Gun Issues page 54

2293 posts

Flag Post
Originally posted by Draconavin:

If guns were safe, this wouldn’t be an issue.
Guns are not safe in the hands of people; that is why there is an issue.

How do you fix angry or tormented people? Who knows.
Owners that are responsible with their guns and only use them for their predefined use, should be gun owners.
There isn’t danger in every corner, by the way. You don’t need to open carry. Most or all of us do not need guns.
The main necessity for having guns is for protection,and safety. Although, we should define them as luxury items, and non-essential because we don’t need that amount of security to live our lives.
If the police are adequate in securing their communities, why do we need poorly trained individuals to own guns.
We only purchase guns out of the fear of the big bad world.
But if governments and communities can make a better, safer world with stricter regulations, why not? Just because you can’t enjoy firing your gun, which I doubt is really all that fun after the 100th time. There are so many pleasures in this world; why focus on such a trivial object that was only created to kill, and invade. You can always find an alternative pleasure source, and with video games and virtual simulators where they are now, you can enjoy guns in a safe manner, which don’t hold the same dangers that real life guns carry now.

Guns in the hand of the inexperienced, or the young, or the unstable are a terribly dangerous cocktail to mix, and we will keep seeing Sandy Hooks, the Coloroda mass shootings, Columbine, and the list goes on.

I’m going to assume you are American. With this in mind, I ask you why you feel so safe? Are you one of those people who never leave your home. with the economy lilke it is and so many people giving up hope of it ever getting any better, crime is starting to rise again. I’m sure you are not concerned, but since my state legalized pot, burglaries have increased dramatically. It’s ok though, I can sit on my porch getting stoned and ignore the crime.

I’m sorry, but you are wrong, self-defense isn’t the only reason for purchasing a firearm, all though that is a pretty good reason. Are you willing to let your wife or teenage daughter walk to the store at night? No? Why not? Are you willing to walk anywhere at night without feeling the least bit nervous? If you aren’t alert then you may be a victim. Many people like me wouldn’t come to your rescue, putting necks out because you aren’t willing to take the responsibility for your own safety.

Let me ask all of you liberals if you would be willing to put a sign in your front yard saying you don’t believe in having firearms? No? Why not?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:Those who are able to see things in life in only black-&-white are so extremely limited by the very definitions of ONLY and EXTRRRREEEEEEEME and LIMITED. And, what really compounds the lack of any real progress being made is how these irrational ppl will plop down in the middle of the road of workable solutions and pitch-A-bitch while holding their hands over their ears and tightly closing their eyes AND MINDS.

And there you have it. Exactly what I was saying in my post. I hold the cards and you want me to compromise with you or I’m a bad, bad person. Yes, I take this personally as I still believe in the Constitution and I, unlike you, am willing to put my all into protecting it from people like you.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:
Originally posted by Draconavin:

If guns were safe, this wouldn’t be an issue.
Guns are not safe in the hands of people; that is why there is an issue.

How do you fix angry or tormented people? Who knows.
Owners that are responsible with their guns and only use them for their predefined use, should be gun owners.
There isn’t danger in every corner, by the way. You don’t need to open carry. Most or all of us do not need guns.
The main necessity for having guns is for protection,and safety. Although, we should define them as luxury items, and non-essential because we don’t need that amount of security to live our lives.
If the police are adequate in securing their communities, why do we need poorly trained individuals to own guns.
We only purchase guns out of the fear of the big bad world.
But if governments and communities can make a better, safer world with stricter regulations, why not? Just because you can’t enjoy firing your gun, which I doubt is really all that fun after the 100th time. There are so many pleasures in this world; why focus on such a trivial object that was only created to kill, and invade. You can always find an alternative pleasure source, and with video games and virtual simulators where they are now, you can enjoy guns in a safe manner, which don’t hold the same dangers that real life guns carry now.

Guns in the hand of the inexperienced, or the young, or the unstable are a terribly dangerous cocktail to mix, and we will keep seeing Sandy Hooks, the Coloroda mass shootings, Columbine, and the list goes on.

I’m going to assume you are American. With this in mind, I ask you why you feel so safe? Are you one of those people who never leave your home. with the economy lilke it is and so many people giving up hope of it ever getting any better, crime is starting to rise again. I’m sure you are not concerned, but since my state legalized pot, burglaries have increased dramatically. It’s ok though, I can sit on my porch getting stoned and ignore the crime.

I’m sorry, but you are wrong, self-defense isn’t the only reason for purchasing a firearm, all though that is a pretty good reason. Are you willing to let your wife or teenage daughter walk to the store at night? No? Why not? Are you willing to walk anywhere at night without feeling the least bit nervous? If you aren’t alert then you may be a victim. Many people like me wouldn’t come to your rescue, putting necks out because you aren’t willing to take the responsibility for your own safety.

Let me ask all of you liberals if you would be willing to put a sign in your front yard saying you don’t believe in having firearms? No? Why not?

That’s actually the problem of common sense.

I still remembered the times when people are taught to hide their wallets well. I still remembered the times when girls are taught to wear in a conservative style. I still remembered the times when people are taught to walk in lit alleys and populous areas. My point is: Common sense protects you, not your gun.

Back in the times, girls were free to be hot and youthful, but they knew of the risks and knew that they had a higher chance to be taken by rapists. But now? Hah.

Retards can’t protect themselves with guns. And, sadly, we are surrounded by retards. In a country where something as dangerous as Kinder Surprise is banned, I can’t see any reason why guns aren’t banned yet. When people are yelling that they have the liberty to be armed, I just want the liberty to eat Kinder Surprise.

 
Flag Post

@jhco50

I’m Canadian, but I guess we are pretty much like the Americans. Our cultures are almost the same, and the old stereotypes of Canada don’t really ring true, anymore. If you look at Canada you would think we were American, as well. Especially in the last seven years, our conservative prime minister has done everything he has to Americanize us, as he can. Although we always did seem to mimic American culture, even since confederation. A large part of our economy only survives because of our cross-border trading agreements. Without the U.S.A, Canada would be lost. Unless we stop giving away all our resources to foreign nations, and actually use them for ourselves, but I digress.

Personally, I don’t live in such a bad neighborhood that I have to worry about burglaries, and the conservatives have really stepped up the policing in my district, which can be an inconvenience for some. Although my community is a lot more secure, but a lot more people will get caught speeding, hah!
They have guns for protection, and they don’t have to use them most of the time. Half the time, they just need to be in a place of authority to deter wrong-doings from happening. Yes, my community suffers from people buying houses to build drug facilities to sell their wares, but what community doesn’t have a few issues. On the violence side, it has dropped quite a bit, probably due to the high incarceration rates for offenders: be the crime miniscule (drug-related) or not, this I do not like as much.

I don’t mind gun owners having guns, as long as they are responsible, have thorough and sufficient training, and can be monitored for the safety of society.
Let’s not trivialize the power of guns, and act as though they aren’t game-changing tools for an individual to own. You give a powerless person a gun and they suddenly gain immense power. You give someone with training or power a gun, and you create an even larger potential threat to society’s safety. The problem is that if we keep giving the powerless power, they will usurp all rules, and regulation, and send us into chaos. Do you really think this chaotic world needs more chaos?
We keep giving people who don’t need weapons, weapons, just so they can feel safe from anything and everything at the off chance that they can come into a situation where they will be the victim.

Perhaps Canada is not as bad, but I can’t keep telling myself that because in the end we are pretty much the same people culturally, and individually.

 
Flag Post

Perhaps Canada is not as bad, but I can’t keep telling myself that because in the end we are pretty much the same people culturally, and individually.

We’re pretty different, as far as this thread is concerned. I just found out the other day that Mace, bearspray and hunting knives are all illegal to carry inside a city. The last one really threw me – that knives over a certain length can’t be used as a defensive weapon. And those laws are similar to European countries too. America’s the odd one out.

 
Flag Post

We’re pretty different, as far as this thread is concerned. I just found out the other day that Mace, bearspray and hunting knives are all illegal to carry inside a city. The last one really threw me – that knives over a certain length can’t be used as a defensive weapon. And those laws are similar to European countries too. America’s the odd one out.

Mace can’t be carried “as a weapon” which is a sort of grey zone. The line I was given to use was along the lines of ‘in case a stray/the neighbours dog attacks me’. Respectable looking ladies can also carry with virtual impunity. They even come in glittery pink dispensers.

The long knife thing is because long knives are far more lethal in a stabbing. Canada’s defense laws are monstrous though, to be fair.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Jantonaitis:

Perhaps Canada is not as bad, but I can’t keep telling myself that because in the end we are pretty much the same people culturally, and individually.

We’re pretty different, as far as this thread is concerned. I just found out the other day that Mace, bearspray and hunting knives are all illegal to carry inside a city. The last one really threw me – that knives over a certain length can’t be used as a defensive weapon. And those laws are similar to European countries too. America’s the odd one out.

Liberal lawmakers, are going a bit far with this one. NDP are worse, still. You can’t protect everyone from every terrible incident that may happen. The mace, and bear spray is unnecessary. Probably some lecherous liberal got a nice spray in the face, and felt like it was his duty to implement this foolish ruling. The knife is somewhat understandable, but it really is an unnecessary want for prevention against knife attacks.

Now if it is a conservative lawmaker who implemented it, the conservatives might be getting back on track to where they should be on weapons. Conservative use of weapons, not liberal use of weapons. It’s the Libertarian part of the conservative camp, which implemented the: every one should own a gun, anyway—Liberty!

America only differs because their founders were highly libertarian. Ours were conservative, and Europe had that whole enlightenment thing that they keep on trying to push to this day. We used to follow suit with mother England, but often look to our big brother the U.S.A more often than wanting to be like mom.

Anyways, guns based on their lethality make sense to ban, but the conservatives keep loosening the rules on that for the sake of “liberty”. When you get liberty you often lose safety. There is always a trade-off. The choices by the conservatives are very simple; would be better if they implemented more complex systems that held some variety in the rulings, and incorporated a little more safety, but what can you do. They don’t want to do the work, or don’t know where to start.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Ungeziefer:

Mace can’t be carried “as a weapon” which is a sort of grey zone. The line I was given to use was along the lines of ‘in case a stray/the neighbours dog attacks me’. Respectable looking ladies can also carry with virtual impunity. They even come in glittery pink dispensers.

Its the same thing in the UK with sonic weapons. So long as you say they are for the purposes of keeping vermin away, or incapacitating them, then such devices are fine. They do after all, work on rats, mice, moles, even dogs depending on power and frequency settings.

There’s no actual law that says you cannot build and power them to work on the human animal after all. There’s just an assumption that you won’t, and so long as you say it isn’t, it’s all smooth sailing. Until there’s an incident anyway, and then the other party has to prove that its a sonic weapon that had them on the floor sick as hell, with their breakfast stopping by to say hello.

At least they’re still around to complain, which is more than many defensive weapons do for them.

 
Flag Post

Liberal lawmakers, are going a bit far with this one. NDP are worse, still. You can’t protect everyone from every terrible incident that may happen. The mace, and bear spray is unnecessary. Probably some lecherous liberal got a nice spray in the face, and felt like it was his duty to implement this foolish ruling. The knife is somewhat understandable, but it really is an unnecessary want for prevention against knife attacks.

Now if it is a conservative lawmaker who implemented it, the conservatives might be getting back on track to where they should be on weapons. Conservative use of weapons, not liberal use of weapons. It’s the Libertarian part of the conservative camp, which implemented the: every one should own a gun, anyway—Liberty!

uh-huh.

I dunno which party was in power when these particular defensive laws were instituted, so if I were you I wouldn’t be slamming the lefties or praising the tories based on some rudimentary understanding of their political ideology. I do know that the Mace / Bearspray ban is due to criminals using them to hold up places. Makes sense too – they’re nonlethal weapons that take no skill to use and little risk of causing permanent injury, unlike guns or knives.

 
Flag Post

Hey jhco, care to cite some valid sources telling us that crime is on the rise, as a result of the worsening economic crisis?
Please? Pretty please?

Come on, tell me where you read about that.
LOL

 
Flag Post

Coming Soon:

Gun Control (Only the military can use these evil sentient contraptions. Oh, and police. Oh, and bodyguards for politicians and Hollywood movie stars. Oh, and politicians and Hollywood movie stars themselves. Oh, and foreign militias. They’re much more trustworthy than you filthy peasants, err, subjects, err, citizens.)

Knife Control (If nobody has any weapons, nobody can hurt each other! Wooops, forgot that the human body itself is a dangerous weapon… Well, everyone’s safe when they’re dead! Equal, too!)

Slingshot Control (Because.)

Bow Control (Weapon. The end.)

Rock Control (if you want my Assault Rock you’ll have to pry it from my cold dead hands after the police shoot me with the semi-automatic rifles which are by definition not assault rifles that they took from me and claimed to destroy but attracted suspicion…)

Hand Control (Thou Shalt Not Strangle Your Neighbor To Death)

Foot Control (Thou Shalt Not Beat Your Neighbor To Death)

Crime Control (Making crime illegal a second time will fix stuff. People will stop murdering people if we tell them it’s naughty and that it’s VERY illegal.)

Thought Control (Thou Shalt Not Question. Anything.)

Population Control (Use of previously “commandeered” weapons recommended.)

Double-Barreled Shotgun Control (Try shooting it through the door while you have one.)

 
Flag Post

Can someone please get all foamy about the UN charter on international arms control that was passed?
Please?!

I love it when strict “Constitutional” experts can’t tell the difference between international treaties and domestic law.
LOL NOBARMAR UN COMIN FER R GUNZZ!!!!

 
Flag Post
Softest, you seem to overlook the facts to revel in your own ideals. The UN may have passed the charter, but it doesn't seem the United States is going to sign on to it. Sorry. You see, Obama does not just sign treaties and they go into effect. Congress has the final word on treaties and both parties are against it. http://www.usnews.com/news/newsgram/articles/2013/04/02/un-passes-nra-opposed-gun-control-treaty

Here is the vote tally, a yea vote was to stop the US from signing onto the treaty; a nay vote was to allow our second amendment rights to be usurped by the UN; I guess the results will be no surprise to anyone here......

YEAs ---53

Alexander (R-TN)

Ayotte (R-NH)

Barrasso (R-WY)

Begich (D-AK)

Blunt (R-MO)

Boozman (R-AR)

Burr (R-NC)

Chambliss (R-GA)

Coats (R-IN)

Coburn (R-OK)

Cochran (R-MS)

Collins (R-ME)

Corker (R-TN)

Cornyn (R-TX)

Crapo (R-ID)

Cruz (R-TX)

Donnelly (D-IN)

Enzi (R-WY)

Fischer (R-NE)

Flake (R-AZ)

Graham (R-SC)

Grassley (R-IA)

Hagan (D-NC)

Hatch (R-UT)

Heinrich (D-NM)

Heitkamp (D-ND)

Heller (R-NV)

Hoeven (R-ND)

Inhofe (R-OK)

Isakson (R-GA)

Johanns (R-NE)

Johnson (R-WI)

Kirk (R-IL)

Lee (R-UT)

Manchin (D-WV)

McCain (R-AZ)

McConnell (R-KY)

Moran (R-KS)

Murkowski (R-AK)

Paul (R-KY)

Portman (R-OH)

Pryor (D-AR)

Risch (R-ID)

Roberts (R-KS)

Rubio (R-FL)

Scott (R-SC)

Sessions (R-AL)

Shelby (R-AL)

Tester (D-MT)

Thune (R-SD)

Toomey (R-PA)

Vitter (R-LA)

Wicker (R-MS)

NAYs ---46

Baldwin (D-WI)

Baucus (D-MT)

Bennet (D-CO)

Blumenthal (D-CT)

Boxer (D-CA)

Brown (D-OH)

Cantwell (D-WA)

Cardin (D-MD)

Carper (D-DE)

Casey (D-PA)

Coons (D-DE)

Cowan (D-MA)

Durbin (D-IL)

Feinstein (D-CA)

Franken (D-MN)

Gillibrand (D-NY)

Harkin (D-IA)

Hirono (D-HI)

Johnson (D-SD)

Kaine (D-VA)

King (I-ME)

Klobuchar (D-MN)

Landrieu (D-LA)

Leahy (D-VT)

Levin (D-MI)

McCaskill (D-MO)

Menendez (D-NJ)

Merkley (D-OR)

Mikulski (D-MD)

Murphy (D-CT)

Murray (D-WA)

Nelson (D-FL)

Reed (D-RI)

Reid (D-NV)

Rockefeller (D-WV)

Sanders (I-VT)

Schatz (D-HI)

Schumer (D-NY)

Shaheen (D-NH)

Stabenow (D-MI)

Udall (D-CO)

Udall (D-NM)

Warner (D-VA)

Warren (D-MA)

Whitehouse (D-RI)

Wyden (D-OR)

 
Flag Post

A few more wins in our column.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/11/federal-court-strikes-down-illinois-ban-on-carrying-concealed-weapons/

And the boycotts begin, Magpul is leaving the state and it seems hunters are not hunting anymore. This link is showing how firearms compititions are leaving the state, taking millions of dollars with them as well.

http://www.idpa.com/blog/post/2013/04/01/Colorado-Shooting-Competition-Canceled-In-Wake-Of-New-Gun-Control-Laws.aspx

Sheriffs across the country are forming against both state and federal laws.

http://www.wnd.com/2013/03/state-grants-secret-service-vast-new-powers/#5Y1JPmQrbBtuVSzE.99

And yet, this has just begun. In Colorado’s case, they are going to lose millions, if not billions of dollars. they were warned ahead of time and yet proceeded with their foolhardiness. I would imagine they will not make it through the next election cycle and they are really ticking people off. Representation without citizen input does not play out well in Colorado.

This is just for grins.

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/crime/nelson-georgia-passes-law-requiring-gun-ownership

 
Flag Post

C’mon, jhco….ya know most of us won’t both to read your links.
It’s called the “Little-boy-who-cried-wolf” syndrome.
It’s just that simple.

 
Flag Post

I might be misinterpreting here, but I think softest_voice was saying he finds it funny when people think international treaties supersede domestic law.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:

C’mon, jhco….ya know most of us won’t both to read your links.
It’s called the “Little-boy-who-cried-wolf” syndrome.
It’s just that simple.

That’s a sad commentary for your side. I have not given you any links that did not have the facts stated in them. But, if arguing you case without facts is how the left prefers to argue, I can’t say that I am surprised.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Pokarnor:

I might be misinterpreting here, but I think softest_voice was saying he finds it funny when people think international treaties supersede domestic law.

I would like to think you were right pokanor, but I’m pretty sure that isn’t his position.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Pokarnor:

I might be misinterpreting here, but I think softest_voice was saying he finds it funny when people think international treaties supersede domestic law.

The EU works this way…

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Pokarnor:

I might be misinterpreting here, but I think softest_voice was saying he finds it funny when people think international treaties supersede domestic law.

Slight misinterpretation, yea. He was saying he thinks its funny when people get the two confused. Ie not just thinking that international law supersedes domestic, but getting confused between when an international law is international, and when it is part of the US constitution. Or getting confused when the EU brings out a new law, and automatically believing the EU is trying to force this law down the US’ throats.

Part of the problem is a far too ‘me-centric’ view in which the individual thinks their country is at the center of everything, and so every law passed by any multinational body is a direct challenge to their own rights, usually as a US citizen.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

Here is the vote tally, a yea vote was to stop the US from signing onto the treaty; a nay vote was to allow our second amendment rights to be usurped by the UN; I guess the results will be no surprise to anyone here……

Wow. But that was a close one, no? I didn’t see our Congressman there. I wonder what happened….

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Twilight_Ninja:
Originally posted by jhco50:

Here is the vote tally, a yea vote was to stop the US from signing onto the treaty; a nay vote was to allow our second amendment rights to be usurped by the UN; I guess the results will be no surprise to anyone here……

Wow. But that was a close one, no? I didn’t see our Congressman there. I wonder what happened….

Ours were in the nay section, I imagine they will be going home the next election. I was surprised to see so many boycotts of the state. They hunting boycott will cost them some money. Losing Magpul will really hurt them in the long run with job loses and the lost revenue. What were they thinking?

 
Flag Post

Here is an Associated Press storty that was in yesterdays local E-newspaper. It gives an insight on what, where, & why “gun control” issues stand currently. Heads up, jhco’s Colorado is in this.

This is something from that story that I think has been “danced around” quite a lot in our discussions here:

But in Illinois, where Chicago gang shootings have driven demands for a response, a standoff between legislators representing rural and urban voters with very different views — and the uncertainty raised by a court ruling on the state’s concealed carry law — show that concerns about such backyard gun violence alone is not enough.

“More so than any other issue I can think of, this is an issue that is based on regional culture,” said Charles Wheeler III, director of the Public Affairs Reporting Program at the University of Illinois-Springfield. “For the typical person who lives in downstate Illinois, the more rural areas, when you think of firearms you think of deer hunting, duck hunting, shooting squirrels. In the Chicago area … when people think of firearms they think of the kind of horrific cases in the news of late, where a gang banger kills a little girl.”

AND:
While the importance of culture and attitudes can’t be denied, politics has played a deciding role in the few states passing gun control laws.

 
Flag Post
“More so than any other issue I can think of, this is an issue that is based on regional culture,” said Charles Wheeler III, director of the Public Affairs Reporting Program at the University of Illinois-Springfield. “For the typical person who lives in downstate Illinois, the more rural areas, when you think of firearms you think of deer hunting, duck hunting, shooting squirrels. In the Chicago area … when people think of firearms they think of the kind of horrific cases in the news of late, where a gang banger kills a little girl.”

This paragraph really gets at the crux of the problem for gun control advocates to get anything substantive through Congress. There are so many legislators from rural states (and not to mention mostly Republican gun-rights legislators from more urban states) where guns are an inherent fabric of society, whether it be for sport or for badly needed protection (if I lived anywhere near the Mexican border, I’d be packing heavily). Gun control advocates have done a good job of convincing people on the coast that gun control is necessary, but they have failed miserably to convince the middle (both figuratively and literally) that the bulk of the regulations are needed and will produce a net-positive. Until the gun control advocates produce a more persuasive argument, they will continue to be disappointed in the amount of progress that is made.

 
Flag Post

I think making it harder to buy guns will stop all gun crimes.

Lets look at the facts:

1. If its hard to buy guns, nobody will buy them
2. Making it harder to buy guns will get rid of the millions of guns that people already own
3. If crazy people cant buy guns, they will give up. People planning a mass shooting wont want to steal a gun because that would be illegal.
4. It is impossible to make your own guns at home.
5. Guns are the only weapon capable of killing people.

Discuss how gun crime can be stopped forever if guns are harder to buy