Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

And then there's this utterly idiotic 'feel-good' program:

[URL="http://news.yahoo.com/los-angeles-police-offer-gift-cards-guns-off-012126480.html"]LA Gun Buy-Back[/URL]

[I]While officials in Los Angeles and elsewhere have said the gun buybacks help keep streets safe, a 2004 report by the National Research Council of the National Academies questioned that conclusion.

Among the report's findings were that guns surrendered in buybacks tend to be old or inherited from previous owners, and not likely to be used in crime. Also, gun owners find it easy to replace their firearms, according to the report, which was titled "Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review."

[/I]I'm sure the lines were full of remorseful gangbangers.[I]

:laughing2
[/I]

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=RedskinRat;980332]All they are trying to do is bully people in a similar way to the Out program by gay groups in the 80's.

Great. Now criminals know who doesn't have a firearm.[/quote]Lol. Do these people really think people are embarrassed, rather than proud to own a gun? Whether a favorite hunting rifle or family "heirloom" or whatever?

What a rationale. Sure, try to embarrass the people [B][U]with legal gun permits[/U][/B]. Nobody should mind their name and address being published as if they did something wrong. That'll help stop the gun violence we're experiencing every week, sometimes every day. :doh: Those guys with permits are the reason for those deaths, and they should totally trust government and the anti-gun crowd after this stunt. That paper totally went after the criminals with guns, like always, didn't they?

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=HailGreen28;980313]

This kind of stupidity on the newspaper's part, is exactly why people shouldn't rely on anti-gun people for any kind of solution to gun violence. What is the paper trying to accomplish here?[/quote]


It's why I said it would be beneficial to gun owners to work with on new gun laws,if they don't then yeah you'll see things you don't like.

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=Giantone;980346]It's why I said it would be beneficial to gun owners to work with on new gun laws,if they don't then yeah you'll see things you don't like.[/quote]

So you're cool with bullying then?

You're a great example of a nanny government supporter.

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=Giantone;980346]It's why I said it would be beneficial to gun owners to work with on new gun laws,if they don't then yeah you'll see things you don't like.[/quote]Hence why enough republicans and democrats will vote against you when it counts. Pulling counterproductive publicity stunts like this, being more concerned with legal gun owners than the felons doing the shootings.... just shows that NOBODY should buy what you're selling. Or trust anything you propose given what the paper just did.

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=RedskinRat;980333]And then there's this utterly idiotic 'feel-good' program:

[URL="http://news.yahoo.com/los-angeles-police-offer-gift-cards-guns-off-012126480.html"]LA Gun Buy-Back[/URL]

[I]While officials in Los Angeles and elsewhere have said the gun buybacks help keep streets safe, a 2004 report by the National Research Council of the National Academies questioned that conclusion.[/I]

[I]Among the report's findings were that guns surrendered in buybacks tend to be old or inherited from previous owners, and not likely to be used in crime. Also, gun owners find it easy to replace their firearms, according to the report, which was titled "Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review."[/I]

I'm sure the lines were full of remorseful gangbangers.

[I]:laughing2[/I]
[/quote]


maybe you should learn to read your own links.

These type of events have been happening all over the country since the Sandy Hood shooting. Each one is different, but generally, firearms fetch between $50 and $100. In Los Angeles, they were offering up to $200 for assault rifles. It's not really about the money, though. As Villaraigosa explained ahead of his city's buyback program, it's also about taking action. "I think everybody was so traumatized," [URL="http://www.marketplace.org/topics/business/guns-and-dollars/gun-buyback-program-underway-los-angeles"][COLOR=#0066cc]he said[/COLOR][/URL]. "People said, 'I don't wait on the Congress, I'm tired of the endless debates about responsible gun control legislation, I want to do my part." As it were, one of the first guns collected at Wednesday was a Bushmaster XM-15, the same assault rifle that Adam Lanza used at Sandy Hook

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=Giantone;980350]maybe you should learn to read your own links.

These type of events have been happening all over the country since the Sandy Hood shooting. Each one is different, but generally, firearms fetch between $50 and $100. In Los Angeles, they were offering up to $200 for assault rifles. It's not really about the money, though. As Villaraigosa explained ahead of his city's buyback program, it's also about taking action. "I think everybody was so traumatized," [URL="http://www.marketplace.org/topics/business/guns-and-dollars/gun-buyback-program-underway-los-angeles"][COLOR=#0066cc]he said[/COLOR][/URL]. "People said, 'I don't wait on the Congress, I'm tired of the endless debates about responsible gun control legislation, I want to do my part." As it were, one of the first guns collected at Wednesday was a Bushmaster XM-15, the same assault rifle that Adam Lanza used at Sandy Hook[/quote]That mayor you quoted sounds hysterical. I mean like he's in a panic. Yes, the people who wanted to sell those guns legally were the problem. Thank goodness we have those people disarmed now!

RedskinsRat is pointing out the situation to you, why not address his point rather than quote the politician running a political program?

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=Giantone;980350]maybe you should learn to read your own links.

These type of events have been happening all over the country since the Sandy Hood shooting. Each one is different, but generally, firearms fetch between $50 and $100. In Los Angeles, they were offering up to $200 for assault rifles. It's not really about the money, though. As Villaraigosa explained ahead of his city's buyback program, it's also about taking action. "I think everybody was so traumatized," [URL="http://www.marketplace.org/topics/business/guns-and-dollars/gun-buyback-program-underway-los-angeles"][COLOR=#0066cc]he said[/COLOR][/URL]. "People said, 'I don't wait on the Congress, I'm tired of the endless debates about responsible gun control legislation, I want to do my part." As it were, one of the first guns collected at Wednesday was a Bushmaster XM-15, the same assault rifle that Adam Lanza used at Sandy Hook[/quote]

I did read it, what do YOU think it's stating that I've missed? We still have gun crime in LA, historically this program is NOT attracting the firearms that are out there generally used for crimes.

I expect to hear, very shortly, that the Bushmaster handed in was a 'Judas Goat'. No one hands in a $1,000 weapon for a $200 gift card. Yet another pathetic attempt at a media manipulation by Mini-Mayor,

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=HailGreen28;980355]
RedskinsRat is pointing out the situation to you, why not address his point rather than quote the politician running a political program?[/quote]


First I did address it and second look at post# 347,this is not a joke .There are 26 people dead 20 children some shot more then once by someone who's mother was part of out gun culture ,she would argue that she knew about gun safty and how to handle guns and it's the "other" idiots out there ,right up to the time her son shot her 4 times and killer her.

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=Giantone;980364]First I did address it and second look at post# 347,this is not a joke .There are 26 people dead 20 children some shot more then once by someone who's mother was part of out gun culture ,she would argue that she knew about gun safty and how to handle guns and it's the "other" idiots out there ,right up to the time her son shot her 4 times and killer her.[/quote]

A crime was committed in order to get to the weapons. What part of that and the gun laws in place are you not understanding?

More laws aren't going to change things, except for the worse. Getting rid of all legally owned weapons leaves the power in the hands of criminals and it borders on Unicorn Leash Laws.

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=Giantone;980364]First I did address it and second look at post# 347,this is not a joke .There are 26 people dead 20 children some shot more then once by someone who's mother was part of out gun culture ,she would argue that she knew about gun safty and how to handle guns and it's the "other" idiots out there ,right up to the time her son shot her 4 times and killer her.[/quote]No, you didn't. You just parroted what the desperate politician in LA said.

RR's joke does far less harm than your argument and what the paper's actions do.

And you are still ignoring that a buy back program would have done nothing to stop the Newtown massacre. It might actually help get other guns away from people desperate for money, but that has nothing to do with people with assault rifles. So you still aren't making sense. Just acting "feel good" rather than address problems stated in this thread, i guess.

Sure, legal permit owners and people willing to sell their guns are who we should go after and guilt trip. Rather than addressing problems with felons, the criminally/suicidally minded, and "glory seekers".

There's more of an "excuse the criminal" culture in this country, than a "gun culture". Unless you mean some other "gun culture" than legally owned guns for purposes other than killing people?

Firstdown already refuted your idea that the mother being part of some "gun culture" was the problem. Check out his post [URL=http://www.thewarpath.net/debating-with-the-enemy/48456-gun-control-thread-should-we-24.html#post979811]here[/URL].

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

My response to the gun buyback is... who cares. No one is forcing people to turn in their guns. No one is being pressured to turn in their guns. It's simply a service being offered. The type of crime we saw at Sandyhook can shatter the foundation for some people, and they may want to get rid of a gun in a secure fashion. Why do you care if someone doesn't want their gun anymore and turns it in?

The deflective arguments of drunk driving, knives, etc. really don't focus on the real issue at hand. I feel like the questions posed, especially about drunk driving, were rhetorical, but if they weren't there are some clear differentiators between massacres and DUI deaths.

DUIs do get a lot of attention. They are a high profile issue in our society right now. DUIs are punished quite harshly, unless you’re an athlete, and DUIs should be punished harshly. Driving drunk is dangerous to everyone on the road with you. We see far too many injuries and deaths from DUIs, which is why stricter punishments continue to be implemented. It’s important to make sure that there are clear deterrents in place to curb drunk driving.
There are a few reasons why they typically don’t dominate the front page every day. The American legal system relies on intent. When someone drives drunk, they typically don’t have malicious intent. Nearly all of the cases with DUIs involve negligence. The person driving isn’t leaving the bar to kill themselves and others. They are making a poor decision and trying to get home. That certainly is no excuse for drunk driving, but it is an important differentiator in the legal system.

Look at the difference between manslaughter and homicide. They have the same eventual outcome, but radically different circumstances leading to the same outcome. The intent and act of premeditation makes the crime more severe. Killing someone due to negligence or accidental situations should be punished, but not as severely.

Secondly, DUIs rarely kill more than a handful of people at once. Most DUI accidents have no casualties, or very few. That isn’t often the case with (attempted) massacres. When that happens, they are covered briefly, but they aren’t a lasting news story. I really don’t think anyone is saying that DUIs are not a serious issue in our society, but there’s no reason to merge the two subjects. They are innately different.

Instead of bickering, why don’t we put out some ideas on how to actually come to a compromise. Some of the ideas I like around reasonable gun control:

• Mandatory training. This is not a one-time training. On an interval, you’re required to get recertified to have a license.
• Mandatory Psychological Evaluations. These are also recurring and required for having a gun license.
• Improved Gun Tracking. You must register all guns and periodically audited that you have the gun you say you have. Lack of having possession of a gun results in punishment.
• Gun Responsibility. If you own a gun, and that gun is used in a crime. You are considered, at least partially, to blame for said crime. Any time a gun registered to your name comes up as used in a crime or found in possession of someone else it is a crime.
• Assault Rifle Ban. I don’t consider, because it’s fun, to be an appropriate response to the assault weapons you can buy. Have them available at shooting ranges, but not in homes. No need for them.

Sadly, this topic really demonstrates politics in America right now. Two sides so stuck in their view that they can't really have a healthy discussion, and most importantly, unable to make compromises. We need to find a way to strike compromise to coexist, let's start here. Instead of copy and pasting links to a biased source (one side or the other) what real concessions are you willing to make?

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

I already had to pass a background check, take a course and a test just to own a handgun in CA.

Who will be the judge of my sanity? Someone who believes in a higher power? I don't consider them my peer. This leaves the process open to the same bias that CCW in CA has. It will only be available to rich people, poor need not apply, cos you're getting turned down.

My suggestion, Daseal, remains the same: Enforce the current gun laws.

There is no need for more gun laws.

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=RedskinRat;980442]I already had to pass a background check, take a course and a test just to own a handgun in CA.

Who will be the judge of my sanity? Someone who believes in a higher power? I don't consider them my peer. This leaves the process open to the same bias that CCW in CA has. It will only be available to rich people, poor need not apply, cos you're getting turned down.

My suggestion, Daseal, remains the same: Enforce the current gun laws.

There is no need for more gun laws.[/quote]

RR, it would be a licensed medical professional. Granted you won't weed out all the bad apples, but it can definitely help. What current gun laws go unenforced right now? What laws do you see massive loopholes in? You keep saying enforce current gun laws. Get a little more specific. What issues do you see with enforcement of current laws?

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=Daseal;980443]RR, it would be a licensed medical professional. Granted you won't weed out all the bad apples, but it can definitely help. What current gun laws go unenforced right now? What laws do you see massive loopholes in? You keep saying enforce current gun laws. Get a little more specific. What issues do you see with enforcement of current laws?[/quote]

How was a known felon in possession of a .223-caliber Bushmaster rifle, a .38-caliber revolver and a 12-gauge shotgun, just to use the most recent example?

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=RedskinRat;980446]How was a known felon in possession of a .223-caliber Bushmaster rifle, a .38-caliber revolver and a 12-gauge shotgun, just to use the most recent example?[/quote]

I agree. That is a major issue. How many of those guns require background checks? I have limited experience. I do remember being 17 and drunk... walking into Wal-Mart, and purchasing a rifle. Luckily the older lady behind the counter reminded us to buy ammo as well. They didn't run anything. They didn't check IDs. They just sold us the rifle. To this day, that seems odd to me. Especially if felons aren't allowed to have guns.

What about gun shows? From what I've heard those are very popular for people to easily get guns because the sales don't have to be documented. I'm fairly ignorant on that fact and would be happy for someone to enlighten me on how those work.

RR -- how would you enforce such rules? If you want rule enforcement, there have to be ways to punish shortfalls? Do you punish the people that sold/gave to him? How do you prevent it going forward. It's a tough, nearly impossible, question to answer. That's the issue. Laws must be enforceable and have clear repurcussions.

Edit: Just want to make it clear. I'm not trying to be an asshole, just invoke some real discussion.

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

BATFE should be tasked with enforcing these rules if they aren't already.

Selling a firearm to a person who isn't allowed one should result in a prison term.

Society as a whole has to step up.

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=Daseal;980451]I agree. That is a major issue. How many of those guns require background checks? I have limited experience. I do remember being 17 and drunk... walking into Wal-Mart, and purchasing a rifle. Luckily the older lady behind the counter reminded us to buy ammo as well. They didn't run anything. They didn't check IDs. They just sold us the rifle. To this day, that seems odd to me. Especially if felons aren't allowed to have guns.

What about gun shows? From what I've heard those are very popular for people to easily get guns because the sales don't have to be documented. I'm fairly ignorant on that fact and would be happy for someone to enlighten me on how those work.

RR -- how would you enforce such rules? If you want rule enforcement, there have to be ways to punish shortfalls? Do you punish the people that sold/gave to him? How do you prevent it going forward. It's a tough, nearly impossible, question to answer. That's the issue. Laws must be enforceable and have clear repurcussions.[/quote]

Today any lic. gun dealer has to run a back ground check. If your a dealer at a gun show you have to do a back ground check if your a private individual selling your guns at a gun show a back ground check is not required. That's BS to me. I think if person wants to buy a gun they need to go to a place like DMV and have a back ground check. They make it good for a period of time like a month, 2months, etc... Anyone selling a gun is required to see their back ground check and to then call it in to confirm its real.

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

RR - It's easy to say enforce laws, but you're not giving any way for them to actually be executed. Thats why some of my suggestions included people who have their weapons used in crimes be partially responsible for the crime. It's a way to force people to keep track of their guns.

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=firstdown;980455]Today any lic. gun dealer has to run a back ground check. If your a dealer at a gun show you have to do a back ground check if your a private individual selling your guns at a gun show a back ground check is not required. That's BS to me. I think if person wants to buy a gun they need to go to a place like DMV and have a back ground check. They make it good for a period of time like a month, 2months, etc... Anyone selling a gun is required to see their back ground check and to then call it in to confirm its real.[/quote]

Firstdown, I completely agree. Seems like a realistic and really just a common sense move. The technology we have now makes these type of systems much more realistic than in the past. Honestly, I'm surprised we haven't seen this in place already.

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[url=http://www.atf.gov/firearms/enforcement/]ATF Online - Firearms - Enforcement[/url]

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[QUOTE=HailGreen28;980378]No, you didn't. You just parroted what the desperate politician in LA said.

RR's joke does far less harm than your argument and what the paper's actions do.

QUOTE]

Yes I did but what worse is that you being part of that gun culture are too blind to see the need for change and new laws.As for RR's joke ...tell the people in Conn it does far less harm.

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=Giantone;980502][QUOTE=HailGreen28;980378]No, you didn't. You just parroted what the desperate politician in LA said.

RR's joke does far less harm than your argument and what the paper's actions do.

[/quote]Yes I did but what worse is that you being part of that gun culture are too blind to see the need for change and new laws.As for RR's joke ...tell the people in Conn it does far less harm.[/quote]Couple things in your post I don't understand.

What "gun culture" am I a part of? And how is this "worse" than feel good gun control measures?

I think I proposed something that would be a new law earlier this thread.

Why would the people in Conn. care about RR's joke, especially now? (Kind of a segue: By the way, aren't Conn. gun laws fairly strict?)

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=Giantone;980502].As for RR's joke ...tell the people in Conn it does far less harm.[/quote]

When did I make fun of the murders in Conn?

Oh, and here's another link:

[URL="http://www.nationalreview.com/blogs/print/336529"]Regulating the Militia[/URL]


[I]There is no legitimate exception to the Second Amendment for military-style weapons, because military-style weapons are precisely what the Second Amendment guarantees our right to keep and bear. The purpose of the Second Amendment is to secure our ability to oppose enemies foreign and domestic, a guarantee against disorder and tyranny. Consider the words of Supreme Court justice Joseph Story — who was, it bears noting, appointed to the Court by the guy who wrote the Constitution:[/I][INDENT][I]The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.[/I]
[/INDENT]

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

And another link:

Celebrity Anti-gun PSA

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1SZurGArxE&feature=player_embedded]Demand Celebrities Go F*ck Themselves [Extended Cut] - YouTube[/ame]

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=RedskinRat;980635]And another link:

Celebrity Anti-gun PSA

(snip awesome vid)[/quote]Great video.

I don't think the First Amendment should be sacrificed for the Second, but as long as we're talking about tweaking the law under the 2nd, those hypocritical celebs should definitely look themselves in the mirror and talk about tweaking the law under the 1st as well.

Change the MPAA ratings, and enforce them, for starters?

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=RedskinRat;980595]When did I make fun of the murders in Conn?

Oh, and here's another link:

[URL="http://www.nationalreview.com/blogs/print/336529"]Regulating the Militia[/URL]


[I]There is no legitimate exception to the Second Amendment for military-style weapons, because military-style weapons are precisely what the Second Amendment guarantees our right to keep and bear. The purpose of the Second Amendment is to secure our ability to oppose enemies foreign and domestic, a guarantee against disorder and tyranny. Consider the words of Supreme Court justice Joseph Story — who was, it bears noting, appointed to the Court by the guy who wrote the Constitution:[/I][INDENT][I]The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.[/I]
[/INDENT][/quote]

RR, there are some major issues with this little snippet. First, it was written somewhere between 1811 and 1832. During that time the assault rifle was a musket. Not exactly an efficient killing machine in the situations we deal with today. If you have 50 guys lined up, pretty efficient. One crazy guy with a musket, easily disabled by 2 people 50 yards away.

Secondly, it clearly illustrates that the motivation behind the 2nd amendment is to be available to defend the country. Regardless of if those attacks come from an internal or an external source. Most importantly, the militia is meant to be a replacement for a military. He illustrates that clearly by making points as to both the fiscal and political burdens that comes with a full-time military. And a leader (president) that has a military at their disposal.

Let's be honest. The constitution was written is 1787. The 2nd amendment was ratified in 1791. That's 221 years ago. I don't believe that rules written in the 1700s are still applicable today. Thomas Jefferson said he didn't believe the dead should rule the living and that the constitution should be updated every twenty years. Legislation has to grow with the culture.

You can't use arguments from 221 years ago to defend actions today. While I'm sure Justice Story was a brilliant man -- there's no way he could forsee the way this country has grown and the way technology has evolved. Using a 200-ish year old decision that you selectively take segments from is not a very strong argument.

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=RedskinRat;980635]And another link:

Celebrity Anti-gun PSA

[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1SZurGArxE&feature=player_embedded]Demand Celebrities Go F*ck Themselves [Extended Cut] - YouTube[/url][/quote]

Yes. There's certainly no difference between their beliefs and the roles they're asked to play. Make believe versus real life. They are paid to take us away into an unrealistic world. Politically I'm sure they disagree with many roles they play. Their roles do not define their beliefs.

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=Daseal;980648]RR, there are some major issues with this little snippet. First, it was written somewhere between 1811 and 1832. During that time the assault rifle was a musket. Not exactly an efficient killing machine in the situations we deal with today. If you have 50 guys lined up, pretty efficient. One crazy guy with a musket, easily disabled by 2 people 50 yards away. [/quote]

That's a straw man.

[quote=Daseal;980648]Secondly, it clearly illustrates that the motivation behind the 2nd amendment is to be available to defend the country. Regardless of if those attacks come from an internal or an external source. Most importantly, the militia is meant to be a replacement for a military. He illustrates that clearly by making points as to both the fiscal and political burdens that comes with a full-time military. And a leader (president) that has a military at their disposal.[/quote]

No, it doesn't it says, in part, '[I]The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.[/I]'

So that would be the tyrannical rule point that the colonials had just rejected from Britain.

[quote=Daseal;980648]Let's be honest. [/quote]

Just a personal foible, any time someone says 'Let's be honest' or variations thereof I assume that they haven't been honest previously. Otherwise why mention the need. I digress.....

[quote=Daseal;980648] The constitution was written is 1787. The 2nd amendment was ratified in 1791. That's 221 years ago. I don't believe that rules written in the 1700s are still applicable today. Thomas Jefferson said he didn't believe the dead should rule the living and that the constitution should be updated every twenty years. Legislation has to grow with the culture. [/quote]

If this is the case why wasn't it made part of the Constitution?

[quote=Daseal;980648]You can't use arguments from 221 years ago to defend actions today. [/quote]

I hear people use scripture (of varying religions) every day to justify their actions. This is at least a decently written document.

[quote=Daseal;980648] While I'm sure Justice Story was a brilliant man -- there's no way he could forsee the way this country has grown and the way technology has evolved. Using a 200-ish year old decision that you selectively take segments from is not a very strong argument.[/quote]

If we are to attempt to keep pace with a potentially despotic government, as the 2nd Amendment clearly states its goal, then there shouldn't be a limit, should there?

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=Daseal;980649]Yes. There's certainly no difference between their beliefs and the roles they're asked to play. Make believe versus real life. They are paid to take us away into an unrealistic world. Politically I'm sure they disagree with many roles they play. Their roles do not define their beliefs.[/quote]

Or they could say "No, I'm not acting in a movie that glorifies violence"?

Of course they wouldn't, they are whores.

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[QUOTE=RedskinRat;980595]When did I make fun of the murders in Conn?


post#347

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=Giantone;980663][QUOTE=RedskinRat;980595]When did I make fun of the murders in Conn?[/quote]

post#347[/quote]

That was your posted article, it quite clearly states she's from Zion, NOT a mother of a Conn shooting victim.

[I]The Zionsville, Ind. stay-at-home mother of five was so angry and frustrated after the Newtown shootings that she started a Facebook page and website. [/I]

So I [U]didn't[/U] make fun of the murders. Apologize, please.

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=RedskinRat;980691]That was your posted article, it quite clearly states she's from Zion, NOT a mother of a Conn shooting victim.

[I]The Zionsville, Ind. stay-at-home mother of five was so angry and frustrated after the Newtown shootings that she started a Facebook page and website. [/I]

So I [U]didn't[/U] make fun of the murders. Apologize, please.[/quote]



You have made a mockery of the whole discussion,which is pretty much what the NRA tells the gun culture in this country to do .

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=RedskinRat;980691]That was your posted article, it quite clearly states she's from Zion, NOT a mother of a Conn shooting victim.

[I]The Zionsville, Ind. stay-at-home mother of five was so angry and frustrated after the Newtown shootings that she started a Facebook page and website. [/I]

So I [U]didn't[/U] make fun of the murders. Apologize, please.[/quote]

So a woman does something she feels might be helpful in anyway after the killings in Conn,you mock her,and think I need to apologize,cold day in hell.

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=Giantone;980766]So a woman does something she feels might be helpful in anyway after the killings in Conn,you mock her,and think I need to apologize,cold day in hell.[/quote]So a woman as an activist is above mocking? Funny, after one of the most negative presidential campaigns in recent history, NOW you're against mocking people in politics? THAT'S what you want to focus this discussion on now?

As RR said earlier, "If that's the best you've got..."

I can understand not LIKING his joke. But the one making a mockery of the discussion, or should I say making a mockery THE discussion, at this point is yourself.

Here's hoping the discussion gets back on track. I've enjoyed reading what others have said, both agreeing and disagreeing.

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=HailGreen28;980769]So a woman as an activist is above mocking? Funny, after one of the most negative presidential campaigns in recent history, NOW you're against mocking people in politics? THAT'S what you want to focus this discussion on now?

As RR said earlier, "If that's the best you've got..."

I can understand not LIKING his joke. But the one making a mockery of the discussion, or should I say making a mockery THE discussion, at this point is yourself.

Here's hoping the discussion gets back on track. I've enjoyed reading what others have said, both agreeing and disagreeing.[/quote]

This has nothing to do with a Presidental campaign,this is not political but again the NRA will tell it is,so you believe.I know many a lifetime republican who is for very strict gun control,I also know a few hunters who as long as they are allowed to hunt are fine with more laws,they agree no one needs to own a AK47 or machine gun to hunt.

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=Giantone;980798]This has nothing to do with a Presidental campaign[/quote]

It's the overall tone to your argument, the same tired tactics.

[quote=Giantone;980798]....this is not political but again the NRA will tell it is,so you believe[/quote]

Yeah, all gun owners are NRA members. <rolls_eyes> It's more your side telling everyone that the case. It [U][I][B]IS[/B][/I][/U] political, but driven from the liberal, anti-gun adjenda.


[quote=Giantone;980798]I know many a lifetime republican who is for very strict gun control,I also know a few hunters who as long as they are allowed to hunt are fine with more laws,they agree no one needs to own a AK47 or machine gun to hunt.[/quote]

Some of my best friends are black. GTFOOH, you lying weasel!

You're on the wrong end so you attempt to change the conversation to something you're more comfortable with.

At no point did I mock the Conn shooting victims and it's pretty low for you to even suggest it. It's also similar in the way liberals throw the word racism around when they want to bring a conversation back to their terms.

Point being, you accused me of something anyone here can see I didn't do. You are now trying to reframe the 2nd Amendment as a 'hunters only' issue. What part of the 2nd Amendment do you need explained to you?

You're an utter cunt for trying to use a vile assertion like making fun of shooting victims. You know you're wrong, and like another poster on here, when your position is shown to be invalid you use bluff, demands and misdirection in an attempt to garner popular support.

Back on track: This is about gun control. We have an overwhelming amount to gun laws on the books, they should be better enforced.

People need to be better neighbors, care for each other more and get help for people who need it.

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

Here's my solution:

From birth your behavior is recorded on a database.

For every positive action you gain credit, for every negative you lose credit. When you need to learn to drive, buy a house, a gun, drugs etc your rating is checked against the database. Simple.

This would also give 'society' as a whole a chance to correct negative behavior.

[FONT=Courier New][SIZE=1][I]“Gun control is half-baked pacifism that…has as its corollary a duopoly of force in the hands of the state and the criminal.” [B]C Hitchens[/B][/I][/SIZE][/FONT]

[QUOTE=RedskinRat;980808]Here's my solution:

From birth your behavior is recorded on a database.

For every positive action you gain credit, for every negative you lose credit. When you need to learn to drive, buy a house, a gun, drugs etc your rating is checked against the database. Simple.

This would also give 'society' as a whole a chance to correct negative behavior.

[FONT=Courier New][SIZE=1][I]“Gun control is half-baked pacifism that…has as its corollary a duopoly of force in the hands of the state and the criminal.” [B]C Hitchens[/B][/I][/SIZE][/FONT][/QUOTE]

Play god much?

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=Giantone;980798]This has nothing to do with a Presidental campaign,this is not political but again the NRA will tell it is,so you believe.[/quote]So you are OK with mocking, just only when it suits you. If you really feel this is not political, then don't propose any changes to current law in this thread.

Wow, the NRA must have me believing that concealed carry is wonderful then. Oh wait I think I said something about that earlier. I think you owe me an apology in this thread too. Nevermind whether you have any independent thoughts of your own on this.

[quote=Giantone;980798]I know many a lifetime republican who is for very strict gun control,I also know a few hunters who as long as they are allowed to hunt are fine with more laws,they agree no one needs to own a AK47 or machine gun to hunt.[/quote]And there are many people I know, and there are more democrats here in NC than people you know, that are opposed to any new gun control laws. I guess that settles it in favor of not having any new gun laws, right? :)

And again, how are people with legal gun ownership EVER going to trust anybody arguing as you are, after the stunt that newspaper pulled? It's proof that some people, including yourself from your reaction to it this thread, can't be trusted to not abuse any registrations that are put in place. This stunt didn't have the effect the folks at the paper wanted, because they (like you) evidently don't understand people who disagree with them. But the intent to harass people following the law was clear.