Should the United States have better gun control ???
- Thread starter Denali n DOO
- Start date
Short Bus
Member
- Dec 2, 2011
- 1,906
dcmtnbkr said:This is why I'm libertarian.
I think the Presidential election should be ran tournament style, pair the candidates up for debates then vote the next week. The winners do it again until you have the winner as President and 2nd place as VP. That'll also stop this crap of all the presidents it memory picking the dumbest S.O.B. they can get away with for VP as a way to avoid being assassinated.
Hatchet
Member
- Nov 21, 2011
- 2,405
Short Bus said:
I think Lewis Black has a good idea on how to pick the president...
Warning Adult Language
[video=youtube_share;OuD1zKtyHak]http://youtu.be/OuD1zKtyHak[/video]
Short Bus
Member
- Dec 2, 2011
- 1,906
Sparky
Member
- Dec 4, 2011
- 12,927
He's not the first. Some states have already passed such measures which I think is awesome. How much it would do I don't know, but it is also a reminder to the fed that there are also states' rights along with the 2nd amendment that they might be trying to trample on.
BoldAdventure
Member
- Jun 28, 2012
- 1,634
Gun control is important. Otherwise your bullets would be going everywhere. You need them down range and on target.
Robbabob
Member
- Dec 10, 2012
- 1,096
DucatiSS said:First off as a moderator here, I doubt this thread will be open for very long because this is a passionate subject that gets people going on both sides.
Let the moderation watch begin.
Glad the patrons of this site can agree to disagree in conversation. While I haven't needed to read every post, I concur with the majority I did read while respecting those I didn't agree with.
With the government ordering more ammunition at one time than ever before, and ordering more MRE's at one time than ever before... it's hard to tell what they're bracing for. One nuc close enough to knock out the entire power grid (from N. Korea or Iran)? Once again arming a country in their fight against X other country to then turn against us (like this never happened before and is now happening in Egypt)? Then, there's the elephant in the room...
Personally, I will continue to vote LP until I can no longer vote.
blazinlow89
Member
- Jan 25, 2012
- 2,088
Rob the problem is not the debate itself, its when people stop debating about the subject at hand and start making personal attacks on each other. It can get out of hand fairly quick, and really ugly.
Neither North Korea or Iran are really a threat on a large scale level. I am sure they could coordinate several small attacks but nothing that would devastate the country. North Korea cannot get a rocket test to pass the Sea of Japan, and Iran is just trying to push buttons. However I do not think that any threat should be taken lightly, as anything can be done if given the resources.
Now as far as the government stockpiling, this is a huge concern to a lot of people. For one they have stockpiled a very large collection of hollow point rounds, in various calibers. Considering most of which was in handgun caliber. I am not sure if they are preparing for war, or stockpiling for future events, either way it makes you wonder.
I don't vote based on party, I like to research each candidate and make my vote based on how each one meets with my thoughts. I will also look at past law votes etc to gather a basic idea of their background. I did vote Johnson in 2012.
Has anyone seen the ridiculous ideas being kicked around by different states. Maryland has even had the idea of a 50% tax on guns and ammo. Not to mention I see a different story of schools suspending kids for various reasons. I think now they are trying to desensitize kids to the idea of guns as it would make passing laws a lot easier when the next generation all think alike.
Neither North Korea or Iran are really a threat on a large scale level. I am sure they could coordinate several small attacks but nothing that would devastate the country. North Korea cannot get a rocket test to pass the Sea of Japan, and Iran is just trying to push buttons. However I do not think that any threat should be taken lightly, as anything can be done if given the resources.
Now as far as the government stockpiling, this is a huge concern to a lot of people. For one they have stockpiled a very large collection of hollow point rounds, in various calibers. Considering most of which was in handgun caliber. I am not sure if they are preparing for war, or stockpiling for future events, either way it makes you wonder.
I don't vote based on party, I like to research each candidate and make my vote based on how each one meets with my thoughts. I will also look at past law votes etc to gather a basic idea of their background. I did vote Johnson in 2012.
Has anyone seen the ridiculous ideas being kicked around by different states. Maryland has even had the idea of a 50% tax on guns and ammo. Not to mention I see a different story of schools suspending kids for various reasons. I think now they are trying to desensitize kids to the idea of guns as it would make passing laws a lot easier when the next generation all think alike.
BoldAdventure
Member
- Jun 28, 2012
- 1,634
blazinlow89 said:
But that's one of the favorite tactics people without an argument like to make. That or just using nonsensical double speak, by calling you a denier or claiming that they're ideas are "common sense". What you can't get behind "common sense" you must be lacking in intelligence. Logical fallacies are used almost daily by people who can't make an argument to persuade and con those who can't reason on their own.
blazinlow89 said:
There are more missle defense systems between them and here. They couldn't get their liquid fuel rockets anywhere near us. But politicians and the military and people who make money benefit from hyping this up more than reality. The only real threat is them giving someone a suitcase bomb or putting a missile inside a cargo container.
Intercontinental ballistic missiles from N. Korea are fantasy.
blazinlow89 said:
Left vs Right is an illusion and a trap, designed to keep the ignorant, ignorant in thinking they are free and have a choice, when the choices have already been made for them. I think personally more and more people are waking up to the fact that both sides are playing them. I really can't see the difference between democrats and republicans and the actors in the WWE. They each have their own script of rhetoric and talking points that appeal to their base, but behind closed doors their in cahoots with each other and signing deals for all their buddies and attending all the same parties.
I dunno, education makes a man unfit to be a slave I suppose.
:wootwoot:
rjpoog1989
Member
- Dec 4, 2011
- 116
blazinlow89 said:
I've been trying to stay out of this thread, as I read enough of this stuff on various gun forums I'm on. But ^^this^^ is what really scares the hell out of me.
Hatchet
Member
- Nov 21, 2011
- 2,405
blazinlow89 said:
You can't use hollow points in war. They cause to much damage. So when you look at it like that.... Why again do they have so many if they can never be used in a traditional war? And dont forget about the IED proof vehicles they are purchasing for the streets here in the US.
When looking at each individual event on its own, it can be passed off as flight of imagination. But when you read all the stories together, You really can start to wonder. "Should I be doing more prepping?"
BoldAdventure
Member
- Jun 28, 2012
- 1,634
Hatchet said:
Actually standing armies can't use them in a theater of war in foreign countries.
There is nothing that says police and domestic forces can't use them. And nothing that says you can't shoot your own people with them either.
But..... if we're to believe this is for training, which is a load of bunk if ever, the only other logical conclusion besides planning for something is that it is part of Obama's push for gun control. Already the market is run dry everywhere. By ordering more and more bullets, the DHS is essentially drying out the civilian market.
Forbes, the first mainstream news organization to actively report on the Ammo purchases and the vehicles made some good points about the absurdity of government spending and buying cool toys for the shake of buying cool toys: Welcome to Forbes
Hatchet
Member
- Nov 21, 2011
- 2,405
mikekey said:
I know they can. That's why I said traditional war. Never said they couldn't use it in Marshall law or Civil Warfare (Which if that ain't an oxymoron I don't know what is.).
But along those thought that they are trying to dry up supplies. That doesn't explain the vehicles. Those would sit in a parking lot somewhere collecting dust. No need to buy those to keep them from the civi's.
rjpoog1989
Member
- Dec 4, 2011
- 116
Um... Maybe we should have idiot control 
(warning adult language):
[video=youtube_share;NUY-mNQXtbw]http://youtu.be/NUY-mNQXtbw[/video]
(warning adult language):[video=youtube_share;NUY-mNQXtbw]http://youtu.be/NUY-mNQXtbw[/video]
blazinlow89
Member
- Jan 25, 2012
- 2,088
Hatchet said:
I wasn't referring to traditional war
. That is why it is a big concern. Hollow points for training is BS, hollow points are meant to kill, and they can cost a significant amount more over traditional ammo. The DHS street cruiser is an even more absurd thing. They bought over 2000 of these things, even scarier the requirement that it can be driven on city streets (looking for the link on that). Also did anyone read the story about the targets featuring things like pregnant woman, children, and grandmothers in robes. Someone made a point, that they may be using them as a way to desensitize people about shooting normal citizens. Of course each one is holding a gun.Cops conducting target practice on images of children and pregnant women ? RT USA
Obama DHS Purchases 2,700 Light-Armored Tanks to Go With Their 1.6 Billion Bullet Stockpile | The Gateway Pundit
When I said war I meant civil war.
BoldAdventure
Member
- Jun 28, 2012
- 1,634
blazinlow89 said:
As long as people remain conditioned to think violence doesn't solve anything that probably won't happen until they've completely made every single american broke and starving. And even then, most people will still want to suckle at the tit of government.
Normal citizens don't point guns at other people in public. The fact is, a threat can come in any form. A pregnant woman, grandma in a robe...and, yes, even a child.blazinlow89 said:
If one of these people were pointing a gun at you or a family member, would you hesitate to take action?
Training is training. Law enforcement needs to be prepared to take action against any threat. No matter who it is.
We are on the verge of not being able to hand a gun to a buddy to shoot at the range without committing a felony. I'm completely without words.
Prelude to a revolution: Shumer’s gun transfer ban « Bob Owens
On top of that a guy has started on a shooting spree using a pump shotgun.
Four dead after shootings in Herkimer and Mohawk | NBC-WKTV News Channel 2 - Utica News, Weather, Sports - | Crime Reports
Obviously the toughest gun control laws in the country have done absolutely nothing.
I was also looking at a fairly recent article comparing NY to Chicago. Despite having roughly the same number of police per person the murder rate was very similar. The biggest difference was that there were fewer murders with a gun. It would appear that another method was used when guns were harder to come by.
I keep coming back to the reality that I don't hurt nobody, my guns don't hurt nobody, and I try to follow the law and be courteous to my neighbors and country men. All I want is to be left the fu(k alone. But our politicians seem hell bent on making my life more difficult and completely disarming us. I don't understand why. I'm not ready to strap on a tin foil hat, but I'm really starting to worry.
Prelude to a revolution: Shumer’s gun transfer ban « Bob Owens
On top of that a guy has started on a shooting spree using a pump shotgun.
Four dead after shootings in Herkimer and Mohawk | NBC-WKTV News Channel 2 - Utica News, Weather, Sports - | Crime Reports
Obviously the toughest gun control laws in the country have done absolutely nothing.
I was also looking at a fairly recent article comparing NY to Chicago. Despite having roughly the same number of police per person the murder rate was very similar. The biggest difference was that there were fewer murders with a gun. It would appear that another method was used when guns were harder to come by.
I keep coming back to the reality that I don't hurt nobody, my guns don't hurt nobody, and I try to follow the law and be courteous to my neighbors and country men. All I want is to be left the fu(k alone. But our politicians seem hell bent on making my life more difficult and completely disarming us. I don't understand why. I'm not ready to strap on a tin foil hat, but I'm really starting to worry.
meerschm
Member
- Aug 26, 2012
- 1,079
since this is such an intellectual thread, full of thoughtful discussion, thought i would offer this:
NRA money helped reshape gun law - The Washington Post
the point I get from this is that the broad idea that the second amendment protects an individual's right to firearms is the result of a focused marketing campaign. It was not the common interpretation forty years ago.
NRA money helped reshape gun law - The Washington Post
the point I get from this is that the broad idea that the second amendment protects an individual's right to firearms is the result of a focused marketing campaign. It was not the common interpretation forty years ago.
meerschm said:
What I took from that article is that the ability of a citizen to own any gun was never questioned throughout most of our history despite the common view that the 2nd amendment applied to the states. Then when the right of the individual to own arms was questioned the NRA started funding research and lawyers to defend that right. Research showed that the second amendment, when viewed in the context of the events and definitions of the time it was written, clarified it to mean the individual has the right, not just the states.
The idea that the interpretation was different 40 or 50 years ago doesn't really matter. Our history is full of instances where we believed one way and then 50 or 100 or 150 years pass and we view it the opposite.
Its still ironic to me that our legislators are currently going after the guns that are used the least frequently in crime.
BoldAdventure
Member
- Jun 28, 2012
- 1,634
meerschm said:
Says the guy using logical fallacies. Please, do enlighten us so we can all understand the truth interpretation of shall not be infringed.
meerschm
Member
- Aug 26, 2012
- 1,079
it used to be thoughtful to read an entire paragraph to gain the full meaning.
I know we now seem to all have a short attention span.
What I find interesting is that it used to be folks said they wanted guns for hunting.
now most folks say they want a gun for protection.
I know we now seem to all have a short attention span.
What I find interesting is that it used to be folks said they wanted guns for hunting.
now most folks say they want a gun for protection.
meerschm
Member
- Aug 26, 2012
- 1,079
Short Bus said:
Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
has a very interesting discussion of these issues, the supreme court made a narrow decision for your position, there is dissent for the position that this is not for personal protection, but for collective protection, as part of an organized militia.
Short Bus
Member
- Dec 2, 2011
- 1,906
meerschm said:
Amendment II
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.
The comas are very important, they separate the ideas and clearly show a right of the people.
With the decline of civilization the need for firearms has shifted from hunting to more for protection. 2A doesn't say anything about hunting or personal protection, instead it says "security of a free state". This is the right to defend against enemies who would threaten that freedom foreign or domestic. Remember the framers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights had just won a war with a tyrannis government.
meerschm said:
I'm going to guess you're playing devils advocate given your lack of stating a position.
While the SCOTUS opinion was narrowly held, it was never the less held.If the right of the people to keep and bear arms weren't obvious then the militias would be useless. The militias of the time were meant to be of every able bodied man. Every able bodied man was expected to have arms and ammunition as was current of the time so that they could be called into service. It could also be readily inferred that every household would be armed and ready. Given the writing in the federalist papers it's readily recognized that the intent was to ensure that, should it be necessary, the populace could overthrow the government and keep it in line with the peoples intention. Our founding fathers put in writing that every few generations this would probably be necessary. They were far more radical than most of us are despite them being in the minority. The colonies did not agree with our fight with the British.
I could go on to claim that if every household with an able bodied male was not trained and did not have a firearm and ammunition of the kind in ready use, that household would be unpatriotic and a cause for our nations downfall. That's a rather radical statement now, but it was in line with our founding fathers. If you read the federalist papers and our bill of rights and put it in context of what was going on at the time it will be a truly "holy shit" moment. Our founding fathers had balls the size of I don't even know what to compare them to.
The common firearm of our government is selectable fire machine guns. From the perspective of our scholars we should all have access to that gun. This is of course viewed through the context of the federalist papers which heavily influenced our bill of rights and also influenced the ruling you reference. In my view our rights were infringed back then. But that's neither here nor there.
Despite my views on our past I still act on our current laws. I remain a law abiding citizen and I do everything I can to make my legislators know my views. I vote and I advocate my views every election and try to sway the vote. Despite my rights being trampled upon I try hard to educate people to put pressure on our representatives. It doesn't change that I'm enraged by current legislation.
In short, the right of the people to keep and bear arms should be blatantly obvious. Despite my view that every houshold should be trained in arms I don't suppose that it's a realistic reality in our drastically different environments from rural and urban households. I'd like to think it is, but the reality and desire is in opposition.
At the moment we can't even get half the population interested and involved in voting. Forget about cutting through the BS of the polotics and researching previous voting of the representative.
meerschm
Member
- Aug 26, 2012
- 1,079
Short Bus said:
a grammarian would remind you that commas separate independent clauses in a compound sentence. the structure is a single sentence, with a period at the end. I would contend that you have to read the whole thing. and that focus on any subset is to support your independent view, not a read on what the author intended. in this sentence, keeping arms is tied to security of the state, and somehow to a well regulated militia.
I do not disagree that you have the right to have your opinion. I am glad you are engaged in discussion of it.
meerschm
Member
- Aug 26, 2012
- 1,079
I think the bill of rights is wonderful.
I think the constitution works well, and the checks and balances and foresight which allows for amendments, laws and judicial resolution of differences is a national treasure.
On assault weapons, I see no justification for private ownership of combat weapons, except for legitimate study, development, collectors, or historical study. We have a political and governmental system which gives you a personal voice not based on violence, but on freedom to express your opinion, to gather to discuss with others, to decide and vote based on your personal judgment.
Firearms are by nature dangerous. Smart people, individually and in the ways they gather into other groups and structures, need to pay attention to safety impacts. (Safety mechanisms on guns need to work) I think we should support, and keep an eye on, government functions of regulation. I would like to see careful study of the safety impacts of gun ownership, to help separate fantasy from reality, and inform individual choices and societal regulation. I suspect that for most folks, handgun ownership is more likely to result in accidental injury, death or suicide than effective use in self-defense. Understanding these issues can help inform better decisions, and better practices.
I think responsible citizens have a right to own firearms for personal use, subject to regulation. Regulations should be developed by the previous mechanisms. This right, as all rights, comes with responsibilities.
Our country has many different environments, and different rules will be appropriate in different areas. States and localities should be able to set rules, subject to proper oversight for the common good of the larger entity (local, state, federal). (Heller did not say DC could not regulate handguns, just that it could not outlaw them.) We all should adhere to laws and work to change them when they need to change (a little bending from time to time is a good American tradition.)
I agree that handguns are associated with greater loss of life than assault weapons (staggering statistics, each a tragedy.) We should require effective background checks for all gun transactions. This can and should be structured to not build a national database of who owns which gun. All firearms need to have tracing serial numbers, and ammunition should be similarly traceable. Abuse of firearms needs to be able to be traced, and where this abuse is criminal, prosecuted. I think this includes giving or selling to those who should not have them.
(As an aside, it is likely that corporations already have pretty good databases of who owns what, and more importantly to them, who is likely to buy what. We all leave an electronic and data trail which is increasingly difficult to avoid. I also think financial and economic tools(weapons) are more dangerous, and have more impact on your daily life for most people, than firearms. The middle class is on it's way out. Automation will eliminate more and more traditional jobs. (As an example, in 20 or 40 years, over the road trucks will not require individual drivers any more than containers on ships or planes do. what will those 2-3 million truck drivers be doing?) Debate over guns is a distraction from the real problems we face.)
I respect your opinions, and post here only to inform you of my thoughts. As i think most people start out, I am amazed at times that others do not share all my views on everything. I thought the post article was informative and thought you might find it interesting. I did spice the original post with some sarcasm, since my read of some earlier posts in this thread gave me the impression that some posters are not engaged in thoughtful discourse.
I think the constitution works well, and the checks and balances and foresight which allows for amendments, laws and judicial resolution of differences is a national treasure.
On assault weapons, I see no justification for private ownership of combat weapons, except for legitimate study, development, collectors, or historical study. We have a political and governmental system which gives you a personal voice not based on violence, but on freedom to express your opinion, to gather to discuss with others, to decide and vote based on your personal judgment.
Firearms are by nature dangerous. Smart people, individually and in the ways they gather into other groups and structures, need to pay attention to safety impacts. (Safety mechanisms on guns need to work) I think we should support, and keep an eye on, government functions of regulation. I would like to see careful study of the safety impacts of gun ownership, to help separate fantasy from reality, and inform individual choices and societal regulation. I suspect that for most folks, handgun ownership is more likely to result in accidental injury, death or suicide than effective use in self-defense. Understanding these issues can help inform better decisions, and better practices.
I think responsible citizens have a right to own firearms for personal use, subject to regulation. Regulations should be developed by the previous mechanisms. This right, as all rights, comes with responsibilities.
Our country has many different environments, and different rules will be appropriate in different areas. States and localities should be able to set rules, subject to proper oversight for the common good of the larger entity (local, state, federal). (Heller did not say DC could not regulate handguns, just that it could not outlaw them.) We all should adhere to laws and work to change them when they need to change (a little bending from time to time is a good American tradition.)
I agree that handguns are associated with greater loss of life than assault weapons (staggering statistics, each a tragedy.) We should require effective background checks for all gun transactions. This can and should be structured to not build a national database of who owns which gun. All firearms need to have tracing serial numbers, and ammunition should be similarly traceable. Abuse of firearms needs to be able to be traced, and where this abuse is criminal, prosecuted. I think this includes giving or selling to those who should not have them.
(As an aside, it is likely that corporations already have pretty good databases of who owns what, and more importantly to them, who is likely to buy what. We all leave an electronic and data trail which is increasingly difficult to avoid. I also think financial and economic tools(weapons) are more dangerous, and have more impact on your daily life for most people, than firearms. The middle class is on it's way out. Automation will eliminate more and more traditional jobs. (As an example, in 20 or 40 years, over the road trucks will not require individual drivers any more than containers on ships or planes do. what will those 2-3 million truck drivers be doing?) Debate over guns is a distraction from the real problems we face.)
I respect your opinions, and post here only to inform you of my thoughts. As i think most people start out, I am amazed at times that others do not share all my views on everything. I thought the post article was informative and thought you might find it interesting. I did spice the original post with some sarcasm, since my read of some earlier posts in this thread gave me the impression that some posters are not engaged in thoughtful discourse.
