Why is gun control an issue for socially liberal people ?

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: NeoV
ZV - good reply to my initial post - I was referring to the general atmosphere at gun shows - my point about gun stores wasn't that the checks aren't working, but that people without criminal backgrounds can buy large quantities of guns and re-sell them - I'm not saying criminals are buying guns at gun stores.

I do have to take issue with quoting numbers from the Kleck study - it's one of the biggest lies perpetrated in the pro-gun discussion, it's so flawed and inaccurate I can't even stand the mention of the name. I practically wrote a book about this study on these forums not that long ago, I'll see if I can find that post to save myself some typing.

While I don't like Kleck either, it's no worse than people citing Kellerman or other horseshit.

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: newmachineoverlord

Originally posted by: RocksteadyDotNet
Personally I think it's too late to change the gun laws in the states. There are just too many guns out there, so if make them illegal the only people who will have guns are the criminals.

But this isn't true everywhere.

In Australia guns are pretty much illegal, but the criminals don't have guns.

Sure, there area few crims with guns, but gun crimes are extreemly rare.

Gun ownership was never big here, except on farms, so there were never many handguns. So now that they are illegal it's very hard to get hold of a handgun.

It's too hard to smuggle them into the country. (Surrounded by water. yay)

Plus, if you're going to bother smuggling shit you're better of bringing in drugs. Less risk and bigger profit.

Just a thinking point for all you "If you outlaw them only the criminals would have them" people.

EDIT - I've never seen a real gun, except attached to a cop, let aloan held one. Probably seems strange to yanks.

Good post.

The problem with gun ownership is that irresponsible gun owners are not held accountable if they let their guns get stolen and used by someone else in a crime. Everyone who owns a gun contributes to the availability of guns for use in crime and therefore they should at least be required to buy liability insurance for all their guns. They are infringing on everybody else's right to not get shot. Gun owners are extremely hypocritical about not admitting that they are part of the problem.

That said, gun control hasn't been an issue since 1994. The election results showed that the U.S. is a nation of violence and gun nuts and always will be. Nobody is ever going to try to pass gun control legislation again, there are far more important issues in the economy. Gun control is no longer part of the agenda for democrats because even though guns cause problems, the country has much bigger problems that need to be dealt with.

You were doing OK until the second, bolded paragraph. Gun control continues to be an important issue in the USA. Obama at least mentioned it in his address at the DNC, saying that guns in the hands of hunters is one thing but AK47's in the hands of criminals in the streets is another and shouldn't be tolerated.

"Always will be...?" Nonesense. "There is absolutely no inevitability as long as there is a willingness to consider what's happening." - The Medium is the Message, Marshall McCluhan

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: Robor


FWIW, I'm considered a 'liberal' and I own 2 guns.

I'm not too concerned about what signs may be hanging about your neck. Concerning your 2 guns, be aware that statistics prove that they are 20 times more likely to do harm to the residents of your home than an intruder.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Muse

Originally posted by: newmachineoverlord

Originally posted by: RocksteadyDotNet
Personally I think it's too late to change the gun laws in the states. There are just too many guns out there, so if make them illegal the only people who will have guns are the criminals.

But this isn't true everywhere.

In Australia guns are pretty much illegal, but the criminals don't have guns.

Sure, there area few crims with guns, but gun crimes are extreemly rare.

Gun ownership was never big here, except on farms, so there were never many handguns. So now that they are illegal it's very hard to get hold of a handgun.

It's too hard to smuggle them into the country. (Surrounded by water. yay)

Plus, if you're going to bother smuggling shit you're better of bringing in drugs. Less risk and bigger profit.

Just a thinking point for all you "If you outlaw them only the criminals would have them" people.

EDIT - I've never seen a real gun, except attached to a cop, let aloan held one. Probably seems strange to yanks.

Good post.

The problem with gun ownership is that irresponsible gun owners are not held accountable if they let their guns get stolen and used by someone else in a crime. Everyone who owns a gun contributes to the availability of guns for use in crime and therefore they should at least be required to buy liability insurance for all their guns. They are infringing on everybody else's right to not get shot. Gun owners are extremely hypocritical about not admitting that they are part of the problem.

That said, gun control hasn't been an issue since 1994. The election results showed that the U.S. is a nation of violence and gun nuts and always will be. Nobody is ever going to try to pass gun control legislation again, there are far more important issues in the economy. Gun control is no longer part of the agenda for democrats because even though guns cause problems, the country has much bigger problems that need to be dealt with.

You were doing OK until the second, bolded paragraph. Gun control continues to be an important issue in the USA. Obama at least mentioned it in his address at the DNC, saying that guns in the hands of hunters is one thing but AK47's in the hands of criminals in the streets is another and shouldn't be tolerated.

"Always will be...?" Nonesense. "There is absolutely no inevitability as long as there is a willingness to consider what's happening." - The Medium is the Message, Marshall McCluhan

Oh really? That's an issue is it? Could you please tell me then, out of the millions of crimes in America every year, how many are committed with an AK47...or in fact any true 'assault rifle'?

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Muse

Originally posted by: Robor


FWIW, I'm considered a 'liberal' and I own 2 guns.

I'm not too concerned about what signs may be hanging about your neck. Concerning your 2 guns, be aware that statistics prove that they are 20 times more likely to do harm to the residents of your home than an intruder.

Be aware that Kellerman (who spawned that statistic, even though you cited it wrong) has been completely debunked and that it is a total, complete, 100% falsehood.

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Muse

Originally posted by: newmachineoverlord

Originally posted by: RocksteadyDotNet
Personally I think it's too late to change the gun laws in the states. There are just too many guns out there, so if make them illegal the only people who will have guns are the criminals.

But this isn't true everywhere.

In Australia guns are pretty much illegal, but the criminals don't have guns.

Sure, there area few crims with guns, but gun crimes are extreemly rare.

Gun ownership was never big here, except on farms, so there were never many handguns. So now that they are illegal it's very hard to get hold of a handgun.

It's too hard to smuggle them into the country. (Surrounded by water. yay)

Plus, if you're going to bother smuggling shit you're better of bringing in drugs. Less risk and bigger profit.

Just a thinking point for all you "If you outlaw them only the criminals would have them" people.

EDIT - I've never seen a real gun, except attached to a cop, let aloan held one. Probably seems strange to yanks.

Good post.

The problem with gun ownership is that irresponsible gun owners are not held accountable if they let their guns get stolen and used by someone else in a crime. Everyone who owns a gun contributes to the availability of guns for use in crime and therefore they should at least be required to buy liability insurance for all their guns. They are infringing on everybody else's right to not get shot. Gun owners are extremely hypocritical about not admitting that they are part of the problem.

That said, gun control hasn't been an issue since 1994. The election results showed that the U.S. is a nation of violence and gun nuts and always will be. Nobody is ever going to try to pass gun control legislation again, there are far more important issues in the economy. Gun control is no longer part of the agenda for democrats because even though guns cause problems, the country has much bigger problems that need to be dealt with.

You were doing OK until the second, bolded paragraph. Gun control continues to be an important issue in the USA. Obama at least mentioned it in his address at the DNC, saying that guns in the hands of hunters is one thing but AK47's in the hands of criminals in the streets is another and shouldn't be tolerated.

"Always will be...?" Nonesense. "There is absolutely no inevitability as long as there is a willingness to consider what's happening." - The Medium is the Message, Marshall McCluhan

Oh really? That's an issue is it? Could you please tell me then, out of the millions of crimes in America every year, how many are committed with an AK47...or in fact any true 'assault rifle'?

I can't tell you that but my paraphrasing of Obama's statement is reasonably accurate, I just spoke the truth. Frankly, I don't care what the proportion is. I'm for getting all these guns out of the hands of the citizenry, the lawful the lawless, everybody. I'm talking about assault rifles, Saturday Night Specials, Glocks, 22's, all of them. Hunting might be OK, but tightly controlled and monitored. Squawk and protest all you want, that's what I favor. It would take a while, maybe a generation, but after a while gun violence would be extremely diminished in the USA.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Muse

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Muse

Originally posted by: newmachineoverlord

Originally posted by: RocksteadyDotNet
Personally I think it's too late to change the gun laws in the states. There are just too many guns out there, so if make them illegal the only people who will have guns are the criminals.

But this isn't true everywhere.

In Australia guns are pretty much illegal, but the criminals don't have guns.

Sure, there area few crims with guns, but gun crimes are extreemly rare.

Gun ownership was never big here, except on farms, so there were never many handguns. So now that they are illegal it's very hard to get hold of a handgun.

It's too hard to smuggle them into the country. (Surrounded by water. yay)

Plus, if you're going to bother smuggling shit you're better of bringing in drugs. Less risk and bigger profit.

Just a thinking point for all you "If you outlaw them only the criminals would have them" people.

EDIT - I've never seen a real gun, except attached to a cop, let aloan held one. Probably seems strange to yanks.

Good post.

The problem with gun ownership is that irresponsible gun owners are not held accountable if they let their guns get stolen and used by someone else in a crime. Everyone who owns a gun contributes to the availability of guns for use in crime and therefore they should at least be required to buy liability insurance for all their guns. They are infringing on everybody else's right to not get shot. Gun owners are extremely hypocritical about not admitting that they are part of the problem.

That said, gun control hasn't been an issue since 1994. The election results showed that the U.S. is a nation of violence and gun nuts and always will be. Nobody is ever going to try to pass gun control legislation again, there are far more important issues in the economy. Gun control is no longer part of the agenda for democrats because even though guns cause problems, the country has much bigger problems that need to be dealt with.

You were doing OK until the second, bolded paragraph. Gun control continues to be an important issue in the USA. Obama at least mentioned it in his address at the DNC, saying that guns in the hands of hunters is one thing but AK47's in the hands of criminals in the streets is another and shouldn't be tolerated.

"Always will be...?" Nonesense. "There is absolutely no inevitability as long as there is a willingness to consider what's happening." - The Medium is the Message, Marshall McCluhan

Oh really? That's an issue is it? Could you please tell me then, out of the millions of crimes in America every year, how many are committed with an AK47...or in fact any true 'assault rifle'?

I can't tell you that but my paraphrasing of Obama's statement is reasonably accurate, I just spoke the truth. Frankly, I don't care what the proportion is. I'm for getting all these guns out of the hands of the citizenry, the lawful the lawless, everybody. I'm talking about assault rifles, Saturday Night Specials, Glocks, 22's, all of them. Hunting might be OK, but tightly controlled and monitored. Squawk and protest all you want, that's what I favor. It would take a while, maybe a generation, but after a while gun violence would be extremely diminished in the USA.

Well then pony up and come try to take mine, find out what awaits for anyone (government included) that tries to actually remove all firearms. You want something that bad you'd better be willing to kill or die over it, because we are. Come try it, I dare you.

All credible research shows there's no support for your position. All credible research. You, and everyone like you, is unable to make any kind of supported argument. You cover your ears, and close your eyes, and stomp you little ignorant feet and cry out "I want what I want"...well bully for you, it's good to want things. Now go play while big people run the country correctly.

 

[Mani]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Mani
Obama has a pretty (non-politically) liberal stance on gun control for example.

Supporting a full ban on all handguns is liberal?

When Obama was running for the Illinois state Senate, a Chicago nonprofit, Independent Voters of Illinois, passed around a questionnaire, which Obama answered thusly :

35. Do you support state legislation to:
a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.
b. ban assault weapons? Yes.
c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes.

ZV

1. That questionnaire was filled out by a staffer, not Obama himself, and he refuted that that was his position even at the time.
2. Most of his senate positions both at a local and state level only supported inner city handgun bans, nothing national or even statewide, where he's made it clear he has been in favor of 2nd amendment rights
3. Most gun control measures he has supported have been moderate - limiting purchases to once a month for example, or against assault weapons.

He'll never please the far-right of the NRA, but he's been relatively liberal on gun control when you compare against fellow dems over the past 20 years.

 

[daishi5]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: DarrelSPowers
Guns don't kill people, people kill people, and that's the problem. stupid people.

Then let's let people have tanks, and when some use them to go on the freeway and drive over 100 cars, say 'tanks don't kill people, people kill people, the law is just fine'.

People can buy old tanks, the canon is usually inoperative. The limitation is cost. If it's just about running cars over, you can do that with regular construction equipment. Once again you fail to see the root cause. PEOPLE!!!

What did I miss? I said, 'tanks don't kill people, people kill people'. That's just what you said.

So, you are fine with people owning tanks. I only referenced using them to drive over 100 cars on the freeway, but now that you mention it, why disable the tank cannon?

The tank cannon doesn't kill anyone, it's the person. When someone uses their tank to blast city hall, you can say, 'tanks don't blow up city hall, people blow up city hall'.

The law letting people have tanks to do those things - those who can afford the tanks, or to rent them - is fine. Right?

And land mines. People should be able to buy land mines, right? If they plant them around the city, well, the mines didn't kill people, the people who planted them did.

You missed few very critical words. Those words are: usually, and can. Those two words mean this, yes people can and do own tanks. People with the proper licensing can own tanks with functional cannons. I do not know the laws off the top of my head, but if he is correct what he is saying is that a small number of people who can afford them do own tanks with cannons, but they do not kill people.

Let me stress this, I am not sure he is right. However, if he is right, then we do allow people to own tanks, and I am pretty sure there have been no murders with civilian owned tanks. Therefore if what he says is true, and I didn't miss all the tank murder stories, we do allow people to own tanks and they have been responsible with them.

 

[daishi5]

Originally posted by: Muse

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Muse

Originally posted by: newmachineoverlord

Originally posted by: RocksteadyDotNet
Personally I think it's too late to change the gun laws in the states. There are just too many guns out there, so if make them illegal the only people who will have guns are the criminals.

But this isn't true everywhere.

In Australia guns are pretty much illegal, but the criminals don't have guns.

Sure, there area few crims with guns, but gun crimes are extreemly rare.

Gun ownership was never big here, except on farms, so there were never many handguns. So now that they are illegal it's very hard to get hold of a handgun.

It's too hard to smuggle them into the country. (Surrounded by water. yay)

Plus, if you're going to bother smuggling shit you're better of bringing in drugs. Less risk and bigger profit.

Just a thinking point for all you "If you outlaw them only the criminals would have them" people.

EDIT - I've never seen a real gun, except attached to a cop, let aloan held one. Probably seems strange to yanks.

Good post.

The problem with gun ownership is that irresponsible gun owners are not held accountable if they let their guns get stolen and used by someone else in a crime. Everyone who owns a gun contributes to the availability of guns for use in crime and therefore they should at least be required to buy liability insurance for all their guns. They are infringing on everybody else's right to not get shot. Gun owners are extremely hypocritical about not admitting that they are part of the problem.

That said, gun control hasn't been an issue since 1994. The election results showed that the U.S. is a nation of violence and gun nuts and always will be. Nobody is ever going to try to pass gun control legislation again, there are far more important issues in the economy. Gun control is no longer part of the agenda for democrats because even though guns cause problems, the country has much bigger problems that need to be dealt with.

You were doing OK until the second, bolded paragraph. Gun control continues to be an important issue in the USA. Obama at least mentioned it in his address at the DNC, saying that guns in the hands of hunters is one thing but AK47's in the hands of criminals in the streets is another and shouldn't be tolerated.

"Always will be...?" Nonesense. "There is absolutely no inevitability as long as there is a willingness to consider what's happening." - The Medium is the Message, Marshall McCluhan

Oh really? That's an issue is it? Could you please tell me then, out of the millions of crimes in America every year, how many are committed with an AK47...or in fact any true 'assault rifle'?

I can't tell you that but my paraphrasing of Obama's statement is reasonably accurate, I just spoke the truth. Frankly, I don't care what the proportion is. I'm for getting all these guns out of the hands of the citizenry, the lawful the lawless, everybody. I'm talking about assault rifles, Saturday Night Specials, Glocks, 22's, all of them. Hunting might be OK, but tightly controlled and monitored. Squawk and protest all you want, that's what I favor. It would take a while, maybe a generation, but after a while gun violence would be extremely diminished in the USA.

I have a question for you. Purely hypothetical, but just consider it anyways. If we could eliminate every gun in american and completely wipe out gun crime, but with no reduction in murders, 190,000 extra sexual assaults, and 300,000 extra robberies every year, would that be a better nation in your eyes?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

To me, this issue seems retarded as either side always goes beyond the proverbial limb.

MOST of the illegal guns were purchased legally at some point, i can buy one, file off the serial number and whoopdefuckingdoo it's an illegal gun and illegal guns are never legal so there you have it.

OTOH, i can appreciate the need for someone living in a shithole, surrounded by murderers, like in Kabul or some other place like that, feeling the need to carry a gun.

If i wasn't ordered to be at such a place, i'd fucking just pack up and leave though, but that is just me.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: daishi5

Originally posted by: Muse

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Muse

Originally posted by: newmachineoverlord

Originally posted by: RocksteadyDotNet
Personally I think it's too late to change the gun laws in the states. There are just too many guns out there, so if make them illegal the only people who will have guns are the criminals.

But this isn't true everywhere.

In Australia guns are pretty much illegal, but the criminals don't have guns.

Sure, there area few crims with guns, but gun crimes are extreemly rare.

Gun ownership was never big here, except on farms, so there were never many handguns. So now that they are illegal it's very hard to get hold of a handgun.

It's too hard to smuggle them into the country. (Surrounded by water. yay)

Plus, if you're going to bother smuggling shit you're better of bringing in drugs. Less risk and bigger profit.

Just a thinking point for all you "If you outlaw them only the criminals would have them" people.

EDIT - I've never seen a real gun, except attached to a cop, let aloan held one. Probably seems strange to yanks.

Good post.

The problem with gun ownership is that irresponsible gun owners are not held accountable if they let their guns get stolen and used by someone else in a crime. Everyone who owns a gun contributes to the availability of guns for use in crime and therefore they should at least be required to buy liability insurance for all their guns. They are infringing on everybody else's right to not get shot. Gun owners are extremely hypocritical about not admitting that they are part of the problem.

That said, gun control hasn't been an issue since 1994. The election results showed that the U.S. is a nation of violence and gun nuts and always will be. Nobody is ever going to try to pass gun control legislation again, there are far more important issues in the economy. Gun control is no longer part of the agenda for democrats because even though guns cause problems, the country has much bigger problems that need to be dealt with.

You were doing OK until the second, bolded paragraph. Gun control continues to be an important issue in the USA. Obama at least mentioned it in his address at the DNC, saying that guns in the hands of hunters is one thing but AK47's in the hands of criminals in the streets is another and shouldn't be tolerated.

"Always will be...?" Nonesense. "There is absolutely no inevitability as long as there is a willingness to consider what's happening." - The Medium is the Message, Marshall McCluhan

Oh really? That's an issue is it? Could you please tell me then, out of the millions of crimes in America every year, how many are committed with an AK47...or in fact any true 'assault rifle'?

I can't tell you that but my paraphrasing of Obama's statement is reasonably accurate, I just spoke the truth. Frankly, I don't care what the proportion is. I'm for getting all these guns out of the hands of the citizenry, the lawful the lawless, everybody. I'm talking about assault rifles, Saturday Night Specials, Glocks, 22's, all of them. Hunting might be OK, but tightly controlled and monitored. Squawk and protest all you want, that's what I favor. It would take a while, maybe a generation, but after a while gun violence would be extremely diminished in the USA.

I have a question for you. Purely hypothetical, but just consider it anyways. If we could eliminate every gun in american and completely wipe out gun crime, but with no reduction in murders, 190,000 extra sexual assaults, and 300,000 extra robberies every year, would that be a better nation in your eyes?

Well, the important stats is crimes where a gun is involved and you are shining no1 in the world when it comes to that.

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

Originally posted by: Muse

Originally posted by: newmachineoverlord

Originally posted by: RocksteadyDotNet
Personally I think it's too late to change the gun laws in the states. There are just too many guns out there, so if make them illegal the only people who will have guns are the criminals.

But this isn't true everywhere.

In Australia guns are pretty much illegal, but the criminals don't have guns.

Sure, there area few crims with guns, but gun crimes are extreemly rare.

Gun ownership was never big here, except on farms, so there were never many handguns. So now that they are illegal it's very hard to get hold of a handgun.

It's too hard to smuggle them into the country. (Surrounded by water. yay)

Plus, if you're going to bother smuggling shit you're better of bringing in drugs. Less risk and bigger profit.

Just a thinking point for all you "If you outlaw them only the criminals would have them" people.

EDIT - I've never seen a real gun, except attached to a cop, let aloan held one. Probably seems strange to yanks.

Good post.

The problem with gun ownership is that irresponsible gun owners are not held accountable if they let their guns get stolen and used by someone else in a crime. Everyone who owns a gun contributes to the availability of guns for use in crime and therefore they should at least be required to buy liability insurance for all their guns. They are infringing on everybody else's right to not get shot. Gun owners are extremely hypocritical about not admitting that they are part of the problem.

That said, gun control hasn't been an issue since 1994. The election results showed that the U.S. is a nation of violence and gun nuts and always will be. Nobody is ever going to try to pass gun control legislation again, there are far more important issues in the economy. Gun control is no longer part of the agenda for democrats because even though guns cause problems, the country has much bigger problems that need to be dealt with.

You were doing OK until the second, bolded paragraph. Gun control continues to be an important issue in the USA. Obama at least mentioned it in his address at the DNC, saying that guns in the hands of hunters is one thing but AK47's in the hands of criminals in the streets is another and shouldn't be tolerated.

"Always will be...?" Nonesense. "There is absolutely no inevitability as long as there is a willingness to consider what's happening." - The Medium is the Message, Marshall McCluhan

What??

Democrats lost 52 seats after the 1994 ban. All 52 directly related to the ban? Perhaps not, but it certainly didn't help. There has been no real likely legislation that has seen any real movement since.

So perhaps gun control is an issue in the US, but not on the restriction side.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Well, at the time, you know when the constitution was written, handguns was state of the art weapons...

If their intent were to be carried out, fighter jets with full missile equipment would not be a problem for any one citizen to own, nor would tanks and ammo for them, in reality, that is what it would take, "a well armed militia" of today would need a helluvalot more than some wimpy M16's even if they WERE fully automatic.

Since i've had this argument before and i know how it goes i'll speed it along a tad "but the military would side with the people" - great, then why would you need guns in the first place "that is just stupid" why is that stupid "it just is" but can't you explain what is stupid about it - if the people need guns to protect their freedom while the military could beat them into submission in half an hour because they don't have the weapons needed to challenge them OR the military would side with them and then they wouldn't even need a gun against the government... "that is just stupid".

In reality, the fourth amendment is of little value in todays world and mostly used by people who cling to their guns that they use as a hobby and to fire while pretending they are someone that they'll never be.

Personally, i would be glad if i didn't have to fire my gun again.

 

[monovillage]

Sorry John, Here's the Fourth Amendment. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
I think you meant the 2nd Amendment "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Well, at the time, you know when the constitution was written, handguns was state of the art weapons...

If their intent were to be carried out, fighter jets with full missile equipment would not be a problem for any one citizen to own, nor would tanks and ammo for them, in reality, that is what it would take, "a well armed militia" of today would need a helluvalot more than some wimpy M16's even if they WERE fully automatic.

Since i've had this argument before and i know how it goes i'll speed it along a tad "but the military would side with the people" - great, then why would you need guns in the first place "that is just stupid" why is that stupid "it just is" but can't you explain what is stupid about it - if the people need guns to protect their freedom while the military could beat them into submission in half an hour because they don't have the weapons needed to challenge them OR the military would side with them and then they wouldn't even need a gun against the government... "that is just stupid".

In reality, the fourth amendment is of little value in todays world and mostly used by people who cling to their guns that they use as a hobby and to fire while pretending they are someone that they'll never be.

Personally, i would be glad if i didn't have to fire my gun again.

This. This and more this. most people who want guns live in some backwards town or city and think some race war is about to break out or a black man is going to break in and steal their tv. The republicans cling to this wedge issue to get these people to vote against their interests. It's tragic.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: daishi5
...yes people can and do own tanks. People with the proper licensing can own tanks with functional cannons. I do not know the laws off the top of my head, but if he is correct what he is saying is that a small number of people who can afford them do own tanks with cannons, but they do not kill people.

Let me stress this, I am not sure he is right. However, if he is right, then we do allow people to own tanks, and I am pretty sure there have been no murders with civilian owned tanks. Therefore if what he says is true, and I didn't miss all the tank murder stories, we do allow people to own tanks and they have been responsible with them.

You should check your info on average citizens buying tanks and being able to use them.

But for an idea how well that would go, go watch one of the videos when an army veteran stole a national guard tank in San Diego and drove over dozens of cars, and was shot.

You didn't answer about buying land mines (and they are not expensive).

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: monovillage
Sorry John, Here's the Fourth Amendment. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
I think you meant the 2nd Amendment "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

You're absolutely correct (of course), and my only excuse is that i am not American, i'm British.

My point still stands though.

 

[tamaron]

Well... we have a proverb: "killed the dog ended rabies"... This is too simplistic to take literal, but my point is: Really you want a weapon? to protect you from what exactly? How many of you have been in a trouble big enough to justify to shoot at someone? Are you ready to kill or to hurt?
Not me. Although I see your point, no more control in what you do (without invading other's freedom) or what you have. But I think to have a weapon is another level.
And I think in USA there is a problem with violence

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Mani
3. Most gun control measures he has supported have been moderate - limiting purchases to once a month for example, or against assault weapons.

He'll never please the far-right of the NRA, but he's been relatively liberal on gun control when you compare against fellow dems over the past 20 years.

1 gun a month policies unfairly punish collectors and do not have a significant impact on overall availability of illegal guns.

An "assault weapon" is no more dangerous than the average bolt-action deer rifle, in fact, the average deer rifle is a good bit more powerful. Additionally, the term "assault weapon" does not even have a solid definition. It was chosen for its similarity to the term "assault rifle", which refers to select-fire (full-auto) rifles and carbines used by the military. Since full-auto weapons are already heavily regulated (and account for less than 1% of gun crime), a ban on "assault weapons" will have no measurable impact on crime (which is, in fact, exactly what happened with the previous assault weapons ban; no net effect on crime).

ZV

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Well, at the time, you know when the constitution was written, handguns was state of the art weapons...

If their intent were to be carried out, fighter jets with full missile equipment would not be a problem for any one citizen to own, nor would tanks and ammo for them, in reality, that is what it would take, "a well armed militia" of today would need a helluvalot more than some wimpy M16's even if they WERE fully automatic.

Since i've had this argument before and i know how it goes i'll speed it along a tad "but the military would side with the people" - great, then why would you need guns in the first place "that is just stupid" why is that stupid "it just is" but can't you explain what is stupid about it - if the people need guns to protect their freedom while the military could beat them into submission in half an hour because they don't have the weapons needed to challenge them OR the military would side with them and then they wouldn't even need a gun against the government... "that is just stupid".

In reality, the fourth amendment is of little value in todays world and mostly used by people who cling to their guns that they use as a hobby and to fire while pretending they are someone that they'll never be.

Personally, i would be glad if i didn't have to fire my gun again.

Understandable that you would not wish to have to fire your gun again. However, those of us who are not active military may, perhaps, enjoy target shooting at the range and hunting. Both are legitimate uses that cause no harm to other people.

To use another strongly analogous situation, think about the "Betamax Case". The core ruling in the case was that, so long as the devices (in this case video tape recorders) had legitimate, legal uses, there was no basis for restricting the sale and availability of those devices.

Why should I desire to live in a society that treats me as though I am an idiot child by denying me the ability to own firearms? Why must millions upon millions of responsible people be punished because a few thousand people are irresponsible?

It's not about the guns themselves, and it's not about how I might use them. It is true that I think my own safety is increased by having a firearm, but that's an ancillary issue at most. What it comes down to in the end is that I would prefer to have freedom than safety, and I will push towards that end.

ZV

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

It's not about the guns themselves, and it's not about how I might use them. It is true that I think my own safety is increased by having a firearm, but that's an ancillary issue at most. What it comes down to in the end is that I would prefer to have freedom than safety, and I will push towards that end.

ZV

I think it's a balance and the issue is where to draw the line between freedom and danger.

On one extreme, imaging that a weaon were invented which was powerful enough to blow up the planet, and affordable.

If such a weapon were available to everyone, it's likely someone would use it to blow up the world, and so the danger clearly exceeds the benefit of freedom in that case.

On the other extreme, you could say you want to ban any lethal weapon. No more knives, shovels, rocks, any heavy objects, etc. Clearly freedom outweighs danger in that case.

So you have a debate about the middle - single-shot rifles being pretty uncontroversially accepted for self defense, handguns controversial in cities for their concealability, etc.

We've pretty clealy abandonded the notion of the citizenry having the best military weaponry available, even if they could afford it which they can't, to counter the military.

What we have is a somewhat amorphous situation where there is some'right' to some weapons, and some right of the government to regulate, based on a vague amendment.

And that rests solidly on a 5-4 Supreme Court ruling that vaguely says the government has some right, but not excessive right, to regulate the access to weapons.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Craig234
I think it's a balance and the issue is where to draw the line between freedom and danger.

On one extreme, imaging that a weapon were invented which was powerful enough to blow up the planet, and affordable.

If such a weapon were available to everyone, it's likely someone would use it to blow up the world, and so the danger clearly exceeds the benefit of freedom in that case.

If the weapon had other potential legitimate uses and would only blow up the world if used improperly, I would have to disagree. If it was simply a pushbutton that said "blow up world now" and had no other uses, then I could agree with you.

Originally posted by: Craig234
On the other extreme, you could say you want to ban any lethal weapon. No more knives, shovels, rocks, any heavy objects, etc. Clearly freedom outweighs danger in that case.

So you have a debate about the middle - single-shot rifles being pretty uncontroversially accepted for self defense, handguns controversial in cities for their concealability, etc.

Yes, this is where the debate is currently taking place in this country.

Originally posted by: Craig234
We've pretty clearly abandoned the notion of the citizenry having the best military weaponry available, even if they could afford it which they can't, to counter the military.

Yet again, popular opinion is not a base for an argument. Whether this has been abandoned as a popular view (and I agree that it has) or not has absolutely no bearing on the legitimacy of the view (which I will hold as undetermined for the sake of the present topic).

Originally posted by: Craig234
What we have is a somewhat amorphous situation where there is some 'right' to some weapons, and some right of the government to regulate, based on a vague amendment.

And that rests solidly on a 5-4 Supreme Court ruling that vaguely says the government has some right, but not excessive right, to regulate the access to weapons.

I agree with the summary of where we are. Where we want to go, however, is where I believe our paths diverge.

ZV

 

[Mani]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Mani
3. Most gun control measures he has supported have been moderate - limiting purchases to once a month for example, or against assault weapons.

He'll never please the far-right of the NRA, but he's been relatively liberal on gun control when you compare against fellow dems over the past 20 years.

1 gun a month policies unfairly punish collectors and do not have a significant impact on overall availability of illegal guns.

An "assault weapon" is no more dangerous than the average bolt-action deer rifle, in fact, the average deer rifle is a good bit more powerful. Additionally, the term "assault weapon" does not even have a solid definition. It was chosen for its similarity to the term "assault rifle", which refers to select-fire (full-auto) rifles and carbines used by the military. Since full-auto weapons are already heavily regulated (and account for less than 1% of gun crime), a ban on "assault weapons" will have no measurable impact on crime (which is, in fact, exactly what happened with the previous assault weapons ban; no net effect on crime).

ZV

Now we are debating the letter of the law of gun control measures. My point was that Obama was relatively pro-2nd amendment compared to the standard dem positions on gun control, which he is. Even most republicans would consider his stance on gun control to be moderate.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Craig234
What we have are liberals who like gun control for the same reason they like seat belts and drunk driving laws, because they are opposed to tragedies.

Why not ban junk food then? Obesity kills more people than guns do. Affects on others? Og hell yeah. Kids lose parents, and SOMEONE has to pay the bills. Why not go after the big stuff?

Originally posted by: Craig234
They see the easy availability of guns make it easy for criminals, drug addicts who need to rob for fix money, gang bangers, young people, to get handguns - and use them.

I would be willing to bet most crimes commited for drugs do not involve guns.

Originally posted by: Craig234
It's perfectly consistent with their ideology; the 'fringe' who argue the 'freedom' angle for not wearing seat belts is right-wing, not left-wing.

Why is that when liberals are a lot about personal freedom? Because there's a rational view that weighs the pros and cons and say some 'freedoms' are more harm than good.

I would agree with that.

Originally posted by: Craig234
I think part of the issue is the huge difference between the environments of typical liberals - big cities - and the environment of a lot of Republicans - small towns and rural.

Guns mean very different things between the two, and many people in one environment have little concern about the other.

Agree for the most part also.

Originally posted by: Craig234
This is not addressing the gun supporters' argument about how everyone carrying a gun makes things safer, that's a separate topic.

You end up with a rural citizen who is deep in safe gun culture boggling at gun control, while the city dweller sees another drive-by kill people for no good reason.

OK.

The fact is, more people who live unhealthy lifestyles cause harm not only to themselves, but those around them in one way or another, not to mention the strain on our already stressed medical and insurance world. MOST gun owners do NOT shoot people.