible, and my hound dog!!
by Mike Russo 9 months ago
Ask the 59 people who were killed and the 525 people who were wounded and all of those who were traumatized by this horrific event, if we need gun control. Why does any civilian need access to assault weapons? The problem is the mentally ill are an unknown quantity until after they commit the...
by Marcy Goodfleisch 10 months ago
Do you believe there should be tighter gun control laws?Should there be laws against selling or owning some types of guns? What do you think?
by Ytslemp 5 years ago
How do you feel about 'common sense' gun control laws?
by strengthcourageme 4 years ago
I was just wondering everyone's thoughts on gun control, are you for or against?
by My Esoteric 2 years ago
The NRA leadership (not most of NRA members) currently sees Gun Control as a stark Black and White issue. The NRA et al think that ANY step to keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them is ipso facto an attempt to keep guns out of the hands of ALL citizens; this is the...
by Ralph Schwartz 7 months ago
I've been reading and listening to the debate on gun control over the past day. I keep hearing a repeating theme from those who feel guns need to be banned - its for the safety of children. Yet, those same voices are totally against a border wall that would reduce illegal drug...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|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.|