Well I don't think we will reduce the numberb of murderers by imposing stricter gun laws. If an individual is set on killing someone he will do it wether he has a gun or not. We can possible reduce the amount of murders commited with a fire arm, but not the amount of people who commit them.
i dunno, im not really proposing an answer. i think smarter gun regulation is a good idea. but if he's opposed and thinks it will not make any impact on murder rates, then i'd like to hear his alternative. im open to suggestions, im just not sure how he thinks his proposition can be realized.
i dunno, im not really proposing an answer. i think smarter gun regulation is a good idea. but if he's opposed and thinks it will not make any impact on murder rates, then i'd like to hear his alternative. im open to suggestions, im just not sure how he thinks his proposition can be realized.
Well I sort of understand where he is coming from. I know that farfromglorified is a libertarian in the truest sense of the word. I also consider myself a libertarian and I do struggle with this issue simply because I too feel that the government has no right interfereing in our rights, as established by the Constitution, but my desire for a safer society contradicts my political beliefs in this case.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
because I too feel that the government has no right interfereing in our rights, as established by the Constitution
but wasnt it a goverment who granted you those rights?
so your quite happy for a govt to tell you what your rights are but not amend them for the good of the people??
i find it odd that people say that the govt has no right interfering with my rights.. rights granted to me by the people who are now interfering
fuck i'm lost
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
but wasnt it a goverment who granted you those rights?
so your quite happy for a govt to tell you what your rights are but not amend them for the good of the people??
i find it odd that people say that the govt has no right interfering with my rights.. rights granted to me by the people who are now interfering
fuck i'm lost
My government does not grant me my rights. For a lack of a better term those rights are God given. So there is no conflict there. The constitution was created to prevent government from over stepping it's authorities. And yes it was written by the people who would eventually become our government but they understood the role of government and the fact that no government should ever infringe on the rights of man. Do I agree 100% that everyman should own a weapon, no. I personlly don't think it's necessary, but it is part of our constitution and I respect that.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
For a lack of a better term those rights are God given.
so i dont believe in God.. does that mean i have no rights?
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
so i dont believe in God.. does that mean i have no rights?
Well I don't believe in the Christian definition of God, which the founding fathers did. That is why I said for a lack of a better term. Maybe I should have said natural rights or something to that extend. So to answer your question, yes you have the same rights regardless of you religious or lack of religious belief.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
Well I sort of understand where he is coming from. I know that farfromglorified is a libertarian in the truest sense of the word. I also consider myself a libertarian and I do struggle with this issue simply because I too feel that the government has no right interfereing in our rights, as established by the Constitution, but my desire for a safer society contradicts my political beliefs in this case.
i lean libertarian as well, but i do think certain sensible regulations are necessary in a large society like ours. i believe in minimal government though, which is why i think very narrow restrictions on certain particularly pressing problems are a good thing, as long as they are carefully directed to impact only the ill involved. i am ok with legal guns, i just think there is a vested societal interest in being careful about who can buy them. we don't let kids drink, and we shouldn't let kids or dangerous people buy guns, if we can at all help it.
i lean libertarian as well, but i do think certain sensible regulations are necessary in a large society like ours. i believe in minimal government though, which is why i think very narrow restrictions on certain particularly pressing problems are a good thing, as long as they are carefully directed to impact only the ill involved. i am ok with legal guns, i just think there is a vested societal interest in being careful about who can buy them. we don't let kids drink, and we shouldn't let kids or dangerous people buy guns, if we can at all help it.
And I agree with you 100%.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
Anyway, I still don't understand why tougher laws is considered violating those rights. It's fairly obvious that guns are often used in crimes. People agree that the right to bear arms is for the law abiding citizens, at least that's what I have seen on here, and not for criminals, because obviously criminals commit crimes and they wouldn't want a dangerous person owning a gun. Because many of these law abiding citizens only have guns to protect themselves from these criminals. So in that regard I guess you can say people discriminate between the right to bear arms and let's say freedom of speech. Yet, when tougher laws are suggested, it's a violation of their rights, it's punishing the law abiding citizens. Funny, I wasn't really all that knowledgeable about the amendments so I read a few things about them.
The second amendment states that:
"The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
I'm sorry but where does it say it should be as easy as possible, where does it say anything about fucked up school shootings? The fact is this isn't the 18th century anymore, things have changed. Maybe it's time to realize that the safety of the people is perhaps more important than your convenience.
N.C. Teenager Kills Himself After Threatening Fellow High School Students at Gunpoint
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
AP
ADVERTISEMENT
HUNTERSVILLE, N.C. —
A teenager shot and killed himself Wednesday shortly after pointing a handgun at two other students in a high school parking lot, police said.
Schools in Huntersville were locked down after the 16-year-old, whose name wasn't released, made threatening gestures in a parking lot at North Mecklenburg High School, police said.
The student, who attended the school, turned the gun on himself when police confronted him at a gas station, said Capt. Michael Kee of the Huntersville Police Department. He later died, said Tahira Stalbert, a spokeswoman for the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools.
Police alerted four schools after the student left the high school's campus, Kee said.
"We put every school in the area on immediate lockdown in light of everything that's gone on in the world lately," Kee said, referring to the fatal shootings of 33 people at Virginia Tech. "We erred on the side of caution."
The student, who was shot in the head, was taken to Carolinas Medical Center, Kee said.
School officials planned to have counselors available to North Mecklenburg students Thursday, Stalbert said. The school also will have a larger security presence, she said.
Families in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg school district were to receive automated phone messages about the situation, Stalbert said.
Anyway, I still don't understand why tougher laws is considered violating those rights. It's fairly obvious that guns are often used in crimes. People agree that the right to bear arms is for the law abiding citizens, at least that's what I have seen on here, and not for criminals, because obviously criminals commit crimes and they wouldn't want a dangerous person owning a gun. Because many of these law abiding citizens only have guns to protect themselves from these criminals. So in that regard I guess you can say people discriminate between the right to bear arms and let's say freedom of speech. Yet, when tougher laws are suggested, it's a violation of their rights, it's punishing the law abiding citizens. Funny, I wasn't really all that knowledgeable about the amendments so I read a few things about them.
The second amendment states that:
"The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
I'm sorry but where does it say it should be as easy as possible, where does it say anything about fucked up school shootings? The fact is this isn't the 18th century anymore, things have changed. Maybe it's time to realize that the safety of the people is perhaps more important than your convenience.
That is my whole point. If you are a responsible individual who sole reason for purchasing a gun is for sport or collection your rights will not be affected. Now if you are a criminal or psychopath you really shouldn't have the right to own a weapon in the best interest of society.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
Why the hell would you buy a handgun if you don't intend on using it? Most people buy handguns to protect themselves from the bogeyman or the black man because everyone has been taught to fear both the bogeyman and the black man. Are you telling me that someone who goes out and buys a Glock is doing it for some reason other than to inflict harm on another person? Most of them are buying it so their kid can find it and go and play Columbine at their school.
People who own guns should be in favor of stricter gun laws to make sure that guns don't end in the hands of psychos or killers, giving every gun owners a bad name. Of course you never hear about the crimes that has been prevented because of the Canadian gun registry, but police say they use this registry and even want harder regulations to own a gun. No legal guns should ever be used in an illegal actions, as long as there are, it means gun laws are not strict enough and it gives legal gun owners a bad name.
It's never a guarantee that such an event would have been prevented, it would probably have happened anyway with illegal guns or other killing device, but i think everything possible should be tried to prevent this from happening, if it means making it tougher for a deranged individual to get access to guns legally, it's a step in the good direction, those who have a clean record wouldn't be touch by such regulations.
"L'homme est né libre, et partout il est dans les fers"
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
People who own guns should be in favor of stricter gun laws to make sure that guns don't end in the hands of psychos or killers, giving every gun owners a bad name.
Why do I want laws that further restrict my own legal gun ownership when a criminal doesn't even care about those laws? All you are doing is putting law abiding citizens at a disadvantage to the criminals that could care less about gun laws.
Why do I want laws that further restrict my own legal gun ownership when a criminal doesn't even care about those laws? All you are doing is putting law abiding citizens at a disadvantage to the criminals that could care less about gun laws.
Check my sig...
so if you have a gun and the bad guy has a gun.....someone will die....and if the criminal knows your packing....and if I understand you correctly...all law abiding citizens should have guns....he'll shoot first...your dead...all for some worthless crap.....WTF???
so if you have a gun and the bad guy has a gun.....someone will die....
Sure...
and if the criminal knows your packing....and if I understand you correctly...all law abiding citizens should have guns
Yes...
....he'll shoot first...
Don't be so sure about that. Most criminals aren't trained and haven't put tens of thousands of rounds through thier guns like I have. They haven't the first clue of how to use cover, proper aim, and shot placement. I am confident he wouldn't shoot first.
all for some worthless crap.....WTF???
The safety of your family is worthless crap? Your own safety and well-being is worthless crap?
Why do I want laws that further restrict my own legal gun ownership when a criminal doesn't even care about those laws? All you are doing is putting law abiding citizens at a disadvantage to the criminals that could care less about gun laws.
Check my sig...
the bottom line is that stricter laws punish the innocent.
Don't be so sure about that. Most criminals aren't trained and haven't put tens of thousands of rounds through thier guns like I have. They haven't the first clue of how to use cover, proper aim, and shot placement. I am confident he wouldn't shoot first.
The safety of your family is worthless crap? Your own safety and well-being is worthless crap?
What planet do you live on?
they just want your shit.
as to shooting first....the only way you'll get the first shot is if your walk around your whole life with your finger on the trigger...and that's what scared the sh*t out of me.
Oh I'd love to get my hands on a 69 CHarger.......had money lined up on a 71 (yea much bigger than a 69) red exterior white interior...new Cragers...and parents talked me out of it...bought a Cutlass instead..big mistake........many years ago.
Why do I want laws that further restrict my own legal gun ownership when a criminal doesn't even care about those laws? All you are doing is putting law abiding citizens at a disadvantage to the criminals that could care less about gun laws.
Check my sig...
If there's no crime with legal weapons anymore, there will be no point of bringing up your right to own a gun anymore, if those who commit crimes only do it with illegal weapons, you win and the problem will be move somewhere else, leaving you alone with your gun ownership. What do you have to lose, if your record is straight, you'll have no problem buying your guns, and laws won't have any effect on you, it will just prevent guns from getting into criminals hands... legally, that's my point. I'm not saying it will prevent all crimes from happening.
"L'homme est né libre, et partout il est dans les fers"
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
as to shooting first....the only way you'll get the first shot is if your walk around your whole life with your finger on the trigger...and that's what scared the sh*t out of me.
Oh I'd love to get my hands on a 69 CHarger.......had money lined up on a 71 (yea much bigger than a 69) red exterior white interior...new Cragers...and parents talked me out of it...bought a Cutlass instead..big mistake........many years ago.
actually; stats show that an armed victim startles the criminal giving the victim more time. the other thing is being aware of your surroundings. if you see someone suspicious or something out of place you become more prepared. victims are usually people not paying attention. talking on cell phones etc.
i'm a chevy person but i'd like to find a 68 big block cuda.
the bottom line is that stricter laws punish the innocent.
How will more stringent background checks hurt the innocent? Please explain because the way I see it if you are innocent an extensive background check will not prevent you from owning a gun.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
How will more stringent background checks hurt the innocent? Please explain because the way I see it if you are innocent an extensive background check will not prevent you from owning a gun.
gee, isn't it funny how the same people opposing background checks for guns becos they will burden innocent gun owners will turn around and say phone taps should be fine with you if you have nothing to hide?
gee, isn't it funny how the same people opposing background checks for guns becos they will burden innocent gun owners will turn around and say phone taps should be fine with you if you have nothing to hide?
I made a similar comparison and got a condescending response from someone else (not you soulsinging) because I was on the other side. I promise not to do the same to you.
gee, isn't it funny how the same people opposing background checks for guns becos they will burden innocent gun owners will turn around and say phone taps should be fine with you if you have nothing to hide?
They probably are the same people. I just don't understand their arguement. No one is taking their guns away. No one is saying that they can't purchase a gun. It is pretty fucking clear that Virginia's gun laws failed in this case. Here was a person with psycholigical problems who was allowed to purchase weapons because the background check that the state carries out was not therough(sp?) enough. Sixty seconds is all the background check took in Virginia. How can you determine if the buyer is a stable responsible individual in sixty seconds. Like I said if you are an innocent responsible citizen you have nothing to fear from an extensive background check. You will be able to purchase your weapon and at the same time have some piece of mind that some psychopath will not be able to.
To add to this debate as far as illegal fire arms are concerned. Here in New Jersey the majority of illegal fire arms that have been confiscated where purchased in states that have lax gun laws. In fact in a report puiblished in the Star Ledger this week, many of the guns where bought in Virginia since it is only a 5 hour drive from here. So in theory by mandating stricter background checks in all states you could decrease the amount of illegal fire arms sold on the street.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
I have, maybe ignorant, but honest question...how do most Americans define gun control?
I am being serious because when I read threads like this I cannot help believe that those so adamanatly opposed to gun control believe it is something that will de-arm the entire populace...which is so far from the truth. For example in Canada we do have sone gun control measures that are in place and are from a hassle...in order to purchase/or carry a firearm one must take a accredited firearm safety course...once completed you are issued an ID card that you can use to purchase firearms which when purchased are entered into a gun registry database (for free I may add) to track a gun if used in a crime....
In all honest I am apalled about how easy it is for people to get guns in the States it is absurd. I am all for owning firearms do not get me wrong...but at least put some measures in place to allow some sort of filter to stop the wrong people from getting through. It seems people relate gun control to having to surrender your guns, which is far from the truth.
As to gun control leading to this travesty that is the most absurd thing I have ever read in this forum. How would arming more people (and laxing what IMHO are already weak gun control measures in place in the USA) avoid this problem. All you would be doing is enabling the wrong people to gain easier access. If you are of good charcter and are indeed rational going through small procedures as noted above should be no problem.
The biggest mis-conception in America (from my vantage point) is that the people who are so head strong on supporting firearm rights are blantanly mis-informing the public as what real gun control is (or else they are just moronic) constantly using fear tactics to dissuade any postive measure in gun control that would still allow you to own a gun.
And kudos to SS to pointing out exactly what I was thinking about those supporting no forms of gun control are the same that have no problem with their government being able to penetrate into their private lives...makes no rational sense.
I have, maybe ignorant, but honest question...how do most Americans define gun control?
I am being serious because when I read threads like this I cannot help believe that those so adamanatly opposed to gun control believe it is something that will de-arm the entire populace...which is so far from the truth. For example in Canada we do have sone gun control measures that are in place and are from a hassle...in order to purchase/or carry a firearm one must take a accredited firearm safety course...once completed you are issued an ID card that you can use to purchase firearms which when purchased are entered into a gun registry database (for free I may add) to track a gun if used in a crime....
In all honest I am apalled about how easy it is for people to get guns in the States it is absurd. I am all for owning firearms do not get me wrong...but at least put some measures in place to allow some sort of filter to stop the wrong people from getting through. It seems people relate gun control to having to surrender your guns, which is far from the truth.
As to gun control leading to this travesty that is the most absurd thing I have ever read in this forum. How would arming more people (and laxing what IMHO are already weak gun control measures in place in the USA) avoid this problem. All you would be doing is enabling the wrong people to gain easier access. If you are of good charcter and are indeed rational going through small procedures as noted above should be no problem.
The biggest mis-conception in America (from my vantage point) is that the people who are so head strong on supporting firearm rights are blantanly mis-informing the public as what real gun control is (or else they are just moronic) constantly using fear tactics to dissuade any postive measure in gun control that would still allow you to own a gun.
And kudos to SS to pointing out exactly what I was thinking about those supporting no forms of gun control are the same that have no problem with their government being able to penetrate into their private lives...makes no rational sense.
If you had read the whole thread you'd realize that there are people posting that do want to ban all firearms. It's a double edged sword. There are hypocrites on both sides. One side calls themselves democrats........the other republicans....................and because of them, anything practical rarely gets done.
If you had read the whole thread you'd realize that there are people posting that do want to ban all firearms. It's a double edged sword. There are hypocrites on both sides. One side calls themselves democrats........the other republicans....................and because of them, anything practical rarely gets done.
Sorry but I do not have the time...my point being is that there is a happy medium that can be obtained if fear mongering (from both sides) was to stop...cannot help that i refuse to pin myself in either of two corners...left and right.....and I agree exactly with what you are saying....
Comments
this i can get on board with.
I will happily do my part to end violence if this is what it takes.
i dunno, im not really proposing an answer. i think smarter gun regulation is a good idea. but if he's opposed and thinks it will not make any impact on murder rates, then i'd like to hear his alternative. im open to suggestions, im just not sure how he thinks his proposition can be realized.
Well I sort of understand where he is coming from. I know that farfromglorified is a libertarian in the truest sense of the word. I also consider myself a libertarian and I do struggle with this issue simply because I too feel that the government has no right interfereing in our rights, as established by the Constitution, but my desire for a safer society contradicts my political beliefs in this case.
but wasnt it a goverment who granted you those rights?
so your quite happy for a govt to tell you what your rights are but not amend them for the good of the people??
i find it odd that people say that the govt has no right interfering with my rights.. rights granted to me by the people who are now interfering
fuck i'm lost
My government does not grant me my rights. For a lack of a better term those rights are God given. So there is no conflict there. The constitution was created to prevent government from over stepping it's authorities. And yes it was written by the people who would eventually become our government but they understood the role of government and the fact that no government should ever infringe on the rights of man. Do I agree 100% that everyman should own a weapon, no. I personlly don't think it's necessary, but it is part of our constitution and I respect that.
so i dont believe in God.. does that mean i have no rights?
Well I don't believe in the Christian definition of God, which the founding fathers did. That is why I said for a lack of a better term. Maybe I should have said natural rights or something to that extend. So to answer your question, yes you have the same rights regardless of you religious or lack of religious belief.
i lean libertarian as well, but i do think certain sensible regulations are necessary in a large society like ours. i believe in minimal government though, which is why i think very narrow restrictions on certain particularly pressing problems are a good thing, as long as they are carefully directed to impact only the ill involved. i am ok with legal guns, i just think there is a vested societal interest in being careful about who can buy them. we don't let kids drink, and we shouldn't let kids or dangerous people buy guns, if we can at all help it.
And I agree with you 100%.
Anyway, I still don't understand why tougher laws is considered violating those rights. It's fairly obvious that guns are often used in crimes. People agree that the right to bear arms is for the law abiding citizens, at least that's what I have seen on here, and not for criminals, because obviously criminals commit crimes and they wouldn't want a dangerous person owning a gun. Because many of these law abiding citizens only have guns to protect themselves from these criminals. So in that regard I guess you can say people discriminate between the right to bear arms and let's say freedom of speech. Yet, when tougher laws are suggested, it's a violation of their rights, it's punishing the law abiding citizens. Funny, I wasn't really all that knowledgeable about the amendments so I read a few things about them.
The second amendment states that:
"The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
I'm sorry but where does it say it should be as easy as possible, where does it say anything about fucked up school shootings? The fact is this isn't the 18th century anymore, things have changed. Maybe it's time to realize that the safety of the people is perhaps more important than your convenience.
naděje umírá poslední
N.C. Teenager Kills Himself After Threatening Fellow High School Students at Gunpoint
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
AP
ADVERTISEMENT
HUNTERSVILLE, N.C. —
A teenager shot and killed himself Wednesday shortly after pointing a handgun at two other students in a high school parking lot, police said.
Schools in Huntersville were locked down after the 16-year-old, whose name wasn't released, made threatening gestures in a parking lot at North Mecklenburg High School, police said.
The student, who attended the school, turned the gun on himself when police confronted him at a gas station, said Capt. Michael Kee of the Huntersville Police Department. He later died, said Tahira Stalbert, a spokeswoman for the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools.
Police alerted four schools after the student left the high school's campus, Kee said.
"We put every school in the area on immediate lockdown in light of everything that's gone on in the world lately," Kee said, referring to the fatal shootings of 33 people at Virginia Tech. "We erred on the side of caution."
The student, who was shot in the head, was taken to Carolinas Medical Center, Kee said.
School officials planned to have counselors available to North Mecklenburg students Thursday, Stalbert said. The school also will have a larger security presence, she said.
Families in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg school district were to receive automated phone messages about the situation, Stalbert said.
That is my whole point. If you are a responsible individual who sole reason for purchasing a gun is for sport or collection your rights will not be affected. Now if you are a criminal or psychopath you really shouldn't have the right to own a weapon in the best interest of society.
Not even worth discussing this issue with you.
It's never a guarantee that such an event would have been prevented, it would probably have happened anyway with illegal guns or other killing device, but i think everything possible should be tried to prevent this from happening, if it means making it tougher for a deranged individual to get access to guns legally, it's a step in the good direction, those who have a clean record wouldn't be touch by such regulations.
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Why do I want laws that further restrict my own legal gun ownership when a criminal doesn't even care about those laws? All you are doing is putting law abiding citizens at a disadvantage to the criminals that could care less about gun laws.
Check my sig...
so if you have a gun and the bad guy has a gun.....someone will die....and if the criminal knows your packing....and if I understand you correctly...all law abiding citizens should have guns....he'll shoot first...your dead...all for some worthless crap.....WTF???
Sure...
Yes...
Don't be so sure about that. Most criminals aren't trained and haven't put tens of thousands of rounds through thier guns like I have. They haven't the first clue of how to use cover, proper aim, and shot placement. I am confident he wouldn't shoot first.
The safety of your family is worthless crap? Your own safety and well-being is worthless crap?
What planet do you live on?
the bottom line is that stricter laws punish the innocent.
they just want your shit.
as to shooting first....the only way you'll get the first shot is if your walk around your whole life with your finger on the trigger...and that's what scared the sh*t out of me.
Oh I'd love to get my hands on a 69 CHarger.......had money lined up on a 71 (yea much bigger than a 69) red exterior white interior...new Cragers...and parents talked me out of it...bought a Cutlass instead..big mistake........many years ago.
If there's no crime with legal weapons anymore, there will be no point of bringing up your right to own a gun anymore, if those who commit crimes only do it with illegal weapons, you win and the problem will be move somewhere else, leaving you alone with your gun ownership. What do you have to lose, if your record is straight, you'll have no problem buying your guns, and laws won't have any effect on you, it will just prevent guns from getting into criminals hands... legally, that's my point. I'm not saying it will prevent all crimes from happening.
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
actually; stats show that an armed victim startles the criminal giving the victim more time. the other thing is being aware of your surroundings. if you see someone suspicious or something out of place you become more prepared. victims are usually people not paying attention. talking on cell phones etc.
i'm a chevy person but i'd like to find a 68 big block cuda.
How will more stringent background checks hurt the innocent? Please explain because the way I see it if you are innocent an extensive background check will not prevent you from owning a gun.
gee, isn't it funny how the same people opposing background checks for guns becos they will burden innocent gun owners will turn around and say phone taps should be fine with you if you have nothing to hide?
I made a similar comparison and got a condescending response from someone else (not you soulsinging) because I was on the other side. I promise not to do the same to you.
They probably are the same people. I just don't understand their arguement. No one is taking their guns away. No one is saying that they can't purchase a gun. It is pretty fucking clear that Virginia's gun laws failed in this case. Here was a person with psycholigical problems who was allowed to purchase weapons because the background check that the state carries out was not therough(sp?) enough. Sixty seconds is all the background check took in Virginia. How can you determine if the buyer is a stable responsible individual in sixty seconds. Like I said if you are an innocent responsible citizen you have nothing to fear from an extensive background check. You will be able to purchase your weapon and at the same time have some piece of mind that some psychopath will not be able to.
To add to this debate as far as illegal fire arms are concerned. Here in New Jersey the majority of illegal fire arms that have been confiscated where purchased in states that have lax gun laws. In fact in a report puiblished in the Star Ledger this week, many of the guns where bought in Virginia since it is only a 5 hour drive from here. So in theory by mandating stricter background checks in all states you could decrease the amount of illegal fire arms sold on the street.
I am being serious because when I read threads like this I cannot help believe that those so adamanatly opposed to gun control believe it is something that will de-arm the entire populace...which is so far from the truth. For example in Canada we do have sone gun control measures that are in place and are from a hassle...in order to purchase/or carry a firearm one must take a accredited firearm safety course...once completed you are issued an ID card that you can use to purchase firearms which when purchased are entered into a gun registry database (for free I may add) to track a gun if used in a crime....
In all honest I am apalled about how easy it is for people to get guns in the States it is absurd. I am all for owning firearms do not get me wrong...but at least put some measures in place to allow some sort of filter to stop the wrong people from getting through. It seems people relate gun control to having to surrender your guns, which is far from the truth.
As to gun control leading to this travesty that is the most absurd thing I have ever read in this forum. How would arming more people (and laxing what IMHO are already weak gun control measures in place in the USA) avoid this problem. All you would be doing is enabling the wrong people to gain easier access. If you are of good charcter and are indeed rational going through small procedures as noted above should be no problem.
The biggest mis-conception in America (from my vantage point) is that the people who are so head strong on supporting firearm rights are blantanly mis-informing the public as what real gun control is (or else they are just moronic) constantly using fear tactics to dissuade any postive measure in gun control that would still allow you to own a gun.
And kudos to SS to pointing out exactly what I was thinking about those supporting no forms of gun control are the same that have no problem with their government being able to penetrate into their private lives...makes no rational sense.
Sorry but I do not have the time...my point being is that there is a happy medium that can be obtained if fear mongering (from both sides) was to stop...cannot help that i refuse to pin myself in either of two corners...left and right.....and I agree exactly with what you are saying....
That's because you don't understand the issue.