Gun Control & the Border Wall

1. 84

   RJ Schwartzposted 6 years 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 crossings, Cartel members from infiltrating our country, and criminals to come into the nation unchecked.  This leads me to wonder are they really concerned about "safety" or is it something else entirely?

   replyreport
   1. 0

      promisemposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      I have been tracking the latest massacre closely and have not read or heard from anyone who simply wants to ban guns.
      
      Most people I know favor sensible gun laws and tight border security. The problem is how we get answers to both issues.

      replyreport
   2. 0

      PrettyPantherposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      First, suggesting regulation of particular types of guns or who has access to guns is not banning guns.
      
      Second, there is plenty of disagreement, even among conservatives, about whether the benefits of a border wall justifies the cost.
      
      Third, saying that opposition to a border wall signals one is unconcerned about the safety of our children is like saying that those who oppose gun control are unconcerned about the safety of our children.  Both are illogical and wrong.

      replyreport
      1. 94

         wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         "Third, saying that opposition to a border wall signals one is unconcerned about the safety of our children is like saying that those who oppose gun control are unconcerned about the safety of our children.  Both are illogical and wrong."
         
         Thank you.  Somehow the liberals screaming the loudest about taking guns seem to forget that point - that recognizing a failed concept does not mean a lack of empathy or care.  It may make a great point to scream out to the heavens (thus demonizing an opponent and making them evil, a spawn of Satan), but it hasn't even a smattering of truth in it.

         replyreport
         1. 90

            MizBejabbersposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            I haven't heard anyone screaming out to take our guns, but I've heard them (even Republicans) calling for a ban on assault rifles. There is no reason for a civilian to own an AK of any kind. If a civilian is attacked to the extent he needs that strong a protection, even an assault rifle probably wouldn't be enough protection. He's need an army.
            As far as the border wall, the existing walls have been dug under, so unless the foundation of the wall is dug extremely deep (perhaps to inner earth) the drug dealers will find a way to tunnel under it.
            I don't think either point is valid when it come to protecting our children. We lost control of the mentally ill when we gave them the civil rights of the sane. I'm not saying it was a bad thing because under the old laws, if a man wanted to put away his sane wife and live with his mistress, he could pay off enough people and have the wife locked away. I'm just pointing out the results. By the time a court order is issued declaring a psycho a danger to the public, he/she has time to commit multiple murders.

            replyreport
            1. 94

               wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

               First, Diane Feinstein (senator) was quite vocal about taking guns away, and she isn't alone.  In addition, we've spent decades chipping away at taking guns; it never seems enough, never ends. The obvious conclusion is that the goal is to end ownership of all guns.
               
               http://www.breitbart.com/big-government … ns-banned/
               
               Secondly, the AK-47 is a true assault rifle, military grade and fully automatic.  There are precious few in the hands of citizens (it takes a very special permit to own one) and, as far as I've been able to ascertain, no automatic weapon has been used to murder anyone with since the days of the mafia and their "tommy guns".  The guns being called "assault rifles" are not; instead they are look-a-likes without the functionality of the military assault guns.
               
               Third, even the so-called "assault rifle" class of guns causes very few of the 12,000 murders in the US: all rifles combined (of which the "assault rifle" is but one) were used to kill less than 300 people in 2013.  Less than 3% of murderers use a rifle of any kind.  On the other hand, shotguns killed 308 people, knives were used for 1500 deaths, blunt instruments (baseball bat for example) were used by 400 and hands and feet were the preferred tool of 700 killers.
               
               So when you talk about taking away the AK guns, it means nothing as there aren't any to take.  When you begin to discuss taking away 15,000,000 fake "assault rifles" it can't hold a candle to other means of murders even if it saved every life taken by them, which it obviously won't.  The question becomes "Why?".  Why put efforts and resources into removing one of the smallest categories of tools used by killers instead of concentrating on the causes behind the killings?  Take the tool and the cause remains alive and well - the killer still kills - and has been proven throughout the world, so why the demands to repeat a failed experiment?
               
               https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/20 … 9-2013.xls
               
               Insanity is another matter, but so far I've been unable to think of anything that even might help without causing tremendous disruption and loss to the very concept of American freedom.  Always open to suggestions, though, should you have any!

               replyreport
               1. 90

                  MizBejabbersposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  First, you used Breitbart as your source. Big deal, they had to go all the way back to 1995 to come up with this one. I haven't heard Ms. Feinstein say anything recently. The gun the killer used was an AK15 according to UNfake news reports. It was not an AK47, but if you want to hold people's lives hostage to a technicality, that's your right under the 1st amendment.

                  replyreport
                  1. 94

                     wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                     Feinstein proposed a law to ban "bump stocks"; a gun modification easily produced by anyone with a 3-D printer.  https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/ … ing-243577
                     
                     Nov, 2017, Feinstein introduced another "military-style assault weapons" ban, meaning anything that is black and looks mean.  She also proposed jail time for anyone loaning one of these terrible, awful looking guns.  https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/ … ing-243577
                     
                     2018 Feinstein wants to increase the gun buying age to 21.  I began hunting for our families meat at 15 and owned my own weapon.  https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 … ng-age-21/
                     
                     The gun used in Florida was an AR15, which is a completely different weapon and is NOT automatic.  There is no AK15.
                     
                     And no, it is not a "technicality"; that's like calling a Ford pickup a Lamborghini.  Or insinuating that a BB gun is equivalent to a hunting rifle.  Don't you find such an egregious and gross exaggeration of the facts at least a trifle dishonest?  I mean, yes it's effecting in scaring people and in raising emotional distress, but if it doesn't have some semblance to reality isn't that dishonest?

                     replyreport
                     1. 90

                        MizBejabbersposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                        "Don't you find such an egregious and gross exaggeration of the facts at least a trifle dishonest?"
                        Yes, I do and I think that is what you are doing also. The fact that some inexperienced journalist got the AR15 mixed up with the term AK15 is an honest mistake, which by the way, I haven't checked out to see if this is true. I do, however, agree with her anti-bump stock policy also. I do not agree with increasing the gun-buying age to 21 as long as our government puts guns in the hands of 18-year-olds, calls them "soldiers," and tells them to "go kill our enemies".
                        I have you beat...I learned to shoot at age 3, when my father came back from the U.S. Army and put a gun in my hand. By age 6, I was an accurate shot. At age 9 he bought me my first gun, a double barrel .410 to use squirrel hunting with him. I still have it today, and have no need for any kind of a **15 or a bump stock. I've used it to scare off a prowler when I was a young pregnant woman left alone at night, as well as a 22 pistol to scare off another one after my kids were grown. The prowler came back the next night before I got home from work and burglarized my house, including taking the pistol and my son's two guns. Fortunately, he didn't find my .410. It would have broken my heart if he had taken it. If he'd succeeded in breaking in on me, I would have used it on him. (Either gun I could get to.) So you see, I'm not anti gun, just anti certain types of weapons in the hands of civilians.
                        I am NOT a liberal. I would be classified as a Middle of the Roader. I'm against Hillary's open-border policy and Bernie's give it away to millennials who think they are entitled to it. I'm against the Republican's misogynist policies and give it to the rich policies that they've been practicing for years. I do not believe there is a trickle down or a free lunch.
                        I think your viewpoint about guns belongs to the radical right and there is no way that I will go along with you,

                        replyreport
                        1. 94

                           wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                           Just two comments: your lack of "need" for a semi-automatic rifle has exactly zero to do with anything.  We are guaranteed the right to bear arms...if we "need" it.  Desire is all that's necessary, and there are millions upon millions of Americans that desire that semi-automatic rifle.  The "assault rifle" under attack by Feinstein.
                           
                           Secondly, my viewpoint about guns comes straight from many hours of research: research into the results of gun control laws and the disarming of a citizenry.  I know what has happened worldwide when guns are allowed to proliferate and when they are not.  Can you say the same, or do you just listen to the ignorant politicians and media that are stupid enough to classify a simple hunting rifle as a "military grade assault rifle"?  Do you think that guns, any kind of gun, causes the madness that drives a person to shoot up a school, or do you recognize that a chunk of iron does not create mental aberrations in anyone at all?  Very simply put, do guns kill people or do people kill people?

                           replyreport
                           1. 90

                              MizBejabbersposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                              The answers to most of your illogical questions are "no/" but I recognize the unchecked madness of people who would answer "yes" simply because the Constitution authorized the citizenry to keep muskets.

                              replyreport
                              1. 94

                                 wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                                 Can you show me the word "musket" in the constitution?  The writers didn't bar cannons, for pete's sake - the most destructive weapon known at the time -why would you say they authorized only muskets?

                                 replyreport
2. 90

   MizBejabbersposted 6 years ago

   Can you name a private citizen who owned a cannon? You are getting ridiculous.

   replyreport