Those Damn Guns Again
- Thread starter thoughtone
- Start date
. . . thanks, I needed that one!Gun control is NOT the answer here.
The reality is that the vast majority of people who die from gun violence in this country are killed by handguns and NOT assault rifles..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States
This is something that cant be solved by government legislation.
People have been able to legally buy assault rifles for the past 8 years and now they believe by passing a law they will somehow magically disappear and we wont have anymore shootings? People are delusional..
There are millions of guns on the streets and criminals will find a way to get the. Banning them again will only stop law abiding citizens from getting them.
I'm not dismissing the tragedy its interesting how gun control didn't become an issue until it impacted white america. The murder rate is approaching 600 in Chicago this year, but since it was in the Black community no ones.
The issue isn't the total elimination of guns -- that, I agree, would be impossible. The idea is how to make it harder for criminals to obtain guns; how to make it harder for the unbalanced/disturbed to obtain guns; and how to make the penalty a harsh deterent against the commission of gun violence. Hence, I think the goal is to reduce gun violence as much as we can everywhere that we can.
I don't know of any problem that can be completely eradicated -- and it would be a futile and senseless to try. But we can work in earnest to reduce the incidence of gun violence.
Many of us have been concerned over and have spoken out against inner-city violence and spend our time and money in efforts to curb inner-city violence in ways you might not even imagine. I've been concerned about us harming us since forever. All life is precious -- and if the deaths of little white children bring the kind of attention that spurs anti-violent efforts not heretofore spurred by the deaths of ours in poor black neighborhoods, I'm not complaining.
Nobody who hunts does not need a rifle that shoots more than 10 rounds same goes for handguns if your trying to protect your business or home. There should ban all assault weapons immediately they do not have a place in this modern day society. Also purpose new gun laws anybody carries guns into public areas schools courts malls etc automatically will be sentenced to 20 years in prison. When you purchase a gun you must also register it with your local municipalities. Anybody who has any mental conditions or have a history of taken medications for mental conditions should not be allowed to purchase or own a firearm. Background checks need to be stiffer. Gun trafficking should hold a conviction of 20 years per firearm that someone has in their possession on top of the local state laws that they break. If you are caught with an assault weapon you will get 20 years in prison along with hefty fines and the place of purchase will also face criminal charges and also be shutdown for selling them. If you are a homeowner and have a gun to protect your home or business you it will mandatory that you purchase a firearm safe to keep it away from other household members children etc for their safety. People with past criminal history or have felonies in possession of a firearm would face the biggest charges 30 years to life if it used to kill or in a crime.
Sent from my GS3 using Tapatalk HD
Sent from my GS3 using Tapatalk HD
Regulate ammonium nitrate, regulate guns!
source: Business Insider
The U.S. Finally Starts Regulating Sales Of Ammonium Nitrate
Aug. 3, 2011
Used in 1995 by Timothy McVeigh to attack the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City and in the July Bomb attack on a government building in Norway -- ammonium nitrate will now fall under federal regulation.
Janet Napolitano yesterday announced how the new Ammonium Nitrate Security Program will affect buyers and sellers of the volatile compound.
Primarily used in fertilizer, when mixed with other substances the chemical becomes highly explosive, the new legislation will require anyone buying more than 25 pounds to register, be screened against a known terrorist list, and require any thefts to be reported within 24 hours.
This new legislation expands upon a chemical anti-terrorism bill already in effect, but it's the first law to target ammonium nitrate sales specifically.
Poor excuse in favor of the proliferation of guns in the hands of those whom they don't belong.
That settles it. We need more gun violence, not less.
Before we get into a discussion about more gun control laws, perhaps we should consider having more drone control.
http://larouchepac.com/node/24860
We can deal with drones in the drone thread. But attempting to switch the argument from gun violence to the use of drones (which has to stand or fail on its own merits) is a chicken shit way of acknowledging that you really don't have a sensible argument against reasonable attempts to keep guns out of the hands of those who really shouldn't have them.
You mean they curtailed access to this stuff after Murrah
The nerve of them !
There goes your civil rights.
South Dakota Sen. Tim Johnson, another NRA-backed Democrat, said in a statement that the “tragedy will certainly force us as a country to have a discussion about our gun laws, as well as our mental health system.” Sen. Bob Casey did not mention guns in his response but said that ”everything should be on the table.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs.../two-more-pro-gun-democrats-open-to-new-laws/
But attempting to switch the argument from gun violence to the use of drones (which has to stand or fail on its own merits) is a chicken shit way of acknowledging that you really don't have a sensible argument against reasonable attempts to keep guns out of the hands of those who really shouldn't have them.
My argument is simple, (4 words) "shall not be infringed". When politicians & attornies start using words like "sensible", "appropriate", "rational" & "reasonable" they are doing so in an attempt to legislate your rights away.As a victim of a violent crime, there is no argument strong enough to deter me from having the ability to protect myself & family.
Have any of you been shot / shot at.....close range? I Have! It is a "helplessness" I cannot describe, therefore, it's next to impossible to acknowledge an opposing opinion.
Just bein real
I'm glad to know that you possess the same qualities as Ms. Cleo -- the ability to read other people's mind. Mind you, she went to jail for her mental fraud. How are you any more qualified than her ???
As a victime of violent crime -- you're not alone; and you're not special because of it.
I agree that everyone has the right to protect and defend self, family & others. I'm no more interested in deterring you from that mission than I hope you aren't in deterring me from protecting mine. But "NO RIGHT" is absolute -- and no right justifies your endangerment of mine in the protection of yours.
Son, you're not the only one who has been shot at. If you have been shot, you're not the only one who has been hit; and, if you have lost love ones to senseless gun violence, you're still, not alone. And, I'm not telling you what someone has told me.
HAVING SAID THAT, what is it about the phrase "shall not be infringed upon" that you're dying to impart ??? Why did you mention "politicians" and "lawyers" and their intentions is your opening ??? Do you have a beef and you were attempting to deminimize opposing views that are supposed to be more learned than your own, before you began. That was a checkers move. LOL. Your point is . . .
`
Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa,
the senior Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which probably would have the first crack at any gun control legislation, made his suggestion for a blue ribbon commission of "all stakeholders"
Grassley said Monday: "It certainly can't be a debate just about guns. There must also be a serious and thoughtful discussion on mental health issues" as well as a culture that "tends to be less civil now than it has been for a long period of time."
Grassley said Monday: "It certainly can't be a debate just about guns. There must also be a serious and thoughtful discussion on mental health issues" as well as a culture that "tends to be less civil now than it has been for a long period of time."
SOURCE
the writing is on the wall, just be patient. DC will come up with something 'dumb' in response to this. Yea, I know they all have good intentions
Never let a good crisis go to waste - Rahm Emmanuel
Bad things happen to good people all the time, I've learned to live with it. The key is not to find yourself in the same position of helplessness cause you know the govt can't help you
Son, Have you ever been shot / shot at?
If you, or anybody else, haven't walked in my shoes, respectfully need to STFU.
Just think, I used to be a Democrat before that happened.....but now, both parties are equally incompetent and the NRA needs to be exposed as an organization that will continue to compromise our 2A rights.
I can't be alone when I say I just want to be left alone. My firearms are only used in a defensive manner, to neutralize a potential threat.
As a victim of a violent crime, there is no argument strong enough to deter me from having the ability to protect myself & family. Have any of you been shot / shot at.....close range? I Have! It is a "helplessness" I cannot describe, therefore, it's next to impossible to acknowledge an opposing opinion.
Just bein real
Unless you have a felony conviction, have been found mentally incapable, are on the Watch List, or have been found to be a danger to someone else (like a restraining order), then your rights are in no danger.
Funny how some talk of "God given rights" and right there I just listed people who we all universally think should have their rights infringed so I guess they aren't really "God given" after all.
UD, that's what YOU say & I can take your word but these cats in DC have taken a 'right' & making it a privilege. I trust you a lot more than Feinstein & Schumer.
We've been down this road with Bush, check out this archive. What else is left to be legislated away? The NRA isn't really standing up for anything
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-guns9dec09,0,5923876.story?coll=la-home-center
So the NRA, who I find horribly distasteful and that's the nicest way I could put that, is wrong for finding a sensible piece of legislation to back?
Do you think felons and the mentally ill should be able to buy firearms?
Answer this please because I need to know how much of a idealogue you are.
True but if we keep crazy people away from guns, they don't kill as many people as proven the same day in another country
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/15/world/asia/man-stabs-22-children-in-china.html?_r=0
Funny thing, in the report I linked, they reference a similar stabbing attack in 2010 that killed 20 but when I searced for that article, it says nothing about any children dying and that five were critically wounded so the NYTimes needs to do better editing.
So the NRA, who I find horribly distasteful and that's the nicest way I could put that, is wrong for finding a sensible piece of legislation to back?
Do you think felons and the mentally ill should be able to buy firearms?
sorry, one of those keywords again!
I don't see anything wrong with a non-violent felon buying a firearm
There is a shade of gray in the definition of "mentally ill". Who determines this & what criteria are being used? Suppose a veteran is coming home after 4 tours of duty (of course, he/she has some degree of PTSD) should they be prevented from purchasing a firearm?
Most of the time, the mental illness isn't exposed until after they do something foul.
In the end, you know the criminals will get the guns from somewhere, right?
Why does DC want to limit the ability of people wanting to protect themselves?
From this response, obviously you've been overcome by some kind of cynicism, sometime ago.
But, so that you know, I am hoping DC does come up with something. I am hoping what it comes up with addresses, meaningfully, many if not all of the problems associated with gun violence. Hell, no one including me should expect a panacea -- that can't happen because (1) legislation can't solve all of our problems, and (2) the world isn't, and never will be, perfect -- hence, there just can't be a perfect solution.
Is OK if DC comes up with what many may believe are some good approaches, even if they're not YOUR solutions ???
WTF! LOL. I've never in my life (that I recall) quoted or referred to Mr. Emmanuel. Nevertheless, to the extent that the deaths of those children in Connecticut have spurred debate (and hopefully some action) over gun violence in America, let not their deaths be in vain.
I wish it had occurred following Columbine, or some other intervening tragedy -- maybe those kids would be alive today. Even better, I wish a poor, black, inner-city death had spurred the kind of outrage we're seeing now, long ago; perhaps then, my heart at least, would not be so heavy for OUR wasted youth in Chicago and places elsewhere across this country.
Hell, let me borrow from your cynicism to state it even better, "Never let a good crisis go to waste, SOONER!" - it might spare us of more misery, later.
`
If he's stayed out of trouble for a certain amount of time, I would be amenable to that one. I believe in redemption.
So we're agreed on violent felons or is there a caveat for them too?
Yes, he should be denied. He has been diagnosed with a clear mental disorder. No gun for you.
Not agreeing with the word "most".
This is not a sound, rational argument. Then why have any laws at all since "the criminals" will do it anyway? You pass laws and regulations to set up boundaries and punish those that cross them. That's how that works.
And if so called "law abiding citizens" would be more responsible with their guns, we wouldn't need better laws. But as I keep saying, people love "freedom" but hate responsibility.
They hate other people's freedom too but that's another thread.
What limit? You're a non-felon, not crazy (legally), not a suspected terrorist so where are you limited? You have to wait a few days (not even a week) to make sure you're none of those things, that's limiting? Tough. Stop being a child.
Stop being a child???? So, with these criteria already laid out, what is the purpose of "new" legislation? Gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.
UD, I've answered the bulk of your questions honestly, some agreeable points, some not. Answer this for me;
Why don't more Dems, in particular the black caucus, advocate gun ownership, knowing the first gun control laws of this nation were designed by the KKK, with the purpose of keeping guns out of the hands of black folk? Are you an advocate?
Last edited:
I'm curious, Thought, Que, Dave, have you all ever been to a chl class?
I don't believe that all states have such a thing. I've been licensed to carry concealed for a long time -- though I haven't actually packed in some time: too much of a hassle in and out of courtrooms, airports, meetings, etc.
Now, why the question ???
Just wondering because if you went through the class for that, you would have an understanding about current laws.
Similar threads
