Gun Debate

thankyougrandma

69charger wrote:

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.

onelongsong

callen wrote:

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.

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.

mammasan

onelongsong wrote:

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.

soulsinging

mammasan wrote:

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?

floyd1975

soulsinging wrote:

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.

mammasan

soulsinging wrote:

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.

RockinInCanada

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.

PJPOWER

Rockin'InCanada wrote:

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.

RockinInCanada

PJPOWER wrote:

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....

Songburst

69charger wrote:

Not even worth discussing this issue with you.

That's because you don't understand the issue.

Alex_Coe

Well I've read a couple pages and the main argument for gun control is that some gun owners aren't responsible enough to have a gun. Some people have even said let's ban ALL guns.

The way I see it: if the gov't should ban all guns because a few people misuse them, then they would also have to ban marijuana, atv's, suv's, alcohol, sex, and every other fun thing on the planet.

So don't ban guns. Cuz guns are funz.

ForestBrain

If somebody wants to get a gun for murdering purposes, they are going to get a gun. People should be allowed to protect themselves. I myself hate guns, and would never own one. But it is in the Bill of Rights to own firearms.

69charger

Songburst wrote:

That's because you don't understand the issue.

No, it's because you are saying things that are completely wrong on so many levels that I don't want to waste my time trying to bring you up to speed. You are making emotionally driven arguments with no basis in fact.

Thank you, come again!

lucylespian

ForestBrain wrote:

If somebody wants to get a gun for murdering purposes, they are going to get a gun. People should be allowed to protect themselves. I myself hate guns, and would never own one. But it is in the Bill of Rights to own firearms.

And so America is headed back to teh days of teh wild west when every man had to carry a gun to survive, and deadly force ruled, and the quickest on teh draw lived to tell the tale.

Did it ever occur to any of you that that was not a great way to live ???? In armed defensive fear ????

Songburst

69charger wrote:

No, it's because you are saying things that are completely wrong on so many levels that I don't want to waste my time trying to bring you up to speed. You are making emotionally driven arguments with no basis in fact.

Thank you, come again!

You believe shit like the quote in your signature so it is painfully obvious that you have no idea how the world works and therefore have no clue what the gun contol issue actually is. It isn't about taking away rights, it's about stopping stupid people form hurting themselves. If you have a handgun and I don't, I can guarantee you that you have a better chance of being shot than I do.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

The first ever full metal jacket Kevlar jumpsuit nation...

smell that freedom baby....ahhhh

Telomere

Here is my take… I have no problem with hunting rifles or hunting shotguns in the hands of the populace as long as there are strict controls on how to obtain them (such as those in place in Canada). A gun is a tool. Guns designed for hunting are very difficult to use to kill or injure a large number of people (yes they can be used to kill people, but a single shot bolt action hunting rifle would be very inefficient in killing many people very quickly). Assault rifles and hand guns on the other hand are tools designed specifically to kill or injure quickly and efficiently. The fact that they are used in incidents such as the Va Tech shootings, Columbine High School shootings (near where I grew up) or the Port Arthur Shootings (in Australia where I live now) should come as no surprise as these were tools being used in a manner they were designed for. The ease in which such guns are purchased is what is so terrifying.

The second amendment states that “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 reason the second amendment was passed was so that a well-ordered militia could be formed to 1) protect the USA against foreign invaders or 2) rebel against the US government if indeed they tried to oppress American citizens. Today, #1 is irrelevant as the USA has the largest, best equipped, best trained, and best funded military in the world. We are not under the threat of invasion, nor is the average gun-owner in a “well-ordered militia” designed to protect our country at a moments notice. Reason #2 does hold some validity. However, the strength of America is based on a democratic government and capitalistic economy which provides power to the individuals in the country. The best way to prevent the country from oppressing its people is to maintain a stable government and economy so that individuals retain power and the government is kept in check by the people. Crime and mass shootings are more likely to undermine the stability of the economy and government, and therefore are actually detrimental to the initial goals of the second amendment. Finally, if the US government or military does decide to oppress its people using force, it will be doing so with guided missiles, attack helicopters, jet planes, predator drones, tanks and armored vehicles, artillery, etc.. Therefore, the only way the populace can fight back is to have similar equipment. If the second amendment were to truly serve its purpose, i.e. preventing government oppression, private citizens should be allowed to purchase heavy weaponry such as shoulder fired missiles, which would be capable of taking down an attack helicopter. However, I do not believe Americans desire to live in a society where weapons like shoulder fired missiles are available to the public (I know I do not want to live in such a society). Therefore it is probably about time that we contemplate the relevance of the second amendment in our society.

Sorry for the long post.

PJPOWER

lucylespian wrote:

And so America is headed back to teh days of teh wild west when every man had to carry a gun to survive, and deadly force ruled, and the quickest on teh draw lived to tell the tale.

Did it ever occur to any of you that that was not a great way to live ???? In armed defensive fear ????

That seems a little exadurated.........I love it when 1 event sparks a generalization of the US as a whole. The mass media has a way of drilling that fear into the minds of people, though. I could be wrong, but I'm willing to bet that most of the population does not fear being shot on a day to day basis nor do we wake up every morning thinking that there will be a gunfight wherever we go. I love it when people try to say that gun owners are promoting fear when anti-gun activists also try to generate fear by making statements, such as the quote above, out of pure ignorance.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

I think gun registrants should have to pass a mandatory IQ test in the above average or higher range.

.

floyd1975

PJPOWER wrote:

That seems a little exadurated.........I love it when 1 event sparks a generalization of the US as a whole. The mass media has a way of drilling that fear into the minds of people, though. I could be wrong, but I'm willing to bet that most of the population does not fear being shot on a day to day basis nor do we wake up every morning thinking that there will be a gunfight wherever we go. I love it when people try to say that gun owners are promoting fear when anti-gun activists also try to generate fear by making statements, such as the quote above, out of pure ignorance.

Handguns are illegal in my town (or at least were until the court fixed that problem). I probably have more of a chance of getting shot than people in places where the guns are extremely common. I don't fear it though. I just stay out of the bad neighborhoods to minimize my chances of being killed.