here in texas I have not needed a license to buy a gun. being 21 and and passing my background check was all that was necessary. I do however need a license to carry my pistol concealed out in public, which consisted of 8 hours or so of class time and 50 rounds on the range 3 different distances. any gun can be used for self defense or target shooting, although I probably wouldn't use a barrett .50 cal to shoot at dr. pepper cans.
to thirty bills, my main problem with banning assault rifles would be that i don't think it can be done. i know how the black market works, and i just think it would be impossible. but i know how you feel, because i feel the same way about automobiles. i'm surrounded by guns where i live, but the only thing that scares me is being on the road with drunks and texters. as far as when the next tragedy strikes, you said it. inevitable. i'm not saying we should do nothing, but i don't want to do something that doesn't work, and when it doesn't work, say, oh but we had to try. also for me, i trivialize gun deaths like people do for everything else. just like tens of thousands of people and animals can die so i can drive, no problem. drunk drivers, wife beaters and kids overdosing on alcohol? an acceptable loss so i can drink a cold beer. and of course tens of thousands die so i can have a cool gun. that's life i'm afraid.
I love shooting guns, target shooting not hunting, it's a blast(pun intended). I have never bought a gun thinking oh man I hope this can kill a bad guy or I hope my gun is better than a bad guys gun. so just a heads up, we aren't all living in fear. and we aren't all angry.
I guess if you are buying it for sport then it's not related to gun crime per se. Do you need to hold a licence for your gun? Does it specify what you are allowed to do with it? eg self-defence; target practice/sport etc? Just curious as not sure how gun ownership actually works over there.[/quote]
if you think what I believe is stupid, bizarre, ridiculous or outrageous.....it's ok, I think I had a brain tumor when I wrote that.
Where does the line get drawn in definition of a assault gun?
An item for debate, but it should be debated.
Definitely nothing automatic or semi-automatic. I'm thinking- off the top of my head- magazines with a maximum capacity of 6 bullets. This should be enough to get the job done hunting for a moose- if not... get to the range .
What the founding fathers intended. Musket loading guns only
to thirty bills, my main problem with banning assault rifles would be that i don't think it can be done. i know how the black market works, and i just think it would be impossible.
At first... it wouldn't. There is no 'quick fix' to the problem. But in time, especially by restricting ammunition sales for 'illegal weapons'... the guns would dry up and not be so abundant and readily available.
I'm pretty sure we have some 'illegal weapons' in Canada, but they aren't just lying around or on sale at Big 5 Sporting Goods. We have a criminal element and mentally ill people as well that- with some exceptions I'm sure- have no access to these weapons. As a result, Canada is safer. We have accepted the type of reforms necessary to safeguard our citizens. It's out of concern that a Canadian such as myself would encourage you guys to do the same: this isn't about make the gun owners suffer as much as it is about keep your children safe.
So we get rid of guns in the states, then what? Do we outlaw crossbows and bow and arrows? swords, knives? When does it end? Do we get rid of alcohol after all that, and possibly cars because since everything else is gone they can be used to kill people too?
Nah, we should legalise private ownership of plutonium, ground to air missiles and chemical weapons.
See, idiotic hyperbolic arguments work both ways!
Do you ever contribute anything or do you just like talking down to others?
Sorry, but your argument was just a standard NRA-Bot response "hey well why don't we ban cars too!" as though there is no room for compromise and either everything dangerous must be banned, or nothing dangerous must be banned. It's a glib, trite argument that contributes nothing, hence my responding in kind. We already accept legal boundaries on what we can or cannot own, you, me, we all do, and we all put our tolerance for that boundary in different places, but anybody sensible would agree that there should be a boundary.
Pointing that out is a perfectly valid contribution, perhaps I should have spelled it out for you, but I thought my point should be clear enough.
Sorry, but your argument was just a standard NRA-Bot response "hey well why don't we ban cars too!" as though there is no room for compromise and either everything dangerous must be banned, or nothing dangerous must be banned. It's a glib, trite argument that contributes nothing, hence my responding in kind. We already accept legal boundaries on what we can or cannot own, you, me, we all do, and we all put our tolerance for that boundary in different places, but anybody sensible would agree that there should be a boundary.
Pointing that out is a perfectly valid contribution, perhaps I should have spelled it out for you, but I thought my point should be clear enough.
So where do you stop the banning? Add something, where is the line drawn? Oh yeah I am not or never have been a member of the NRA.
96 Randall's Island II
98 CAA
00 Virginia Beach;Camden I; Jones Beach III
05 Borgata Night I; Wachovia Center
06 Letterman Show; Webcast (guy in blue shirt), Camden I; DC
08 Camden I; Camden II; DC
09 Phillie III
10 MSG II
13 Wrigley Field
16 Phillie II
Nevertheless you gave a standard NRA response, designed to obscure the argument instead of resolve or contribute. Ironic that you are accusing me of this for having the temerity to call you out on it.
I'm not opposed to private ownership of weapons in principle. Personally I would not ban any of the weapons that are being targeted right now, I don't think that'll make the slightest bit of difference, and will just waste a load of money in implementation. It's a knee jerk reaction to a few mass shootings, but in reality those mass shootings are statistically irrelevant in the broader context of America's problem with gun violence, the politicians pushing for the ban know this and use it as a distraction from the fact that beyond this lip service they are not really committed to resolving the problem.
The problem is not guns, the problem is poverty and vast widespread social inequality, that has always driven crime and always will, and has significant implications for the mental health of the nation too. America needs a long term solution to that, solve that and the gun problem will solve itself.
In the short term though, I would concentrate on eliminating loopholes that allow people to bypass background checks, and firm up those background checks considerably especially with respect to mental health. That should definitely be done, but it should not be mistaken for a solution to the overall problem.
Where does the line get drawn in definition of a assault gun?
An item for debate, but it should be debated.
Definitely nothing automatic or semi-automatic. I'm thinking- off the top of my head- magazines with a maximum capacity of 6 bullets. This should be enough to get the job done hunting for a moose- if not... get to the range .
What the founding fathers intended. Musket loading guns only
I have made the following point before in these threads. The most powerful weapon the founding fathers could imagine was a cannon. Second amendment or no, NO regular citizen would have been allowed to amass a battery of cannon. Even in the earliest days there were limits. Anyone who believes the founding fathers would have been OK with the average citizen, the one they didn't even trust to directly elect Senators or the President, collecting automatic weapons is just plain wrong.
You mean the 2nd amendment. Collecting automatic weapons is illegal. Could you imagine what it would be like if people had cannons? That just reminded me of a silly TV show (Eastbound Down) were Will Ferrell's charater was shooting at somebody with a cannon.
I have made the following point before in these threads. The most powerful weapon the founding fathers could imagine was a cannon. Second amendment or no, NO regular citizen would have been allowed to amass a battery of cannon. Even in the earliest days there were limits. Anyone who believes the founding fathers would have been OK with the average citizen, the one they didn't even trust to directly elect Senators or the President, collecting automatic weapons is just plain wrong.
First off all federal gun control is unconstitutional.
Secondly, that is not the reason why the people could not elect Senators. The founding fathers trusted the people, that's why the wrote the Constitution, to limit the powers of the general (federal) government. So that is incorrect. The Senators were elected by the state legislature, because when written the States were treated as sovereign entities and the Senators were supposed to be ambassadors or each sovereign state. That's why the US was called THESE United States, not THE United States. We have drifted very far away from what they wanted.
So where do you stop the banning? Add something, where is the line drawn?
as long as a behavior or object exists, there is someone who wants it banned...
edit
meaning that there is a balancing act that is constantly at play. How much is too much? that is the question that societies must answer over time and is impossible to nail down.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
The founding fathers trusted the people, that's why the wrote the Constitution, to limit the powers of the general (federal) government.
For what it's worth, you'd be dead wrong if you think the Founding Fathers "trusted" the people. John Adams, John Jay, Benjamin Franklin, to name a few, all feared the tyranny of the masses almost as much as the tyranny of King George.
John Adams believed a strong federal or central government - along with apportioned states' power and a vibrant set of individual rights - was the only means to ensure that neither men or government could brutalize one another.
Saying that the architects of our political machinery favored one over the other or that they "trusted" people more is at least patently false and at worst a convenient revision of American history.
1998-06-30 Minneapolis
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2 2018-06-18 London 1 2018-08-18 Wrigley 1 2018-08-20 Wrigley 2 2022-09-16 Nashville 2023-08-31 St. Paul 2023-09-02 St. Paul 2023-09-05 Chicago 1 2024-08-31 Wrigley 2 2024-09-15 Fenway 1 2024-09-27 Ohana 1 2024-09-29 Ohana 2
Linda Burnett, 23, a resident of San Diego, was visiting her in-laws and while there went to a nearby supermarket to pick up some groceries. Later, her husband noticed her sitting in her car in the driveway with the windows rolled up and with her eyes closed, with both hands behind the back of her head. He became concerned and walked over to the car. He noticed that Linda's eyes were now open and she looked very strange. He asked her if she was okay, and Linda replied that she had been shot in the back of the head and had been holding her brains in for over an hour. The husband called the paramedics, who broke into the car because the doors were locked and Linda refused to remove her hands from her head. When they finally got in, they found that Linda had a wad of bread dough on the back of her head. A Pillsbury biscuit canister had exploded from the heat, making a loud noise that sounded like a gunshot, and the wad of dough hit her in the back of her head. When she reached back to find out what it was, she felt the dough and thought it was her brains. She initially passed out, but quickly recovered. Linda is a blonde, a Democrat, and an Obama supporter, but that could all be a coincidence. The defective biscuit canister was analyzed and the expiration date was from 2008, so it was determined to be Bush's fault
The founding fathers trusted the people, that's why the wrote the Constitution, to limit the powers of the general (federal) government.
For what it's worth, you'd be dead wrong if you think the Founding Fathers "trusted" the people. John Adams, John Jay, Benjamin Franklin, to name a few, all feared the tyranny of the masses almost as much as the tyranny of King George.
John Adams believed a strong federal or central government - along with apportioned states' power and a vibrant set of individual rights - was the only means to ensure that neither men or government could brutalize one another.
Saying that the architects of our political machinery favored one over the other or that they "trusted" people more is at least patently false and at worst a convenient revision of American history.
I'm more of a James Madison's side of events myself, but granted even then there were big government proponents. It's inaccurate to say all of the FF were for big govt. To say that they thought of the general govt as equals to the people is far fetched. They didn't even consider the general govt equal to the states.
I'm more of a James Madison's side of events myself, but granted even then there were big government proponents. It's inaccurate to say all of the FF were for big govt. To say that they thought of the general govt as equals to the people is far fetched. They didn't even consider the general govt equal to the states.
Who claimed that all of the founding fathers were for big government? You claimed the founding fathers "trusted people," and I corrected you.
Again, you'd be wrong to presume anything uniformly about the founding fathers. Sure, some believed strongly in states' rights, and others didn't.
Where that leaves us is that any uniform conclusion about the beliefs of the founding fathers is false. There were no truly uniform beliefs among them.
In short, saying "the founding fathers trusted people" is false, especially as support for an idea about the proper role of federal government in 2013.
1998-06-30 Minneapolis
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2 2018-06-18 London 1 2018-08-18 Wrigley 1 2018-08-20 Wrigley 2 2022-09-16 Nashville 2023-08-31 St. Paul 2023-09-02 St. Paul 2023-09-05 Chicago 1 2024-08-31 Wrigley 2 2024-09-15 Fenway 1 2024-09-27 Ohana 1 2024-09-29 Ohana 2
to thirty bills, my main problem with banning assault rifles would be that i don't think it can be done. i know how the black market works, and i just think it would be impossible.
At first... it wouldn't. There is no 'quick fix' to the problem. But in time, especially by restricting ammunition sales for 'illegal weapons'... the guns would dry up and not be so abundant and readily available.
I'm pretty sure we have some 'illegal weapons' in Canada, but they aren't just lying around or on sale at Big 5 Sporting Goods. We have a criminal element and mentally ill people as well that- with some exceptions I'm sure- have no access to these weapons. As a result, Canada is safer. We have accepted the type of reforms necessary to safeguard our citizens. It's out of concern that a Canadian such as myself would encourage you guys to do the same: this isn't about make the gun owners suffer as much as it is about keep your children safe.
Restricting ammunition sales for illegal weapons? I'm not sure I follow. Like restricting all ammunition that can be used in a semi-auto or fully-auto gun? If so...that shows good reason why gun owners do not trust anything that comes out of the anti-gun nut's mouth. Maybe I just misunderstood.
just to be clear & understood in full... most gun dealers (small time hobbyists with a few hundred guns) load/reload their own ammo. some haven't bought a box of shells off the shelf in a coons age. in fact, they themselves quite often sell shells to their friends & business associates
to thirty bills, my main problem with banning assault rifles would be that i don't think it can be done. i know how the black market works, and i just think it would be impossible.
At first... it wouldn't. There is no 'quick fix' to the problem. But in time, especially by restricting ammunition sales for 'illegal weapons'... the guns would dry up and not be so abundant and readily available.
I'm pretty sure we have some 'illegal weapons' in Canada, but they aren't just lying around or on sale at Big 5 Sporting Goods. We have a criminal element and mentally ill people as well that- with some exceptions I'm sure- have no access to these weapons. As a result, Canada is safer. We have accepted the type of reforms necessary to safeguard our citizens. It's out of concern that a Canadian such as myself would encourage you guys to do the same: this isn't about make the gun owners suffer as much as it is about keep your children safe.
Restricting ammunition sales for illegal weapons? I'm not sure I follow. Like restricting all ammunition that can be used in a semi-auto or fully-auto gun? If so...that shows good reason why gun owners do not trust anything that comes out of the anti-gun nut's mouth. Maybe I just misunderstood.
A banning of assault rifles would be a tricky process. In all likelihood, There would be a 'grandfather' clause for existing 'legal' guns. The ammunition for these types of guns shouldn't be available for any old person walking into Walmart to purchase. There would be restrictions on the sale of such ammunition. I would also think that there would be very strict penalties for those purchasing ammunition for non-registered weapons.
People can't be expected to write essays making what seem like very simple posts that are very easy to understand.
I believe this post marks the first time I have ever heard the expression 'anti-gun nut'. I am assuming one might hear this term at the local landfill while shootin' stuff?
Guns essentially designed for military use that shoot quickly such as the AK-47, M-16, and the AR-15.
But you know this and I know what you are getting at. We ban these guns and some manufacturer will get clever and design an alternative weapon that fits within the legal description.
Better people than you or I would need to develop the legal definition to encompass the criteria deemed unnecessary for public use.
The problem with banning anything is that only the people interested in staying on the right side of the law will obey new regulations. The laws don't apply to criminals.
Can't we just make it illegal for people to kill each other?
:fp:
If hope can grow from dirt like me, it can be done. - EV
The problem with banning anything is that only the people interested in staying on the right side of the law will obey new regulations. The laws don't apply to criminals.
Can't we just make it illegal for people to kill each other?
:fp:
It is illegal.
In the meantime, let's limit what type of tools people have at their disposal to do harm with.
But how do you limit these tools without the regulations only applying to otherwise law-abiding citizens? In other words, how do you make the gang-bangers, drug cartels and mafia thugs give up their guns?
If hope can grow from dirt like me, it can be done. - EV
I see his picture come up every now and then when my computer is idle for a few minutes and I wonder, if guns had at least been made more difficult to obtain would this friend of mine still be alive? He was shot dead on the street. Just shot dead by some whacko with a gun. Not so uncommon an occurrence here in America. Definitely less common in places like Europe.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
But how do you limit these tools without the regulations only applying to otherwise law-abiding citizens? In other words, how do you make the gang-bangers, drug cartels and mafia thugs give up their guns?
You make guns less available (I didn't say "unavailable"). You enforce the regulations you have. You make it more difficult to get weapons (yes, period). You outlaw high-magazine weapons. You close existing loopholes. You fully fund social service and educational efforts at identifying and treating those suffering from mental illness.
Perhaps most importantly, you approach a problem like violence in any form with an open mind.
Government can't be perfect, but it can do a lot better. I wonder how long before people insist that their representatives step outside their ideologies and do what they're paid to do. I wonder how long before the pro-gun lobby is willing to have a reasonable, comprehensive discussion about the problem. (Oh right, "cold dead hand" thing. Got it.).
1998-06-30 Minneapolis
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2 2018-06-18 London 1 2018-08-18 Wrigley 1 2018-08-20 Wrigley 2 2022-09-16 Nashville 2023-08-31 St. Paul 2023-09-02 St. Paul 2023-09-05 Chicago 1 2024-08-31 Wrigley 2 2024-09-15 Fenway 1 2024-09-27 Ohana 1 2024-09-29 Ohana 2
I see his picture come up every now and then when my computer is idle for a few minutes and I wonder, if guns had at least been made more difficult to obtain would this friend of mine still be alive? He was shot dead on the street. Just shot dead by some whacko with a gun. Not so uncommon an occurrence here in America. Definitely less common in places like Europe.
Sorry about your friend too.
People seem to be saying that if you ban guns, it won't stop the criminals from using them anyway, Of course not. Criminals will always do things that are illegal, that is why they are called criminals. But this doesn't mean we have to make it easy for them. By banning or at least having more control over guns and who can get them, surely should have some impact on crime figures and lead to an overall reduction in guns being used wrongly, or for wrong purposes. It works in other countries, so why not in America?
"We have to change the concept of patriotism to one of “matriotism” — love of humanity that transcends war. A matriarch would never send her own children off to wars that kill other people’s children." Cindy Sheehan --- London, Brixton, 14 July 1993 London, Wembley, 1996 London, Wembley, 18 June 2007 London, O2, 18 August 2009 London, Hammersmith Apollo (Ed solo), 31 July 2012 Milton Keynes Bowl, 11 July 2014
London, Hammersmith Apollo (Ed solo), 06 June 2017
I see his picture come up every now and then when my computer is idle for a few minutes and I wonder, if guns had at least been made more difficult to obtain would this friend of mine still be alive? He was shot dead on the street. Just shot dead by some whacko with a gun. Not so uncommon an occurrence here in America. Definitely less common in places like Europe.
or less common in places like iowa or south dakota although we get our occasional bullshit. i am sorry for the loss of your friend, brian. he is still around though in spirit. imagine that, your friend being around observing the things you do.
no offence, but um, california is a insane asylum. some places better than others of course.
how is it up in maine? i've always wanted to visit maine & possibly move on in
I see his picture come up every now and then when my computer is idle for a few minutes and I wonder, if guns had at least been made more difficult to obtain would this friend of mine still be alive? He was shot dead on the street. Just shot dead by some whacko with a gun. Not so uncommon an occurrence here in America. Definitely less common in places like Europe.
or less common in places like iowa or south dakota although we get our occasional bullshit. i am sorry for the loss of your friend, brian. he is still around though in spirit. imagine that, your friend being around observing the things you do.
no offence, but um, california is a insane asylum. some places better than others of course.
how is it up in maine? i've always wanted to visit maine & possibly move on in
Thanks, Chad.
Yeah, California is a crazy place. We're hoping to get closer to the coast one of these years.
I have a good friend who lives in Freeport Maine- home of L.L. Bean. Other than the cold winters, he likes it a lot. Coastal Maine is beautiful- worth seeing if nothing else. We also have a friend in Rockland, Maine. Visited both towns about 5 years ago and liked them both a lot.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Comments
to thirty bills, my main problem with banning assault rifles would be that i don't think it can be done. i know how the black market works, and i just think it would be impossible. but i know how you feel, because i feel the same way about automobiles. i'm surrounded by guns where i live, but the only thing that scares me is being on the road with drunks and texters. as far as when the next tragedy strikes, you said it. inevitable. i'm not saying we should do nothing, but i don't want to do something that doesn't work, and when it doesn't work, say, oh but we had to try. also for me, i trivialize gun deaths like people do for everything else. just like tens of thousands of people and animals can die so i can drive, no problem. drunk drivers, wife beaters and kids overdosing on alcohol? an acceptable loss so i can drink a cold beer. and of course tens of thousands die so i can have a cool gun. that's life i'm afraid.
I guess if you are buying it for sport then it's not related to gun crime per se. Do you need to hold a licence for your gun? Does it specify what you are allowed to do with it? eg self-defence; target practice/sport etc? Just curious as not sure how gun ownership actually works over there.[/quote]
What the founding fathers intended. Musket loading guns only
At first... it wouldn't. There is no 'quick fix' to the problem. But in time, especially by restricting ammunition sales for 'illegal weapons'... the guns would dry up and not be so abundant and readily available.
I'm pretty sure we have some 'illegal weapons' in Canada, but they aren't just lying around or on sale at Big 5 Sporting Goods. We have a criminal element and mentally ill people as well that- with some exceptions I'm sure- have no access to these weapons. As a result, Canada is safer. We have accepted the type of reforms necessary to safeguard our citizens. It's out of concern that a Canadian such as myself would encourage you guys to do the same: this isn't about make the gun owners suffer as much as it is about keep your children safe.
Sorry, but your argument was just a standard NRA-Bot response "hey well why don't we ban cars too!" as though there is no room for compromise and either everything dangerous must be banned, or nothing dangerous must be banned. It's a glib, trite argument that contributes nothing, hence my responding in kind. We already accept legal boundaries on what we can or cannot own, you, me, we all do, and we all put our tolerance for that boundary in different places, but anybody sensible would agree that there should be a boundary.
Pointing that out is a perfectly valid contribution, perhaps I should have spelled it out for you, but I thought my point should be clear enough.
So where do you stop the banning? Add something, where is the line drawn? Oh yeah I am not or never have been a member of the NRA.
98 CAA
00 Virginia Beach;Camden I; Jones Beach III
05 Borgata Night I; Wachovia Center
06 Letterman Show; Webcast (guy in blue shirt), Camden I; DC
08 Camden I; Camden II; DC
09 Phillie III
10 MSG II
13 Wrigley Field
16 Phillie II
I'm not opposed to private ownership of weapons in principle. Personally I would not ban any of the weapons that are being targeted right now, I don't think that'll make the slightest bit of difference, and will just waste a load of money in implementation. It's a knee jerk reaction to a few mass shootings, but in reality those mass shootings are statistically irrelevant in the broader context of America's problem with gun violence, the politicians pushing for the ban know this and use it as a distraction from the fact that beyond this lip service they are not really committed to resolving the problem.
The problem is not guns, the problem is poverty and vast widespread social inequality, that has always driven crime and always will, and has significant implications for the mental health of the nation too. America needs a long term solution to that, solve that and the gun problem will solve itself.
In the short term though, I would concentrate on eliminating loopholes that allow people to bypass background checks, and firm up those background checks considerably especially with respect to mental health. That should definitely be done, but it should not be mistaken for a solution to the overall problem.
I have made the following point before in these threads. The most powerful weapon the founding fathers could imagine was a cannon. Second amendment or no, NO regular citizen would have been allowed to amass a battery of cannon. Even in the earliest days there were limits. Anyone who believes the founding fathers would have been OK with the average citizen, the one they didn't even trust to directly elect Senators or the President, collecting automatic weapons is just plain wrong.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Whoops! :oops:
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
First off all federal gun control is unconstitutional.
Secondly, that is not the reason why the people could not elect Senators. The founding fathers trusted the people, that's why the wrote the Constitution, to limit the powers of the general (federal) government. So that is incorrect. The Senators were elected by the state legislature, because when written the States were treated as sovereign entities and the Senators were supposed to be ambassadors or each sovereign state. That's why the US was called THESE United States, not THE United States. We have drifted very far away from what they wanted.
as long as a behavior or object exists, there is someone who wants it banned...
edit
meaning that there is a balancing act that is constantly at play. How much is too much? that is the question that societies must answer over time and is impossible to nail down.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
For what it's worth, you'd be dead wrong if you think the Founding Fathers "trusted" the people. John Adams, John Jay, Benjamin Franklin, to name a few, all feared the tyranny of the masses almost as much as the tyranny of King George.
John Adams believed a strong federal or central government - along with apportioned states' power and a vibrant set of individual rights - was the only means to ensure that neither men or government could brutalize one another.
Saying that the architects of our political machinery favored one over the other or that they "trusted" people more is at least patently false and at worst a convenient revision of American history.
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2
2018-06-18 London 1
2018-08-18 Wrigley 1
2018-08-20 Wrigley 2
2022-09-16 Nashville
2023-08-31 St. Paul
2023-09-02 St. Paul
2023-09-05 Chicago 1
2024-08-31 Wrigley 2
2024-09-15 Fenway 1
2024-09-27 Ohana 1
2024-09-29 Ohana 2
Godfather.
I'm more of a James Madison's side of events myself, but granted even then there were big government proponents. It's inaccurate to say all of the FF were for big govt. To say that they thought of the general govt as equals to the people is far fetched. They didn't even consider the general govt equal to the states.
Who claimed that all of the founding fathers were for big government? You claimed the founding fathers "trusted people," and I corrected you.
Again, you'd be wrong to presume anything uniformly about the founding fathers. Sure, some believed strongly in states' rights, and others didn't.
Where that leaves us is that any uniform conclusion about the beliefs of the founding fathers is false. There were no truly uniform beliefs among them.
In short, saying "the founding fathers trusted people" is false, especially as support for an idea about the proper role of federal government in 2013.
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2
2018-06-18 London 1
2018-08-18 Wrigley 1
2018-08-20 Wrigley 2
2022-09-16 Nashville
2023-08-31 St. Paul
2023-09-02 St. Paul
2023-09-05 Chicago 1
2024-08-31 Wrigley 2
2024-09-15 Fenway 1
2024-09-27 Ohana 1
2024-09-29 Ohana 2
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
A banning of assault rifles would be a tricky process. In all likelihood, There would be a 'grandfather' clause for existing 'legal' guns. The ammunition for these types of guns shouldn't be available for any old person walking into Walmart to purchase. There would be restrictions on the sale of such ammunition. I would also think that there would be very strict penalties for those purchasing ammunition for non-registered weapons.
People can't be expected to write essays making what seem like very simple posts that are very easy to understand.
I believe this post marks the first time I have ever heard the expression 'anti-gun nut'. I am assuming one might hear this term at the local landfill while shootin' stuff?
Guns essentially designed for military use that shoot quickly such as the AK-47, M-16, and the AR-15.
But you know this and I know what you are getting at. We ban these guns and some manufacturer will get clever and design an alternative weapon that fits within the legal description.
Better people than you or I would need to develop the legal definition to encompass the criteria deemed unnecessary for public use.
Can't we just make it illegal for people to kill each other?
:fp:
In the meantime, let's limit what type of tools people have at their disposal to do harm with.
Likewise, dudeman. I'm sorry to hear that.
You make guns less available (I didn't say "unavailable"). You enforce the regulations you have. You make it more difficult to get weapons (yes, period). You outlaw high-magazine weapons. You close existing loopholes. You fully fund social service and educational efforts at identifying and treating those suffering from mental illness.
Perhaps most importantly, you approach a problem like violence in any form with an open mind.
Government can't be perfect, but it can do a lot better. I wonder how long before people insist that their representatives step outside their ideologies and do what they're paid to do. I wonder how long before the pro-gun lobby is willing to have a reasonable, comprehensive discussion about the problem. (Oh right, "cold dead hand" thing. Got it.).
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2
2018-06-18 London 1
2018-08-18 Wrigley 1
2018-08-20 Wrigley 2
2022-09-16 Nashville
2023-08-31 St. Paul
2023-09-02 St. Paul
2023-09-05 Chicago 1
2024-08-31 Wrigley 2
2024-09-15 Fenway 1
2024-09-27 Ohana 1
2024-09-29 Ohana 2
Sorry about your friend too.
People seem to be saying that if you ban guns, it won't stop the criminals from using them anyway, Of course not. Criminals will always do things that are illegal, that is why they are called criminals. But this doesn't mean we have to make it easy for them. By banning or at least having more control over guns and who can get them, surely should have some impact on crime figures and lead to an overall reduction in guns being used wrongly, or for wrong purposes. It works in other countries, so why not in America?
---
London, Brixton, 14 July 1993
London, Wembley, 1996
London, Wembley, 18 June 2007
London, O2, 18 August 2009
London, Hammersmith Apollo (Ed solo), 31 July 2012
Milton Keynes Bowl, 11 July 2014
or less common in places like iowa or south dakota although we get our occasional bullshit. i am sorry for the loss of your friend, brian. he is still around though in spirit. imagine that, your friend being around observing the things you do.
no offence, but um, california is a insane asylum. some places better than others of course.
how is it up in maine? i've always wanted to visit maine & possibly move on in
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
Thanks, Chad.
Yeah, California is a crazy place. We're hoping to get closer to the coast one of these years.
I have a good friend who lives in Freeport Maine- home of L.L. Bean. Other than the cold winters, he likes it a lot. Coastal Maine is beautiful- worth seeing if nothing else. We also have a friend in Rockland, Maine. Visited both towns about 5 years ago and liked them both a lot.