Currently? I'd like to see tough gun control laws made national, and loopholes closed. I'd like to see ATF properly staffed and allowed to enforced the gun control laws. I'd like to see some of the garbage legislation lobbied for by the NRA and gun manufacturers overturned so that gun retailers and manufacturers are held responsible for things they should be held responsible for (like having 1200 guns disappear from their inventory). I'm for a national registration of guns so that we can trace ownership of guns used in crimes.
I'm sure there are other things, but that's a brief rundown.
Currently? I'd like to see tough gun control laws made national, and loopholes closed. I'd like to see ATF properly staffed and allowed to enforced the gun control laws. I'd like to see some of the garbage legislation lobbied for by the NRA and gun manufacturers overturned so that gun retailers and manufacturers are held responsible for things they should be held responsible for (like having 1200 guns disappear from their inventory). I'm for a national registration of guns so that we can trace ownership of guns used in crimes.
I'm sure there are other things, but that's a brief rundown.
I'm with you up until you call for a national registration.
registration is just another tool to be used for confiscation.
Also, how do you suppose we register the guns people already have? Forced compliance? Violation of the 4th Amendment to search peoples homes to make sure they're not hiding any guns?
You turn law abiding citizens into criminals. The real criminals will still get their guns, unless what, you want to go door to door, every ghetto, everywhere, and kick in doors?
How do you get the unregistered, untracked, privately bought, or illegally bought guns registered or taken from those who have them illegally?
You can't, unless you DO feel like trampling on yet another constitutionally protected right.
Though I'm sure, your all for setting aside the 4th Amendment too "for the kids!"
Go ahead, do a forced buyback. A forced byback is just a lie anyways - its simply fascist confiscation, the money is a bribe, to bribe people out of their natural rights.
What do you do about all the guns sold privately? The only way to track those is to know what everyone has, that requires registration. Only way to make that effective is to disregard the 4th.
We might as well just toss the whole document out. It obviously doesn't mean anything to some of you.
Oh, until someone messes with your 1st Amendment right
You start chipping away man, chip chip chip - they already have chipped away enough. We've already given up too much freedom. We already allowed those *****es to pass the Patriot, NDAA, and more **** that is just designed to control us.
They preyed upon the fearful after 9/11, and now after Sandy Hook, no mad gunman or terrorist has ever taken away our rights. But our government is trying really really hard.
Don't worry though, it's for our own good. We can't be trusted. We need a nanny state to take care of us. The government will make sure we are nice and safe...
So I tell you what I'm for, you ask me how I would accomplish some things, then you tell me how I would do it, and then you insult me for what you think I would do, but never stated I would? Am I missing anything?
Registration does not mean confiscation. As a male, you have to register for selective service. You have to register your car and a boat if you have one. There are lots of things we need to register. Registering guns would aid law enforcement in catching the real criminals, and would provide a disincentive for people to give their guns to criminals.
How do you get people to register guns they already own? You could penalize people who are found with unregistered guns. No need to unlawfully search people. I don't know why you assumed I was all for violating the 4th amendment.
I'm sure there are other methods or solutions, this is just some brief thought.
Quote from IcecreamMan80 »
You start chipping away man, chip chip chip - they already have chipped away enough. We've already given up too much freedom. We already allowed those *****es to pass the Patriot, NDAA, and more **** that is just designed to control us.
They preyed upon the fearful after 9/11, and now after Sandy Hook, no mad gunman or terrorist has ever taken away our rights. But our government is trying really really hard.
Don't worry though, it's for our own good. We can't be trusted. We need a nanny state to take care of us. The government will make sure we are nice and safe...
Paranoid much? Yes, the government does some ****ty things in the name of national security. Yes, I also disagree with them. No, I don't think the government is out to get us or turn us into a "nanny state".
Where in my post, specifically, that I've demonstrated an "all-or-nothing" thinking.....Further, I think in context of my previous post this association with the Nirvana fallacy if wrong.
Lastly, I still would like to know why "banning" murder has not stopped gun murderers? If we accept, in a practical sense, that laws deter people simply "banning" murder should solve the problem.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
That's like liberals getting insulted when the term obama care is used....hell, if you like it, you should proud of it. Regan never shy'd away from the term reganomics
It was referenced as trickledown economics through Reagan's terms - the primary debates after he was finishing was when Reaganomics was coined when debating Bush Sr - and Voodoo economics during primaries again by during Bush Sr debates.
Your example is largely wrong probably entirely but its possible for the last 8 mos of his term he accepted one - 8.25% of his term.
And almost no liberals like the ACA because it was watered down so much to cowtow - there's a reason around 40% mirrors Gingrichs plan for America's healthcare ideas much more than Obamas desire for universal healthcare.
I don't know what the number would be, I just know that I want it to be much lower.
This proves this:
You start chipping away man, chip chip chip - they already have chipped away enough. We've already given up too much freedom. We already allowed those *****es to pass the Patriot, NDAA, and more **** that is just designed to control us.
Until gun grabbers can quantify success in practical sense (not one has....ever...in my online debates)....there is no reason to believe that they will not continue to infringe upon gun rights because they would always want gun deaths lower.
TDKR shooting was all purchased legally wasn't it? And the school shooting was as well by his mother (and may have been voluntarily given to him before he killed her - she was shot after all, no?)
I can understand distinguishing a gun stolen normally - but stolen from family quite possibly could've been "mom I'm taking the guns out to hunt, ok?"
Didn't the VT shooter use legally bought handguns as well?
I'll look that up. Doesn't change my position though. Yeah, there is a small % of crazy shooters that started out as legal law abiding gun owners. Thats why the mental health issue is important to me.
But also, many of the law abiding, legal gun owners who shoot, or are shot, most of those fall into the jealous husband/wife - the murder-suicide.
Again, this is a depression, mental health, anger management, issue. It's not about guns, it really isn't. Chris Benoit didn't shoot his wife and kids, he strangled them. Andrea Yates drowned her 5 kids in the tub. Kelli Murphy smothered her kids to death with pillows, same thing Mary Beth Tilling did.
Gary Ridgway didn't shoot any of his over 48(+/-) victims.
Some people are sick, deranged, psycho. I completely agree they should not get their hands on firearms.
Certainly, SOMEONE should have done something with Mrs. Lanza, reports I read said that people all over questioned her sons behavior problems, but that Mrs. Lanza tried to keep it private. That fine and dandy, until you realize she has guns in the house right? And he's a kid still. Really bad combination of things.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Certainly, SOMEONE should have done something with Mrs. Lanza, reports I read said that people all over questioned her sons behavior problems, but that Mrs. Lanza tried to keep it private. That fine and dandy, until you realize she has guns in the house right? And he's a kid still. Really bad combination of things.
Adam Lanza was twenty. And while he was diagnosed with a mental disorder, he had not to the best of my knowledge showed any warning signs - autism spectrum disorders are not at all associated with violence. (In fact, though I don't have hard numbers on this, I'd expect autistic patients to be less violent than the general population.) This makes it a really difficult call. Should people who fit Lanza's pre-massacre profile be trusted around guns or not?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Certainly, SOMEONE should have done something with Mrs. Lanza, reports I read said that people all over questioned her sons behavior problems, but that Mrs. Lanza tried to keep it private. That fine and dandy, until you realize she has guns in the house right? And he's a kid still. Really bad combination of things.
Adam Lanza was twenty. And while he was diagnosed with a mental disorder, he had not to the best of my knowledge showed any warning signs - autism spectrum disorders are not at all associated with violence. (In fact, though I don't have hard numbers on this, I'd expect autistic patients to be less violent than the general population.) This makes it a really difficult call. Should people who fit Lanza's pre-massacre profile be trusted around guns or not?
Well, I'd say no. Trust is an AMAZING word to use here too.
But, I wouldn't deny his mom, an otherwise law abiding citizen her 2nd Amendment right. SO in compromise, if we knew her son had issues (and maybe "issues" is a stretch depending on how much we know) we'd only demand that she keep her guns more securely locked up. Surely in a gun safe only SHE knows the code to.
I agree, autism alone wouldn't be a disqualifier, but didn't neighbors say he demonstrated other questionable behaviors?
Some people, are neither violent, nor criminals, yet we should have enough reason as intelligent gun owners to make a decision about whether we can trust them around such weapons. Mrs. Lanza may or may not have made the wrong decision. It depends on what warning signs Adam was giving off.
Are they flakey or disciplined?
Are they cautious or risky?
Are they emotionally unstable?
Are they intelligent enough to handle such things safely?
Would we trust them driving our car?
Are they clumsy, or attentive?
These are things I believe every law abiding gun owner should be doing before letting others, even their immediate family members access to their guns.
This neither requires a new law, nor government registration, confiscation, bans, or whatever else.
It only requires honest responsible gun owners to educate, inform, and train those with access to their guns the proper responsibilities involved, and then to also properly secure their firearms. This is why I do like one of the things the NRA does, that is they hold many many gun safety classes, firearms training, and more.
How would we get more (if not all) legal gun owner to do these things without imposing more ineffectual legislation though?
I think I would support a measure that requires gun stores, FFL dealers, etc. to only sell guns (of any kind) to people who can demonstrate they passed a moderate (8 hours or more) gun safety and responsibility course provided by the Sheriff's Dept., or a certified NRA or other LE agency.
This would do much I think to help the cause.
I'm sure there would be tons of details to iron out but its an idea.
Note: People could take the course, get the certificate, and still not buy a gun, but they'd have the knowledge to handle one safely.
Like getting CPR cards, and never needing to use it.
ICM80: For being someone on the "opposite side" you pretty much nailed my suggestion (technically more strict than mine - I'd only want the training course for pistols and other concealable weapons - longarms I'm fine without training)
Funny, since I'm very pro-gun, but I'd do longarms too. People don't get hurt as often as with handguns, but a .30-06 is just as deadly if not more as a .38 special, so I'd be more strict and say all guns.
But see, I think it would be a way to ease up the "BANS! ARGH!"~"OVER MY DEAD BODY! RAWR!" situation, and by proxy reduce gun injuries and even accidental deaths.
I don't think legal gun owners should be punished or have their rights attacked because of what some handful of crazies do, but there is a measureable amount of accidental deaths ("I was cleaning my gun when...") and blatant negligence. Legal gun owners are not responsible for nutjobs going on a rampage, but we can not only help ourselves, but help our cause if we would be willing to demonstrate that we understand we own a deadly weapon and are trained and prepared to handle that weapon responsibly.
We all know some places will give anyone a gun, so long as they pass the background check - but simply not being a criminal doesn't always mean you're ready to handle a firearm.
By having all legal gun dealers only sell to people who got their "Safety Training Cerificate" you aren't taking guns away from them, you aren't banning magazines, or "scary looking" guns, you aren't threating their rights, but you are improving the situation. I honestly think the majority of us legal gun owners would gladly go take the classes (imho, I'd do two 5 hour days) The Sheriffs Dept., or the licenced NRA/LEA trainer can charge what they already charge (about $75)
Law abiding citizens WILL take the classes and get their certificates. Because we already jump through the hoops. Getting a CCWP already requires such things (in most states anyways and here in Oregon).
I would NOT support however a database being kept of people who took the class.
Like I said, I'd treat it almost like a CPR card. Everyone should be encouraged to do it, whether they plan to buy a gun or not. Heck, even if all you do is borrow grandpas gun on the hunting trip it'd be a smart move to take the classes.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
By having all legal gun dealers only sell to people who got their "Safety Training Cerificate" you aren't taking guns away from them
this works better than most idea's i have heard. your mass shooter isn't going to care, but you need classes to drive, and to get hunting or concealed permits no reason not to require a class on this.
if anything it might lower the accidental shootings.
Law abiding citizens WILL take the classes and get their certificates. Because we already jump through the hoops. Getting a CCWP already requires such things (in most states anyways and here in Oregon).
So people need to take an 8 hour class before they can buy a truckload of guns and sell them to criminals? And we don't even know who they are? And this helps how exactly? Gun violence in this country is not due to lack of training. It's due to guns. 3 day waiting periods and background checks don't do anything. They are attempts for a simple solution to a complex problem.
I would NOT support however a database being kept of people who took the class.
The chief of police of Washington DC said one of the biggest things you could do to stop gun violence was to simpley track who buys a gun and who sells a gun. Then you could pinpoint the dealers selling firearms illegally and take them out of the equation.
And even that completely common sense idea got shot down by the gun lobby. It's frankly ridiculous. When you are selling someone a deadly weapon, it's absolutely reasonable to keep track of who is selling it and who is buying it.
This neither requires a new law, nor government registration, confiscation, bans, or whatever else.
Yes, it requires a complete rewiring of the human brain and a complete revision to human history that results in a completely different social and societal structure as we have today. Which is impossible.
At the root cause, yes, the problem is people. But you can't change that. You can get rid of the guns.
Should people who fit Lanza's pre-massacre profile be trusted around guns or not?
The question is: Is the risk to innocent lives worth it to allow anyone around guns?
That' the real issue. Guns have a definite downside in this society. Given the fact that gun owners are more likely to kill themselves or loved ones than an intruder, given the fact that an armed populace have never stopped the US government from doing anything, where's the upside to justify the downside of innocent Americans getting murdered?
None of the pro gun arguments stand up. Not a single one, except maybe the need to hunt in especially remote areas of the country like the Alaskan outback or whatever. So given the negligible upside, why are we as a society willing to accept the downside?
The answer is we aren't, which is why public opinion is shifting. The NRA finally showed their true colors and torpedo'd their reputation and now most Americans have an unfavorable view of them. The majority of Americans favor stricter gun control laws and banning assault weapons. We are finally waking up and realizing that the cost of guns is to high a price to bear for society for their practically nonexistent upside.
The sad reality is that while we are getting there, unfortunately many more will need to die at the hands of gun violence before we finally get to a point where we see the solution is to get rid of guns, period. But as long as our gun laws are based on paranoid fears that have no basis in reality, innocent people will keep getting killed.
The chief of police of Washington DC said one of the biggest things you could do to stop gun violence was to simpley track who buys a gun and who sells a gun. Then you could pinpoint the dealers selling firearms illegally and take them out of the equation.
I'm not against registering guns per se, but DC has a relatively small population with some of the (if not the) toughest anti-gun laws in the country and still has 4X the national average of violent crime.
Maybe the police chief of a town like that isn't the very best guy to give advice on the subject...
Also when you say public opinion is shifting, you're absolutely right. Every year, more and more states go from "no issue" to "may issue" to "will issue" to "no restrictions" regarding CWPs because - while there are a vocal minority who think that if they yell "GUNS ARE BAD, MMMKAY?" loud enough that everyone else will say "You know what, you're right!" - there are a lot more people who think they'd sure like a way to protect themselves and their families if something happens.
Honestly, I wish there were a few more people willing to give up their (and everyone else's) rights just so they can feel like they've done something noble... I've been on 5 waiting lists for over 3 months for a Maverick Security 88 Shotgun and M&P Shield 9mm - I'd probably have better luck getting one if they were illegal.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Of course you should fight fire with fire. You should fight everything with fire."
—Jaya Ballard, task mage
redthirst is redthirst, fifth Horseman of the Apocalypse. He was the leader of the Fires of Salvation, the only clan I'm aware of to get modded off the forums so hard they made their own forums.
Degenerate? Sure. Loudmouth? You bet. Law abiding? No ****ing way.
The chief of police of Washington DC said one of the biggest things you could do to stop gun violence was to simpley track who buys a gun and who sells a gun. Then you could pinpoint the dealers selling firearms illegally and take them out of the equation.
When there is a demand someone will profit off that demand. This ignorance from liberals astounds me. We've been taking dealers off the streets for decades.....does not seem to have an impact. The only thing this does is lead to more black market gun sales.
And even that completely common sense idea got shot down by the gun lobby. It's frankly ridiculous. When you are selling someone a deadly weapon, it's absolutely reasonable to keep track of who is selling it and who is buying it.
Its insane that you think regulating law abiding people will stop criminals from buying guns.
The question is: Is the risk to innocent lives worth it to allow anyone around guns?
Can you quantify a practical and acceptable risk?
Guns have a definite downside in this society.
So do cars and anything else that causes the loss of life.
Given the fact that gun owners are more likely to kill themselves or loved ones than an intruder, given the fact that an armed populace have never stopped the US government from doing anything, where's the upside to justify the downside of innocent Americans getting murdered?
Liberty? Freedom? Maybe? Until you can quantify the risk.......which you wont because it's minimal...its a stupid argument......fact is....gun owners and non gun owners behaviors do not change regardless if they have a gun or not.....
None of the pro gun arguments stand up. Not a single one, except maybe the need to hunt in especially remote areas of the country like the Alaskan outback or whatever. So given the negligible upside, why are we as a society willing to accept the downside?
They do not stand up to you that is are far cry from suggesting they do not stand up. Nice of you to speak for 300 million people though.
But as long as our gun laws are based on paranoid fears that have no basis in reality, innocent people will keep getting killed.
I agree with this fully. You are just as paranoid as the guys you rail against.
Maybe the police chief of a town like that isn't the very best guy to give advice on the subject...
I know right, neither would I listen to someone like Nixon, but that's exactly what some of these illogical progressives will do in their desperate attempts to make guns evil.
I'm not against registering guns per se, but DC has a relatively small population with some of the (if not the) toughest anti-gun laws in the country and still has 4X the national average of violent crime.
Maybe the police chief of a town like that isn't the very best guy to give advice on the subject...
He's absolutely the guy to give advice on the topic. Because he sees where the majority of illegal guns are coming from: Florida. Who in Florida is selling them? He can't find out because the NRA has lobbied to make it illegal to register gun sales. For no reason.
End result? A lucrative illegal gun trade that leads to innocent people being murdered on the street. Go guns!!!
there are a lot more people who think they'd sure like a way to protect themselves and their families if something happens
And those lots of people are wrong. How long are we supposed to give any weight to falsehoods proposed by gun nuts?
It is a proven fact you have a higher chance of killing yourself or a loved one than using it to defend against a crime. It is a false argument. Stop making it.
When there is a demand someone will profit off that demand.
Availability matters. Criminals would love bazookas and grenades and RPG's, but I don;t see them around.
Its insane that you think regulating law abiding people will stop criminals from buying guns.
The majority of illegal guns come from "law abiding" gun buyers who then resell them to criminals. I'd like to find who is doing that so we can stop them. Finding out who buys a gun and who sells a gun does not impinge on anyone's rights.
Liberty? Freedom?
I don't own a gun, and I have no less liberty or freedom than you. Guns != liberty or freedom. It's patently absurd people try to equate those concepts with gun ownership.
So do cars and anything else that causes the loss of life.
For the millionth time, cars have an upside. Guns don't.
I agree with this fully. You are just as paranoid as the guys you rail against.
I'm not the paranoid one. People who are basing their defense of gun laws on pure make believe that have no basis in reality and rely on some inexplicable distrust of authority coupled with the delusion that arming themselves will do anything about it are the paranoid ones.
but that's exactly what some of these illogical progressives will do in their desperate attempts to make guns evil.
Do you know how silly you sound trying to make terms like "liberal" and "progressive" as slander?
Guns are evil. They kill innocent people. They are unnecessary in modern society. There is no need to keep them around, especially to appease the pathological paranoid people who claim they need them for any number of reasons, every single of one which has been proven false. Thankfully America is waking up to the fact that catering the the delusional whims of gun nuts carries too high a price to bear. It's a sad stain on our history that so much pain, suffering, and death had to happen before we stopped letting crazy people dictate out gun laws, but thankfully we are finally learning to stop listening to them.
There is no reason to allow guns in our society. Every reason has been thoroughly debunked. Appeals to "Freedom" and "Liberty" are patently absurd. Appeasing paranoia is not worth the price we pay in human life.
If anything this thread proves there is no "fresh start" to gun debate. Gun advocates will still cling to the same falsehoods and appeals to unrelated emotional reaction to justify their stance. No matter what time period, no matter how many kids get killed, no matter how much evidence or facts you present them, you get the same tired arguments they've been trotting out for umpteen years. They are not open to reasonable debate, because the entire foundation of their stance is not based on reason, but an unfounded belief structure that they use to portray guns as the only things keeping them from oppression.
Gun advocacy is no longer a stance, it's a religion. And you can't debate religion with facts. It all goes back to their beliefs, even when you show those beliefs not to be true, it doesn't matter: These people are believers.
Thankfully they are in the minority and society is leaving them behind. Eventually people will no longer have to live in terror to appease fundamentalist zealots.
Guns are evil. They kill innocent people. They are unnecessary in modern society. There is no need to keep them around, especially to appease the pathological paranoid people who claim they need them for any number of reasons, every single of one which has been proven false. Thankfully America is waking up to the fact that catering the the delusional whims of gun nuts carries too high a price to bear. It's a sad stain on our history that so much pain, suffering, and death had to happen before we stopped letting crazy people dictate out gun laws, but thankfully we are finally learning to stop listening to them.
There is no reason to allow guns in our society. Every reason has been thoroughly debunked. Appeals to "Freedom" and "Liberty" are patently absurd. Appeasing paranoia is not worth the price we pay in human life.
You make a good argument up to here, guns do not kill people. People kill people. Quit trying to blame inanimate objects for what crazy people do.
There is no reason to allow guns in our society. Every reason has been thoroughly debunked. Appeals to "Freedom" and "Liberty" are patently absurd. Appeasing paranoia is not worth the price we pay in human life.
While i fundamentally agree with you, I also agree that we will never see the day where we don't allow guns in our society. Bottom line is our government doesn't have the balls to pass such laws negating the constitutions. Hell congress cant even come together to vote on commonsense line items in the budget, but to overturn a constitutional ammendment? We are too disfunctional to be that progressive.
What we need is compromise. We can protect the constitutional rights of the individual and redcue crime rates with simple gun registration laws. Its absurd to me that you can buy and sell guns on facebook. Wtf? Thats the problem. Gun owners should alwyas have to carry a licence, and it should be illegal to sell a gun to anyone without one. This in no way infringes on the constitutional rights, but it may protect illegal gun sales that lead to violence.
Its sad, im from georgia. If your a convicted murderer and you want to buy a gun, all you have to do is go onto facebook. Thats absolutely rediculous. This is the black market problem we have. Law abiding citizens selling guns to criminals. If we know who buys and sells guns we can get to the route of the problem.
End result? A lucrative illegal gun trade that leads to innocent people being murdered on the street. Go guns!!!
Why are 4X more people being victimized on his streets where law-abiding citizens aren't allowed to carry than on other streets in other places where they are?
Go gun restrictions!!!
It is a proven fact you have a higher chance of killing yourself or a loved one than using it to defend against a crime. It is a false argument. Stop making it.
It's also a proven fact that you have a better chance of killing yourself in a car than with a gun, but most people agree that the benefits of a car outweigh the risk.
I believe that having the ability to defend yourself outweighs the risk of some bad guy (who, I'm sure, would have just left me alone if I'd been unarmed :rolleyes:) taking my gun away and killing me with it or of me looking down the barrel to see why my gun's jammed.
Also, do you have a source for this "proven fact" - it needs to include the number of times that proper use of a gun has successfully stopped a crime (including when just presenting the weapon was enough to stop an aggressor) compared against the number of times proper use of a gun has accidently lead to the death of the person using it or their loved ones.
Please provide the proof of this fact and I'll be happy to quit making that argument.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Of course you should fight fire with fire. You should fight everything with fire."
—Jaya Ballard, task mage
redthirst is redthirst, fifth Horseman of the Apocalypse. He was the leader of the Fires of Salvation, the only clan I'm aware of to get modded off the forums so hard they made their own forums.
Degenerate? Sure. Loudmouth? You bet. Law abiding? No ****ing way.
The majority of illegal guns come from "law abiding" gun buyers who then resell them to criminals. I'd like to find who is doing that so we can stop them.
Can you show any evidence that shows you can stop or mitigate criminals from buying weapons? hint: no you can not...
Finding out who buys a gun and who sells a gun does not impinge on anyone's rights.
I don't own a gun, and I have no less liberty or freedom than you. Guns != liberty or freedom. It's patently absurd people try to equate those concepts with gun ownership.
Will you please stop with this ridiculous straw man? You've used this ignorant argument several times and it's disingenuous. It's about the ability to own a gun....
For the millionth time, cars have an upside. Guns don't.
Will you please stop pretending your opinion is a fact?
I'm not the paranoid one.
In my opinion, you are. You have this paranoia concerning guns. You seem to think guns are responsible for a significant loss of life, which is simply not the case when relative to other causes of death.
People who are basing their defense of gun laws on pure make believe that have no basis in reality and rely on some inexplicable distrust of authority coupled with the delusion that arming themselves will do anything about it are the paranoid ones.
That is only a segment of the argument. Defining peoples opinion on a topic off of one aspect is asinine. Until you make a credible argument that guns pose a greater danger to society than the loss of liberty/freedom...you will continue to lose this battle of paranoia. When you look at the facts (i.e. number of deaths) objectively, this issue just does not warrant the degree of liberty encroaching laws you propose, especially when you can not present valid evidence of gun control effectiveness. It's too bad for you this is what most Americans think as well.
Guns are evil. They kill innocent people.
Cite please. Guns are inanimate objects...they do not do anything. They do not have motives, feelings or behaviors.
Paranoia? Yeah, people who think inanimate objects have a mind of their own are def the people we'd want to listen too.
They are unnecessary in modern society.
Cite please. Another attempt by you to state opinion as fact.
There is no reason to allow guns in our society. Every reason has been thoroughly debunked.
Debunked to you. Your insistence on speaking for everyone is absurd.
Appeals to "Freedom" and "Liberty" are patently absurd.
LOL.
Appeasing paranoia is not worth the price we pay in liberty.
There is no reason to allow guns in our society. Every reason has been thoroughly debunked. Appeals to "Freedom" and "Liberty" are patently absurd. Appeasing paranoia is not worth the price we pay in human life.
You want to try running that by someone who lives in remote parts of Alaska?
What we need is compromise. We can protect the constitutional rights of the individual and redcue crime rates with simple gun registration laws. Its absurd to me that you can buy and sell guns on facebook. Wtf? Thats the problem. Gun owners should alwyas have to carry a licence, and it should be illegal to sell a gun to anyone without one. This in no way infringes on the constitutional rights, but it may protect illegal gun sales that lead to violence.
Its sad, im from georgia. If your a convicted murderer and you want to buy a gun, all you have to do is go onto facebook. Thats absolutely rediculous. This is the black market problem we have. Law abiding citizens selling guns to criminals. If we know who buys and sells guns we can get to the route of the problem.
While I agree that guns should not be sold illegally, private sales are just that, private.
Though, selling through Facebook? Hmmm, never seen a gun for sale on facebook. GunBroker.com maybe, a gun version of Ebay, but Facebook?
However, where you lose me is on registration and licencing.
Criminals will get guns without a licence, and will sell to unlicenced buyers, how do you stop that?
Forced registration?
How do you suppose you get all the illegal guns off the street, and/or register all the legally obtained guns current law abiding citizens already have, without also violating our 4th Amendment? I mean, you would have to go into peoples houses with basically a blanket warrant and search to make sure they aren't hiding any guns right? You would have to do that to ensure people aren't just privately selling their guns out of their bedrooms. People who haven't comitted crimes, people who otherwise were obeying the law.
Oh yeah, turn what is now law abiding citizens into criminals by passing some government jackboot law that says if we don't comply we go to prison.
Now you say, "Well, if they were law abiding citizens, they would check in their guns in accordance with the new registration laws. Thus, remaining law abiding citizens..."
Except that many of us believe that law to not only be unconstituional, but also dangerously dictatorial, and in the hands of a government we don't fully trust to be honest and benevolent, it's like giving the keys to your house to an ex-con.
Then someone comes along and says "We wont search the houses, we'll just send you to prison and confiscate your weapons if you are found with unregistered guns." Yeah, that's called TYRANNY, there is no ther word for it.
Some of you claim that our "irrational fears" (more like historically supported suspicions) of a tyrannical government shouldn't be reason enough to keep guns - yet then you want to have our government become exactly what we suspect to take our guns from us.
Don't you see the irony in this.
"These crazy gun nuts afraid of a tyrannical government, lol what a silly belief - We should have the government just take their guns away"
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Currently? I'd like to see tough gun control laws made national, and loopholes closed. I'd like to see ATF properly staffed and allowed to enforced the gun control laws. I'd like to see some of the garbage legislation lobbied for by the NRA and gun manufacturers overturned so that gun retailers and manufacturers are held responsible for things they should be held responsible for (like having 1200 guns disappear from their inventory). I'm for a national registration of guns so that we can trace ownership of guns used in crimes.
I'm sure there are other things, but that's a brief rundown.
I'm with you up until you call for a national registration.
registration is just another tool to be used for confiscation.
Also, how do you suppose we register the guns people already have? Forced compliance? Violation of the 4th Amendment to search peoples homes to make sure they're not hiding any guns?
You turn law abiding citizens into criminals. The real criminals will still get their guns, unless what, you want to go door to door, every ghetto, everywhere, and kick in doors?
How do you get the unregistered, untracked, privately bought, or illegally bought guns registered or taken from those who have them illegally?
You can't, unless you DO feel like trampling on yet another constitutionally protected right.
Though I'm sure, your all for setting aside the 4th Amendment too "for the kids!"
Go ahead, do a forced buyback. A forced byback is just a lie anyways - its simply fascist confiscation, the money is a bribe, to bribe people out of their natural rights.
What do you do about all the guns sold privately? The only way to track those is to know what everyone has, that requires registration. Only way to make that effective is to disregard the 4th.
We might as well just toss the whole document out. It obviously doesn't mean anything to some of you.
Oh, until someone messes with your 1st Amendment right
You start chipping away man, chip chip chip - they already have chipped away enough. We've already given up too much freedom. We already allowed those *****es to pass the Patriot, NDAA, and more **** that is just designed to control us.
They preyed upon the fearful after 9/11, and now after Sandy Hook, no mad gunman or terrorist has ever taken away our rights. But our government is trying really really hard.
Don't worry though, it's for our own good. We can't be trusted. We need a nanny state to take care of us. The government will make sure we are nice and safe...
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Registration does not mean confiscation. As a male, you have to register for selective service. You have to register your car and a boat if you have one. There are lots of things we need to register. Registering guns would aid law enforcement in catching the real criminals, and would provide a disincentive for people to give their guns to criminals.
How do you get people to register guns they already own? You could penalize people who are found with unregistered guns. No need to unlawfully search people. I don't know why you assumed I was all for violating the 4th amendment.
I'm sure there are other methods or solutions, this is just some brief thought.
Paranoid much? Yes, the government does some ****ty things in the name of national security. Yes, I also disagree with them. No, I don't think the government is out to get us or turn us into a "nanny state".
Specifically? Here:
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
It was referenced as trickledown economics through Reagan's terms - the primary debates after he was finishing was when Reaganomics was coined when debating Bush Sr - and Voodoo economics during primaries again by during Bush Sr debates.
Your example is largely wrong probably entirely but its possible for the last 8 mos of his term he accepted one - 8.25% of his term.
And almost no liberals like the ACA because it was watered down so much to cowtow - there's a reason around 40% mirrors Gingrichs plan for America's healthcare ideas much more than Obamas desire for universal healthcare.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
This proves this:
Until gun grabbers can quantify success in practical sense (not one has....ever...in my online debates)....there is no reason to believe that they will not continue to infringe upon gun rights because they would always want gun deaths lower.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
How many of these mass shootings have been done with legally obtained firearms?.... yea laws are really the answer here sheesh
I can understand distinguishing a gun stolen normally - but stolen from family quite possibly could've been "mom I'm taking the guns out to hunt, ok?"
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
I'll look that up. Doesn't change my position though. Yeah, there is a small % of crazy shooters that started out as legal law abiding gun owners. Thats why the mental health issue is important to me.
But also, many of the law abiding, legal gun owners who shoot, or are shot, most of those fall into the jealous husband/wife - the murder-suicide.
Again, this is a depression, mental health, anger management, issue. It's not about guns, it really isn't. Chris Benoit didn't shoot his wife and kids, he strangled them. Andrea Yates drowned her 5 kids in the tub. Kelli Murphy smothered her kids to death with pillows, same thing Mary Beth Tilling did.
Gary Ridgway didn't shoot any of his over 48(+/-) victims.
Some people are sick, deranged, psycho. I completely agree they should not get their hands on firearms.
Certainly, SOMEONE should have done something with Mrs. Lanza, reports I read said that people all over questioned her sons behavior problems, but that Mrs. Lanza tried to keep it private. That fine and dandy, until you realize she has guns in the house right? And he's a kid still. Really bad combination of things.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Adam Lanza was twenty. And while he was diagnosed with a mental disorder, he had not to the best of my knowledge showed any warning signs - autism spectrum disorders are not at all associated with violence. (In fact, though I don't have hard numbers on this, I'd expect autistic patients to be less violent than the general population.) This makes it a really difficult call. Should people who fit Lanza's pre-massacre profile be trusted around guns or not?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Well, I'd say no. Trust is an AMAZING word to use here too.
But, I wouldn't deny his mom, an otherwise law abiding citizen her 2nd Amendment right. SO in compromise, if we knew her son had issues (and maybe "issues" is a stretch depending on how much we know) we'd only demand that she keep her guns more securely locked up. Surely in a gun safe only SHE knows the code to.
I agree, autism alone wouldn't be a disqualifier, but didn't neighbors say he demonstrated other questionable behaviors?
Some people, are neither violent, nor criminals, yet we should have enough reason as intelligent gun owners to make a decision about whether we can trust them around such weapons. Mrs. Lanza may or may not have made the wrong decision. It depends on what warning signs Adam was giving off.
Are they flakey or disciplined?
Are they cautious or risky?
Are they emotionally unstable?
Are they intelligent enough to handle such things safely?
Would we trust them driving our car?
Are they clumsy, or attentive?
These are things I believe every law abiding gun owner should be doing before letting others, even their immediate family members access to their guns.
This neither requires a new law, nor government registration, confiscation, bans, or whatever else.
It only requires honest responsible gun owners to educate, inform, and train those with access to their guns the proper responsibilities involved, and then to also properly secure their firearms. This is why I do like one of the things the NRA does, that is they hold many many gun safety classes, firearms training, and more.
How would we get more (if not all) legal gun owner to do these things without imposing more ineffectual legislation though?
I think I would support a measure that requires gun stores, FFL dealers, etc. to only sell guns (of any kind) to people who can demonstrate they passed a moderate (8 hours or more) gun safety and responsibility course provided by the Sheriff's Dept., or a certified NRA or other LE agency.
This would do much I think to help the cause.
I'm sure there would be tons of details to iron out but its an idea.
Note: People could take the course, get the certificate, and still not buy a gun, but they'd have the knowledge to handle one safely.
Like getting CPR cards, and never needing to use it.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
But see, I think it would be a way to ease up the "BANS! ARGH!"~"OVER MY DEAD BODY! RAWR!" situation, and by proxy reduce gun injuries and even accidental deaths.
I don't think legal gun owners should be punished or have their rights attacked because of what some handful of crazies do, but there is a measureable amount of accidental deaths ("I was cleaning my gun when...") and blatant negligence. Legal gun owners are not responsible for nutjobs going on a rampage, but we can not only help ourselves, but help our cause if we would be willing to demonstrate that we understand we own a deadly weapon and are trained and prepared to handle that weapon responsibly.
We all know some places will give anyone a gun, so long as they pass the background check - but simply not being a criminal doesn't always mean you're ready to handle a firearm.
By having all legal gun dealers only sell to people who got their "Safety Training Cerificate" you aren't taking guns away from them, you aren't banning magazines, or "scary looking" guns, you aren't threating their rights, but you are improving the situation. I honestly think the majority of us legal gun owners would gladly go take the classes (imho, I'd do two 5 hour days) The Sheriffs Dept., or the licenced NRA/LEA trainer can charge what they already charge (about $75)
Law abiding citizens WILL take the classes and get their certificates. Because we already jump through the hoops. Getting a CCWP already requires such things (in most states anyways and here in Oregon).
I would NOT support however a database being kept of people who took the class.
Like I said, I'd treat it almost like a CPR card. Everyone should be encouraged to do it, whether they plan to buy a gun or not. Heck, even if all you do is borrow grandpas gun on the hunting trip it'd be a smart move to take the classes.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
this works better than most idea's i have heard. your mass shooter isn't going to care, but you need classes to drive, and to get hunting or concealed permits no reason not to require a class on this.
if anything it might lower the accidental shootings.
http://www.kjrh.com/dpp/news/national/multiple-mass-murders-remain-steady-while-homicides-and-violent-crimes-cut-nearly-in-half-since-90s
This pretty much says it all. Even during the previous assault weapons ban they were still used in mass shootings.
the thing is that mass shootings have stayed pretty much the same rate for 20 years.
homicide rates have dropped. most gun crimes are committed by hand guns. they are easy to conceal and transport.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
So people need to take an 8 hour class before they can buy a truckload of guns and sell them to criminals? And we don't even know who they are? And this helps how exactly? Gun violence in this country is not due to lack of training. It's due to guns. 3 day waiting periods and background checks don't do anything. They are attempts for a simple solution to a complex problem.
The chief of police of Washington DC said one of the biggest things you could do to stop gun violence was to simpley track who buys a gun and who sells a gun. Then you could pinpoint the dealers selling firearms illegally and take them out of the equation.
And even that completely common sense idea got shot down by the gun lobby. It's frankly ridiculous. When you are selling someone a deadly weapon, it's absolutely reasonable to keep track of who is selling it and who is buying it.
Yes, it requires a complete rewiring of the human brain and a complete revision to human history that results in a completely different social and societal structure as we have today. Which is impossible.
At the root cause, yes, the problem is people. But you can't change that. You can get rid of the guns.
The question is: Is the risk to innocent lives worth it to allow anyone around guns?
That' the real issue. Guns have a definite downside in this society. Given the fact that gun owners are more likely to kill themselves or loved ones than an intruder, given the fact that an armed populace have never stopped the US government from doing anything, where's the upside to justify the downside of innocent Americans getting murdered?
None of the pro gun arguments stand up. Not a single one, except maybe the need to hunt in especially remote areas of the country like the Alaskan outback or whatever. So given the negligible upside, why are we as a society willing to accept the downside?
The answer is we aren't, which is why public opinion is shifting. The NRA finally showed their true colors and torpedo'd their reputation and now most Americans have an unfavorable view of them. The majority of Americans favor stricter gun control laws and banning assault weapons. We are finally waking up and realizing that the cost of guns is to high a price to bear for society for their practically nonexistent upside.
The sad reality is that while we are getting there, unfortunately many more will need to die at the hands of gun violence before we finally get to a point where we see the solution is to get rid of guns, period. But as long as our gun laws are based on paranoid fears that have no basis in reality, innocent people will keep getting killed.
I'm not against registering guns per se, but DC has a relatively small population with some of the (if not the) toughest anti-gun laws in the country and still has 4X the national average of violent crime.
Maybe the police chief of a town like that isn't the very best guy to give advice on the subject...
Also when you say public opinion is shifting, you're absolutely right. Every year, more and more states go from "no issue" to "may issue" to "will issue" to "no restrictions" regarding CWPs because - while there are a vocal minority who think that if they yell "GUNS ARE BAD, MMMKAY?" loud enough that everyone else will say "You know what, you're right!" - there are a lot more people who think they'd sure like a way to protect themselves and their families if something happens.
Honestly, I wish there were a few more people willing to give up their (and everyone else's) rights just so they can feel like they've done something noble... I've been on 5 waiting lists for over 3 months for a Maverick Security 88 Shotgun and M&P Shield 9mm - I'd probably have better luck getting one if they were illegal.
—Jaya Ballard, task mage
When there is a demand someone will profit off that demand. This ignorance from liberals astounds me. We've been taking dealers off the streets for decades.....does not seem to have an impact. The only thing this does is lead to more black market gun sales.
Its insane that you think regulating law abiding people will stop criminals from buying guns.
Can you quantify a practical and acceptable risk?
Guns have a definite downside in this society.
So do cars and anything else that causes the loss of life.
Liberty? Freedom? Maybe? Until you can quantify the risk.......which you wont because it's minimal...its a stupid argument......fact is....gun owners and non gun owners behaviors do not change regardless if they have a gun or not.....
They do not stand up to you that is are far cry from suggesting they do not stand up. Nice of you to speak for 300 million people though.
I agree with this fully. You are just as paranoid as the guys you rail against.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
I know right, neither would I listen to someone like Nixon, but that's exactly what some of these illogical progressives will do in their desperate attempts to make guns evil.
http://news.yahoo.com/ap-enterprise-nixon-wished-total-handgun-ban-081806381.html
LOL, Valarin should get a job at the AP for Yahoo. He'd fit in nicely.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
He's absolutely the guy to give advice on the topic. Because he sees where the majority of illegal guns are coming from: Florida. Who in Florida is selling them? He can't find out because the NRA has lobbied to make it illegal to register gun sales. For no reason.
End result? A lucrative illegal gun trade that leads to innocent people being murdered on the street. Go guns!!!
And those lots of people are wrong. How long are we supposed to give any weight to falsehoods proposed by gun nuts?
It is a proven fact you have a higher chance of killing yourself or a loved one than using it to defend against a crime. It is a false argument. Stop making it.
Availability matters. Criminals would love bazookas and grenades and RPG's, but I don;t see them around.
The majority of illegal guns come from "law abiding" gun buyers who then resell them to criminals. I'd like to find who is doing that so we can stop them. Finding out who buys a gun and who sells a gun does not impinge on anyone's rights.
I don't own a gun, and I have no less liberty or freedom than you. Guns != liberty or freedom. It's patently absurd people try to equate those concepts with gun ownership.
For the millionth time, cars have an upside. Guns don't.
I'm not the paranoid one. People who are basing their defense of gun laws on pure make believe that have no basis in reality and rely on some inexplicable distrust of authority coupled with the delusion that arming themselves will do anything about it are the paranoid ones.
Do you know how silly you sound trying to make terms like "liberal" and "progressive" as slander?
Guns are evil. They kill innocent people. They are unnecessary in modern society. There is no need to keep them around, especially to appease the pathological paranoid people who claim they need them for any number of reasons, every single of one which has been proven false. Thankfully America is waking up to the fact that catering the the delusional whims of gun nuts carries too high a price to bear. It's a sad stain on our history that so much pain, suffering, and death had to happen before we stopped letting crazy people dictate out gun laws, but thankfully we are finally learning to stop listening to them.
There is no reason to allow guns in our society. Every reason has been thoroughly debunked. Appeals to "Freedom" and "Liberty" are patently absurd. Appeasing paranoia is not worth the price we pay in human life.
If anything this thread proves there is no "fresh start" to gun debate. Gun advocates will still cling to the same falsehoods and appeals to unrelated emotional reaction to justify their stance. No matter what time period, no matter how many kids get killed, no matter how much evidence or facts you present them, you get the same tired arguments they've been trotting out for umpteen years. They are not open to reasonable debate, because the entire foundation of their stance is not based on reason, but an unfounded belief structure that they use to portray guns as the only things keeping them from oppression.
Gun advocacy is no longer a stance, it's a religion. And you can't debate religion with facts. It all goes back to their beliefs, even when you show those beliefs not to be true, it doesn't matter: These people are believers.
Thankfully they are in the minority and society is leaving them behind. Eventually people will no longer have to live in terror to appease fundamentalist zealots.
You make a good argument up to here, guns do not kill people. People kill people. Quit trying to blame inanimate objects for what crazy people do.
WUBEsper MillWUB
While i fundamentally agree with you, I also agree that we will never see the day where we don't allow guns in our society. Bottom line is our government doesn't have the balls to pass such laws negating the constitutions. Hell congress cant even come together to vote on commonsense line items in the budget, but to overturn a constitutional ammendment? We are too disfunctional to be that progressive.
What we need is compromise. We can protect the constitutional rights of the individual and redcue crime rates with simple gun registration laws. Its absurd to me that you can buy and sell guns on facebook. Wtf? Thats the problem. Gun owners should alwyas have to carry a licence, and it should be illegal to sell a gun to anyone without one. This in no way infringes on the constitutional rights, but it may protect illegal gun sales that lead to violence.
Its sad, im from georgia. If your a convicted murderer and you want to buy a gun, all you have to do is go onto facebook. Thats absolutely rediculous. This is the black market problem we have. Law abiding citizens selling guns to criminals. If we know who buys and sells guns we can get to the route of the problem.
BUGShardless SultaiBUG
Modern
URSplinter TwinUR
BWGAbzan MidrangeBWG
Standard
URWJeskai TokensURW
Why are 4X more people being victimized on his streets where law-abiding citizens aren't allowed to carry than on other streets in other places where they are?
Go gun restrictions!!!
It's also a proven fact that you have a better chance of killing yourself in a car than with a gun, but most people agree that the benefits of a car outweigh the risk.
I believe that having the ability to defend yourself outweighs the risk of some bad guy (who, I'm sure, would have just left me alone if I'd been unarmed :rolleyes:) taking my gun away and killing me with it or of me looking down the barrel to see why my gun's jammed.
Also, do you have a source for this "proven fact" - it needs to include the number of times that proper use of a gun has successfully stopped a crime (including when just presenting the weapon was enough to stop an aggressor) compared against the number of times proper use of a gun has accidently lead to the death of the person using it or their loved ones.
Please provide the proof of this fact and I'll be happy to quit making that argument.
—Jaya Ballard, task mage
Can you show any evidence that shows you can stop or mitigate criminals from buying weapons? hint: no you can not...
Will you please stop with this ridiculous straw man? You've used this ignorant argument several times and it's disingenuous. It's about the ability to own a gun....
Will you please stop pretending your opinion is a fact?
In my opinion, you are. You have this paranoia concerning guns. You seem to think guns are responsible for a significant loss of life, which is simply not the case when relative to other causes of death.
That is only a segment of the argument. Defining peoples opinion on a topic off of one aspect is asinine. Until you make a credible argument that guns pose a greater danger to society than the loss of liberty/freedom...you will continue to lose this battle of paranoia. When you look at the facts (i.e. number of deaths) objectively, this issue just does not warrant the degree of liberty encroaching laws you propose, especially when you can not present valid evidence of gun control effectiveness. It's too bad for you this is what most Americans think as well.
Cite please. Guns are inanimate objects...they do not do anything. They do not have motives, feelings or behaviors.
Paranoia? Yeah, people who think inanimate objects have a mind of their own are def the people we'd want to listen too.
Cite please. Another attempt by you to state opinion as fact.
Debunked to you. Your insistence on speaking for everyone is absurd.
LOL.
Appeasing paranoia is not worth the price we pay in liberty.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
You want to try running that by someone who lives in remote parts of Alaska?
While I agree that guns should not be sold illegally, private sales are just that, private.
Though, selling through Facebook? Hmmm, never seen a gun for sale on facebook. GunBroker.com maybe, a gun version of Ebay, but Facebook?
However, where you lose me is on registration and licencing.
Criminals will get guns without a licence, and will sell to unlicenced buyers, how do you stop that?
Forced registration?
How do you suppose you get all the illegal guns off the street, and/or register all the legally obtained guns current law abiding citizens already have, without also violating our 4th Amendment? I mean, you would have to go into peoples houses with basically a blanket warrant and search to make sure they aren't hiding any guns right? You would have to do that to ensure people aren't just privately selling their guns out of their bedrooms. People who haven't comitted crimes, people who otherwise were obeying the law.
Oh yeah, turn what is now law abiding citizens into criminals by passing some government jackboot law that says if we don't comply we go to prison.
Now you say, "Well, if they were law abiding citizens, they would check in their guns in accordance with the new registration laws. Thus, remaining law abiding citizens..."
Except that many of us believe that law to not only be unconstituional, but also dangerously dictatorial, and in the hands of a government we don't fully trust to be honest and benevolent, it's like giving the keys to your house to an ex-con.
Then someone comes along and says "We wont search the houses, we'll just send you to prison and confiscate your weapons if you are found with unregistered guns." Yeah, that's called TYRANNY, there is no ther word for it.
Some of you claim that our "irrational fears" (more like historically supported suspicions) of a tyrannical government shouldn't be reason enough to keep guns - yet then you want to have our government become exactly what we suspect to take our guns from us.
Don't you see the irony in this.
"These crazy gun nuts afraid of a tyrannical government, lol what a silly belief - We should have the government just take their guns away"
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein