Obama Signs Executive Orders on Gun Control

[Wrestling101]

Here's where the problem is, if you are paying attention major businesses such as Wal-Mart are being given executive orders to completely cut off selling ammunition for fire arms. It's not just Wal-Mart that is just an example. There is also a bill on the table that is going to ban buying ammo through Internet purchases. What law abiding, gun owning citizens are worried about is the fact that when you start putting things together there is an absolute movement to disarm (and if you can't disarm, you make purchasing ammo legally nearly impossible) the American public.

Well, it's about time....only those who have a need for guns should have access to them.

 

[Moon Knight]

Here's where the problem is, if you are paying attention major businesses such as Wal-Mart are being given executive orders to completely cut off selling ammunition for fire arms. It's not just Wal-Mart that is just an example. There is also a bill on the table that is going to ban buying ammo through Internet purchases. What law abiding, gun owning citizens are worried about is the fact that when you start putting things together there is an absolute movement to disarm (and if you can't disarm, you make purchasing ammo legally nearly impossible) the American public.

Source please.

Well, it's about time....only those who have a need for guns should have access to them.

You are way off base here. Just because you don't need something doesn't mean you shouldn't be allowed to buy it out of paranoia. You don't need to to start disarming people and making a move to violate peoples rights in order to lower gun violence. The fact is, unless you hunt there is no way you can give a solid reason to claim you NEED a firearm.

Ban some types of guns, increase screening for all others and focus on eliminating poverty and fixing our health care system and weak border with Mexico. That is a far better start than ban all that shit you seem to support. Which FYI, is not even remotely enforceable.

Banning things has never worked, alcohol, Drugs and Prostitution....Banning them has not gotten rid of it, in fact banning most drugs and booze has only created more problems and violence than it solved. A full ban on guns would do the same, further embolden the already profitable illegal weapons trade and make gangs richer. Making things legal and taxing and regulating the fuck out of them works better.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

This link provides an examniation of the wording of the second amendment. It is non-partisan and does say the second amendment can be used to argue either side of the debate. However, it also states that the Bill of Rights were based on mistrust of the government. This makes perfect sense considering we broke away from Great Britain to gain independence. Why? Just to give all our guns to the military? When it was the military we had to fight against to gain independence in the first place? .

Over TWO HUNDRED FUCKING YEARS AGO.....Before AR-15s or school massacres existed!!

Jesus titty FUCKIN CHRIST are you people serious with this shit? How can you say such unbashedly insane things with a straight fuking face??

 

[Clark Kent]

Over TWO HUNDRED FUCKING YEARS AGO.....Before AR-15s or school massacres existed!!

Jesus titty FUCKIN CHRIST are you people serious with this shit? How can you say such unbashedly insane things with a straight fuking face??

But Norcal, it doesn't matter how long ago it was. The Bill of Rights were put into place to limit the power of the government and protect the sovereignty of the people. By the way, it wasn't even 200 hundred years ago when other countries took their citizens guns and formed a tyranical government so your argument about how long ago is kinda moot.

Am I saying our government is going tyranical? No, but the 2nd amendment was put in place to help make sure of that.

Also, did you not see my link on how many deaths happend with AR-15's? Or how many shootings were preempted with guns? Of course you could say that any deaths caused by an AR-15 is cause for alarm. Fair enough, but more deaths were caused by hands and feet than Ar-15's last year.

It's amazing you brought that up.....listen to this. That man that stabbed those 22 kids, that happened the same day as Sandy Hook. Interesting fact about that.

Man in US goes to a school with a gun and shoots people.....26 deaths
Man in China goes to a school with a knife and stabs people.....0 deaths

Get the difference?


At some point, people prove themselves to not be worthy of making choices, and the decisions need to be made for them. Guns need to be limited to those who have a need for them.

I think I brought up there were no deaths in China in another post. In any case it only proves my point that crazy people are gonna try and kill people regardless of weapon choice. Your basic argument is kids getting stabbed and living is better than kids getting shot and dying. Kids getting harmed regardless of how is the problem. Which is why I've said too that we should focus more on the people than the weapons.

 

[Clark Kent]

I know this has been said before but it relates to wat Norcal said, so I'll bring it up now.

If you make the argument that the framers of the Constittuion are out of touch with todays country than you also have to include their knowledge of vehicles too. Now, I personally think if the framers knew about tyranical governments in effect today, they'd still keep the 2nd amendment in place. Once again, because of their mistrust of the government and proof since 1776 that tyranical governments have taken over countries.

Anyway, the framers didn't know what a car was. They had horses and carriages. If they would ban guns then surely they'd have banned vehicles. I mean, why not? There's around 10 million accidents each year and cause around 40,000 deaths. Most people who drive are responsible, just like most people who own guns. Let's also compare drunk drivers to murderers. Around 10,000 people are killed by drunk drivers each year, that's the same statistic as people killed from guns.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/sta...n/motor_vehicle_accidents_and_fatalities.html

 

[Gelgarin]

Cars have practical value.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

But Norcal, it doesn't matter how long ago it was. The Bill of Rights were put into place to limit the power of the government and protect the sovereignty of the people. By the way, it wasn't even 200 hundred years ago when other countries took their citizens guns and formed a tyranical government so your argument about how long ago is kinda moot.

Am I saying our government is going tyranical? No, but the 2nd amendment was put in place to help make sure of that.

The 2nd Amendment doesn't stand a chance against a tyrannical US government in 2012. It doesn't stand a chance against a democratic US government in 2012. It is Hubris to think otherwise.

Also, did you not see my link on how many deaths happend with AR-15's? Or how many shootings were preempted with guns? Of course you could say that any deaths caused by an AR-15 is cause for alarm. Fair enough, but more deaths were caused by hands and feet than Ar-15's last year.

I'm not Sly, I'm not going to call you a "DUMBASS". It would be rude if I called you a "DUMBASS". No matter how stupid of an dumbass argument you make I hereby promise to not call you a "DUMBASS".

Now tell us more about your hands and feet theory.

I think I brought up there were no deaths in China in another post. In any case it only proves my point that crazy people are gonna try and kill people regardless of weapon choice.

Are you really assuming that forum members think that certain weapons bans will stop all crazy people from hurting people? Now you're the one who is being rude. This comment clearly shows that you think the members of this forum are borderline, no completely inept of rational thought. How rude?

Your basic argument is kids getting stabbed and living is better than kids getting shot and dying. Kids getting harmed regardless of how is the problem. Which is why I've said too that we should focus more on the people than the weapons.

Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? And what lousy Tom Cruise-Colin Farrel movie makes you think we can do this successfully?

How about we do both?

Today is my daughter's birthday party. She is turning 5 tomorrow and we are having 23 kids get together at a local party place. I hope we all don't get killed.

 

[Wrestling101]

I think I brought up there were no deaths in China in another post. In any case it only proves my point that crazy people are gonna try and kill people regardless of weapon choice. Your basic argument is kids getting stabbed and living is better than kids getting shot and dying. Kids getting harmed regardless of how is the problem. Which is why I've said too that we should focus more on the people than the weapons.

You brought it up but you're neglecting the most important part of it......yes, he was crazy and tried to kill...the point is, because he didn't have a gun to use and only had a knife, he didn't do what he was trying to accomplish.

lol....yes, my basic argument was kids getting stabbed and living is better than kids getting shot and dying. Are you saying it's not? Because agreeing with me is the only way you can look at it.

 

[Slyfox696]

Actually, you're misinterpretation is the one that's become extreme. Also, I meant pro second amendment.

No...

I'm not talking gun ban, but gun control. Pay attention.

This link provides an examniation of the wording of the second amendment. It is non-partisan and does say the second amendment can be used to argue either side of the debate. However, it also states that the Bill of Rights were based on mistrust of the government. This makes perfect sense considering we broke away from Great Britain to gain independence. Why? Just to give all our guns to the military? When it was the military we had to fight against to gain independence in the first place? Am I saying the right to bear arms is only to protect us under tyranical government? Not entirely because I think the way they wrote the amendment was intentional for it to also be interpreted like all citizens have a right, not only to protect themselves from tyranny, but from other citizens as well. Hence, it's a right we have.

"We must train and classify the whole of our male citizens, and make military instruction a regular part of collegiate education. We can never be safe till this is done." - Thomas Jefferson

"For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well organized and armed militia is their best security." - Thomas Jefferson

"large and permanent military establishments ... are forbidden by the principles of free government, and against the necessity of which the militia were meant to be a constitutional bulwark." - James Madison

"If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security." - Alexander Hamilton

The entire point of the 2nd Amendment was to keep the power of the defense in the hands of the state militias, to avoid the all powerful federal army which they had just fought. The right was to protect the ability of the state citizenry to come together in a well-organized and disciplined militia when the need for defense was necessary. You can even see this action during the Civil War, where soldiers who had no stake in the slavery or the more encompassing federal vs. state rights argument still went to war because the dedication to the state was greater than the patriotism to the nation.

Fast forward to today. We have a large standing federal army (which is against the Founders original intents and beliefs, by the way). We have an air force. Our navy is, I believe, the largest in the world. The national guard, which serves as reserve forces, also is partly run by the state, which would be today's equivalent to a militia. The purpose was never for individual citizens to own guns which fired 30 rounds in 25 seconds. The purpose was for the individual citizen to be ready to come to the defense of the state when necessary. This is no longer the case for most people who own guns. And the guns citizens do have, they do not use in military actions.

At the end of the day, you have to ask yourself this question. If the 2nd Amendment was simply about an individual's right to own a gun, why did the brightest minds in our country at the time even bother including the words "well-regulated militia"?

And since you like posting links, here's a link to an opinion article which explains the basic history: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/12/jeffrey-toobin-second-amendment.html

You're missing the comparison here completely.

No, your comparison is just fucking horrible. You removed guns, put in marriage. Thus trying to say guns have the same rights as people, and that's utterly ridiculous.

It's not saying guns are people who have rights.

It is, actually. It's not making the claim guns SHOULD have the rights of people, but for the comparison to work, it has to assume guns have the same rights as people.

Yes, banning guns would effect everyone, but that would leave a very vocal, and very big, group of people who would argue against that.

So? There's a very large and local group who argue against marijuana being illegal. But no one says it is discrimination against people.

Why should straight people be allowed to marry and not homosexuals?

Everyone should get to be married. I don't understand your point.

Why should government have guns and not citizens?

No one is saying government can have guns and citizens cannot. We're simply choosing which guns citizens can have, which is something we already do.

Your example sucked. Try again.

Guns have actually preempted mass shootings from happening:

http://www.lp.org/news/press-releas...dren-by-ending-prohibition-on-self-defense-in

I wonder if you realize how stupid this makes you look right now. Here's a hint..."if the aggressor didn't HAVE a gun..."

Murder isn't even close to the leading cause of death:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm

Well when you find the cure to cancer and Alzheimer's disease, I'll be more than happy to entertain your point here. Otherwise, it's absolutely stupid to compare medical conditions with being shot in the head.

Nor are homicide numbers even close to other violent crimes and murder numbers have decreased greatly in the past 20 years:

As has the number of households who have a gun.

Since 1973, the GSS has been asking Americans whether they keep a gun in their home. In the 1970s, about half of the nation said yes; today only about one-third do.

http://themonkeycage.org/blog/2012/...re-of-guns-and-violence-in-the-united-states/

We can play coincidences all day long.

Lastly, assualt rifles account for a very tiny percentage of gun related murders(I know you want all guns banned so this is for everyone else reading):

I would like all banned, but I'd settle for stricter control first.

With numbers decreasing as they are, I'd say we're dealing with murder over all on a steady and and consistant basis.

Imagine how much lower murder would decrease with strict gun control. Hell, our murder rate might get as low as the UK.

You gotta consider, too, that the places with the highest gun bans also have the highest murder rates.

Irrelevant evidence to the discussion at hand. If Town A bans guns, people just drive to Town B to acquire them. For this to work, it has to be a nationwide effort.

Both Sandy Hook and the Aurora movie theater ban guns.

But Colorado has liberal gun laws. See why playing this game is silly?

I think all schools should have an officier on duty.

Like Columbine, right?

If I'm not mistaken, ths was one of Obama's executive orders and one I agree with.

Kind of. The order was to give incentives to schools to have a resource officer.

One bad apple should never spoil the whole bunch. Hell, there are 300 million guns in this country and around 10,000 gun related deaths each year. That's less than one percent of guns being used to kill people.

....so?

First of all, your number is very wrong. There are over 30,000 gun related deaths every year. There are roughly 10,000 gun related homicides every year. And if you're one of the 10,000, does it really matter what percentage of guns was used to kill you?

There's also the argument about protecting yourself from home invasion.

And there are plenty of guns that are not handguns or assault rifles which can do so. Not to mention the danger of a home invasion goes way down if you make it difficult for anyone to obtain handguns.

Many Americans are like this too. They're responsible people who just wanna feel safe.

They are responsible people who only possess the ability to see the here and now and not see the big picture. What does it say about a country when they cling to the very thing which makes them feel threatened in the first place?

Here's where the problem is, if you are paying attention major businesses such as Wal-Mart are being given executive orders to completely cut off selling ammunition for fire arms.

This is completely untrue. Wherever you get your news, stop.

There is also a bill on the table that is going to ban buying ammo through Internet purchases.

...you say that like it's a bad thing.

If you consider yourself a responsible and law-abiding gun owner, you don't want Internet purchases.

Over TWO HUNDRED FUCKING YEARS AGO.....Before AR-15s or school massacres existed!!

Jesus titty FUCKIN CHRIST are you people serious with this shit? How can you say such unbashedly insane things with a straight fuking face??

Brainwashing.

By the way, it wasn't even 200 hundred years ago when other countries took their citizens guns and formed a tyranical government so your argument about how long ago is kinda moot.

Oh? Do tell.

Am I saying our government is going tyranical?

So you just wasted our time with fear mongering. Great.

Or how many shootings were preempted with guns?

Yes, we saw you had a link on how guns preempted....guns. And apparently you consider that a point in your favor.

I think I brought up there were no deaths in China in another post. In any case it only proves my point that crazy people are gonna try and kill people regardless of weapon choice. Your basic argument is kids getting stabbed and living is better than kids getting shot and dying. Kids getting harmed regardless of how is the problem. Which is why I've said too that we should focus more on the people than the weapons.

And OUR point is that if we have to decide on the varying degree of lethality of weapons, we need to be taking the least lethal approach. Get rid of the weapons whose intent are to harm people.

It's really not that hard to understand.

Anyway, the framers didn't know what a car was. They had horses and carriages. If they would ban guns then surely they'd have banned vehicles. I mean, why not? There's around 10 million accidents each year and cause around 40,000 deaths. Most people who drive are responsible, just like most people who own guns. Let's also compare drunk drivers to murderers. Around 10,000 people are killed by drunk drivers each year, that's the same statistic as people killed from guns.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/sta...n/motor_vehicle_accidents_and_fatalities.html

Cars have practical value.

It always amuses me how they keep bringing up cars. The fact the intended purpose of a car and the intended purpose of a handgun or assault rifle are completely different never seems to register.

 

[Wrestling101]

Source please.


You are way off base here. Just because you don't need something doesn't mean you shouldn't be allowed to buy it out of paranoia.

I would say that just because you are allowed to do something (own guns) doesn't mean you should be allowed to buy every gun imaginable just because you're paranoid, like how assault rifle sales went throught he roof in the days after Sandy Hook.

You don't need to to start disarming people and making a move to violate peoples rights in order to lower gun violence.

People's rights aren't being affected by severely limiting the accessibility people have to acquire and own guns.

The fact is, unless you hunt there is no way you can give a solid reason to claim you NEED a firearm.

Exactly. Now we're getting somewhere. If guns were limited to only those who needed it, there would be less people getting killed because of them, right?

Ban some types of guns,

That's what I've been saying

increase screening for all others

Improved screening and background checks, a mental health check every 3 years or so, requiring people to keep their guns in top notch double lock gun safes, and saying no to a few people that want guns 'just because I can' is a start.

and focus on eliminating poverty and fixing our health care system and weak border with Mexico. That is a far better start than ban all that shit you seem to support.

Not sure what this has to do with anything.....poverty is and will always be a part of society. If there's people on the top of the food chain, there will be people on the bottom. Poverty and fixing health care and weak borders doesn't have much to do with social outcasts and people with mental issues and limiting the availability of guns to those people.

Lanza was not poor, had (presumably) access to great health care, and didn't jump the border to get here.

Which FYI, is not even remotely enforceable.

Does that mean we shouldn't try?

Making things legal and taxing and regulating the fuck out of them works better.

This brings the possibility of finding it on the black market up to at least the same level as banning it, so I'm not sure what's your point.

There's lots of gang violence that we should also try to curb, but they're not the ones killing dozens of innocent people at one time in a cold, calculated, premeditated manner.

 

[Slyfox696]

Banning things has never worked, alcohol, Drugs and Prostitution....

Yes it has. Alcohol is legal, cocaine is not. Which is more common? Prostitution would be far more prevalent if it were legal.

Banning them has not gotten rid of it

No, but it has curtailed it. And that's the point.

We will never be able to prevent gun violence, drunk driving deaths, cocaine use or prostitution. All we can do is try to minimize them all as effectively as possible (except for prostitution, I don't see a reasonable argument for that to be prohibited).

Improved screening and background checks

Yes, as well mandatory training and exams (like drivers licenses).

a mental health check every 3 years or so

Not feeling this one as much.

requiring people to keep their guns in top notch double lock gun safes

I'm against this one, if only for practicality reasons. Who is going to make sure guns are being safely locked away? This one should be recommended, but not put into law.

Not sure what this has to do with anything.....poverty is and will always be a part of society. If there's people on the top of the food chain, there will be people on the bottom. Poverty and fixing health care and weak borders doesn't have much to do with social outcasts and people with mental issues and limiting the availability of guns to those people.

Economic well-being has a lot to do with this. Socio-economic factors play a large role in the educational process, as well as the risk of committing crime.

 

[Wrestling101]

Yes, as well mandatory training and exams (like drivers licenses).

Sorry, my post wasn't all-encompassing, but yes, this was meant to be in there.

Not feeling this one as much.

Some kind of mental health check needs to be a part of this, and if possible, it should include everyone who lives in the home.

I'm against this one, if only for practicality reasons. Who is going to make sure guns are being safely locked away? This one should be recommended, but not put into law.

Maybe they're required to show a receipt at the time of purchase of a gun? I don't know....but I'm all in favor of also limiting gun accidents. There's way too many stories of kids finding a gun and accidently shooting themselves or their buddy standing next to them. Any and everything that can be done, should be done.

Economic well-being has a lot to do with this. Socio-economic factors play a large role in the educational process, as well as the risk of committing crime.

Yes, but my point is that while we (government, and voters by extension) should be trying to help those in need, it's a separate issue in that it will always be there and we will always be trying to curb poverty. Limiting the availibility to acquire a gun is a start in curbing a crime that a gun let's you feel invincible enough to carry out.

 

[Slyfox696]

Some kind of mental health check needs to be a part of this, and if possible, it should include everyone who lives in the home.

Then I'm definitely against it. My dad really likes guns. Obviously, I'm on the other end. But there's no way I should have to submit to a mental health check for something I don't even want, simply because I'm a minor living at home. Not to mention all of the privacy issues which come with a program like that.

Maybe they're required to show a receipt at the time of purchase of a gun? I don't know....but I'm all in favor of also limiting gun accidents. There's way too many stories of kids finding a gun and accidently shooting themselves or their buddy standing next to them. Any and everything that can be done, should be done.

I think if you make the requirements to actually being allowed to purchase and own a gun strong enough, the irresponsible ones who are more likely to put guns in the hands of the kids are going to be less likely to own them.

All in all, owning a gun right now is relatively easy. Make it much more difficult to obtain weapons and I think you'll see much more irresponsible gun owners fall to the wayside than responsible owners.

Yes, but my point is that while we (government, and voters by extension) should be trying to help those in need, it's a separate issue in that it will always be there and we will always be trying to curb poverty. Limiting the availibility to acquire a gun is a start in curbing a crime that a gun let's you feel invincible enough to carry out.

I'm not disputing the general ideas of your plans. I'm just saying that to argue socio-economic factors do not play a role in crime, even gun crime, is ignorant.

 

[Wrestling101]

I'm just saying that to argue socio-economic factors do not play a role in crime, even gun crime, is ignorant.

I never argued that.

One thing I'll say is that even with all that I personally would like done about this, it's still going to take 20 years for the full effect to take shape. Yes, some improvements will be shown somewhat immediately, but we won't see major improvements until a full generation has gone by with these new laws/safety guards in place to prevent gun violence.

 

[AndThat'sTheBottomLine]

I don't see what's so hard about banning assault rifles and other military grade weaponry. Do you plan on going on a shooting spree? Are you in the military? No to both? Then you don't need any kind of military grade weaponry. It's moronic that when the government wants to curb gun violence and people can't get over their hard on for guns long enough to allow it. Pathetic that we put our right to own guns over the lives of children.

 

[Loveless]

I've been meaning to point something out for a while and waiting for a perfect example to support it. Thankyou New Mexico

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21110435

This right here is, is a perfect example of why legislations, legal barriers and tighter regulations are, on the whole, pointless. I'm not going to get into a long post on it but it's simple

If I'm crazy and I want a gun, I don't have to go through all the procedures. All I have to do is steal a gun off the neighbours.

Spoiler

Just as an aside and because I don't want to get away from what I've said above, was your constitution not drawn up with the intention of being flexible, adaptable and idealised? It seems as if you hold it up like it's The 10 Commandments & set in stone, contrary to my understanding of it's original intent and principles.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

was your constitution not drawn up with the intention of being flexible, adaptable and idealised? It seems as if you hold it up like it's The 10 Commandments & set in stone, contrary to my understanding of it's original intent and principles

One million percent correct.

Which is why I have been slamming my head into the wall about the fact it was written hundreds of years before the things we are discussing (assualt weapons, school shootings, sky high murder rates via gun violence) were any sort of a concern.


People are fucking morons. Zero logical thought.

 

[Moon Knight]

People's rights aren't being affected by severely limiting the accessibility people have to acquire and own guns.

You were supporting the idea of full disarmament, which would.

Improved screening and background checks, a mental health check every 3 years or so, requiring people to keep their guns in top notch double lock gun safes, and saying no to a few people that want guns 'just because I can' is a start.

And unless you are a hunter, what other reason is there?

Not sure what this has to do with anything.....poverty is and will always be a part of society. If there's people on the top of the food chain, there will be people on the bottom. Poverty and fixing health care and weak borders doesn't have much to do with social outcasts and people with mental issues and limiting the availability of guns to those people.

Lets see, what happened in CT is not the only time people get shot. Go to East ST. Louis, New York, LA....People get shot because of gangs all the time and a few got shot by the time you will read this. Poverty causes crime to rise, not that hard. Lower poverty and the crime rate will go with it. Unless you are saying poverty will always be there so why bother?

Lanza was not poor, had (presumably) access to great health care, and didn't jump the border to get here.

So? Your view of this problem is more than a little narrow. The majority of our illegal weapons come from Mexico, secure the border and peoples access to illegal weapons and drugs drop. Simple.

Does that mean we shouldn't try?

Yes. Banning all guns is not enforceable and would be a waste of time and money. Look at drugs.

This brings the possibility of finding it on the black market up to at least the same level as banning it, so I'm not sure what's your point.

I am not sure what you are getting at here.

There's lots of gang violence that we should also try to curb, but they're not the ones killing dozens of innocent people at one time in a cold, calculated, premeditated manner.

This shows you don't pay much attention to gang violence, I do. Gangs are an interest of mine. Yes they do kill dozens of innocent people in a cold, calculated manner. Hell, I read a story of a couple of gangbangers who killed a baby because they didn't want to leave a witness to their crime. They were coming to kill a man who left the gang a decade earlier.

Yes it has. Alcohol is legal, cocaine is not. Which is more common? Prostitution would be far more prevalent if it were legal.

You are the only person I have ever seen argue in favor of prohibition. It doesn't work, all it did was create a strong black market and give rise to the mob. And go to the inner city, that will hopefully open your eyes. Banning drugs isn't working.

No, but it has curtailed it. And that's the point.

We will never be able to prevent gun violence, drunk driving deaths, cocaine use or prostitution. All we can do is try to minimize them all as effectively as possible (except for prostitution, I don't see a reasonable argument for that to be prohibited).

Regulating guns like I pointed out and focusing on border security and poverty would go a lot farther than banning them. Gangs already have enough sources of revenue, banning guns would just give them another. At least with regulating them this gives people a legal way to obtain them and we can control who does. Same with drugs, legalize them and regulate the fuck out of them.

 

[Slyfox696]

You are the only person I have ever seen argue in favor of prohibition. It doesn't work

Perhaps the most powerful legacy of National Prohibition is the widely held belief that it did not work. I agree with other historians who have argued that this belief is false: Prohibition did work in lowering per capita consumption.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1470475/

all it did was create a strong black market and give rise to the mob.

Although organized crime flourished under its sway, Prohibition was not responsible for its appearance, as organized crime’s post-Repeal persistence has demonstrated.

And go to the inner city, that will hopefully open your eyes. Banning drugs isn't working.

Again, which is more common? I'm still waiting for you to answer that question.

Regulating guns like I pointed out and focusing on border security and poverty would go a lot farther than banning them.

As I've said multiple times, I am not arguing for 100% gun ban, just assault rifles and handguns.

Also, as I've said, is there a reason why we can only take 1 step at a time? Is there a reason we can't do multiple things?

Same with drugs, legalize them and regulate the fuck out of them.

So you support doing with drugs the same thing I'm advocating for guns, which you suggest will not work...I'm not sure I follow.

 

[Moon Knight]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1470475/

If it worked so well, why did they get rid of it? What about speakeasys? They tried to get rid of booze and failed, no matter the drop in per capita consumption. There was a point to it, and it failed miserably. Of course I think you just googled this and didn't bother reading it. If you didn't just do that, maybe you would thought that could be impossible at the time to know per capita consumption of an illegal drink? Care to answer that? How they came up with those numbers and if illegal drinking was taken into account and to what degree. There is enough holes to make me question this.

Again, which is more common? I'm still waiting for you to answer that question.

I already told you...I guess taking the hint doesn't work for you. Both are common, and in some cities they just as common as the other and in some cases drugs are more popular. Go to the inner city, and get a good idea of how drugs have destroyed those places.

FYI, of course the mob stayed after banning booze was lifted. The mob didn't only just sell beer you know. It just gave them a huge source of revenue and allowed them to strengthen their hold.

As I've said multiple times, I am not arguing for 100% gun ban, just assault rifles and handguns.

I never said you did.

Also, as I've said, is there a reason why we can only take 1 step at a time? Is there a reason we can't do multiple things?

I never said this either. Stay with me. You did however. You seem focused on gun control only and don't focus on other things, I focus on everything.

So you support doing with drugs the same thing I'm advocating for guns, which you suggest will not work...I'm not sure I follow.

I am not sure I follow how you came to this conclusion. I say full bans don't work...You are not arguing for a full ban...Ok?

 

[Slyfox696]

If it worked so well, why did they get rid of it?

Many reasons, which are mentioned in that government article. One of the biggest was the Great Depression of the 30s.

Regardless of why they got rid of it, the point is it reduced the number of people drinking.

I already told you

You did? I must have missed it. Say it again clearly for me.

In the United States, which is more common, cocaine or alcohol?

...I guess taking the hint doesn't work for you.

Guess not. Guess you have to just answer the question, instead of playing word games to give yourself leeway later.

Cocaine or alcohol, which is more common in the United States?

Both are common, and in some cities they just as common as the other and in some cases drugs are more popular. Go to the inner city, and get a good idea of how drugs have destroyed those places.

You're not answering my question. You're trying to rephrase and change the context of the question. It's really a simple question.

Which is MORE common in the United States? Cocaine or alcohol? The illegal drug or the legal drug?

By the way, we both know why you won't just simply answer the question.

I never said this either.

I never said you did.

Stay with me. You did however.

Liar.

You seem focused on gun control only and don't focus on other things, I focus on everything.

Liar again. It amazes me how you continue to repeat this lie.

 

[Moon Knight]

Many reasons, which are mentioned in that government article. One of the biggest was the Great Depression of the 30s.

Regardless of why they got rid of it, the point is it reduced the number of people drinking.

You forgot the mafia using it as a main source of money.

You did? I must have missed it. Say it again clearly for me.

In the United States, which is more common, cocaine or alcohol?

Guess not. Guess you have to just answer the question, instead of playing word games to give yourself leeway later.

Cocaine or alcohol, which is more common in the United States?

You're not answering my question. You're trying to rephrase and change the context of the question. It's really a simple question.

Which is MORE common in the United States? Cocaine or alcohol? The illegal drug or the legal drug?

Read my post again and get back to me. The answer is already given..What else do you want?

By the way, we both know why you won't just simply answer the question.

I already did.

Liar.

Your obsession with gun control and refusal to talk about anything else proves me right.

Liar again. It amazes me how you continue to repeat this lie.

I guess that's why you focus on gun control and refused to debate other solutions....

Lets try to not go around in circles, like every other time we talk.

 

[Slyfox696]

You forgot the mafia using it as a main source of money.

I "forgot" many reasons, or to put it more accurately, I just mentioned one of many reasons. I'm pretty sure I said there were many reasons.

But none of the reasons changed the fact it was working to reduce alcohol use. Which is really the point.

Read my post again and get back to me. The answer is already given..What else do you want?

I already did.

Where? Please quote yourself where you clearly state which one is more used. All I see is you dancing around because you know you are 100% wrong on this one.

Here, I'll go ahead and say it, since I know how much you hate to be wrong.

Cocaine use:

The National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) estimates that in 2008 there were 1.9 million current (past-month) cocaine users, of which approximately 359,000 were current crack users. Adults aged 18 to 25 years have a higher rate of current cocaine use than any other age group, with 1.5 percent of young adults reporting past month cocaine use. Overall, men report higher rates of current cocaine use than women.

http://www.drugabuse.gov/publicatio...ction/what-scope-cocaine-use-in-united-states

Alcohol use in America

Percent of adults 18 years of age and over who were current regular drinkers (at least 12 drinks in the past year): 51.5%

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/alcohol.htm

I suppose I could convert one to percentages or the other to total numbers, but surely you're smart enough to do that without me.

Your obsession with gun control and refusal to talk about anything else proves me right.

So me talking about gun control in a gun control thread makes me obsessed? Interesting logic...

And did I not say this?

Economic well-being has a lot to do with this. Socio-economic factors play a large role in the educational process, as well as the risk of committing crime.

Your lying is becoming embarrassing for you.

I guess that's why you focus on gun control and refused to debate other solutions....

You mean like this?

Some kind of mental health check needs to be a part of this, and if possible, it should include everyone who lives in the home.

Then I'm definitely against it. My dad really likes guns. Obviously, I'm on the other end. But there's no way I should have to submit to a mental health check for something I don't even want, simply because I'm a minor living at home. Not to mention all of the privacy issues which come with a program like that.

I guess you could say that still has something to do with gun control, so I'll point you to the numerous times I argue for stronger public education. I think we both agree education level plays a factor in economic status, right?

So, contrary to what you just said, I do discuss other things.

Lets try to not go around in circles, like every other time we talk.

Quit lying, give clear responses, and it won't be a problem.

 

[klunderbunker]

One million percent correct.

Which is why I have been slamming my head into the wall about the fact it was written hundreds of years before the things we are discussing (assualt weapons, school shootings, sky high murder rates via gun violence) were any sort of a concern.


People are fucking morons. Zero logical thought.

Gun advocates: "You can't change the Constitution!"

These people are also the ones who stand behind the second amendment. As in the second change to the Constitution.

 

[Clark Kent]

The entire point of the 2nd Amendment was to keep the power of the defense in the hands of the state militias, to avoid the all powerful federal army which they had just fought. The right was to protect the ability of the state citizenry to come together in a well-organized and disciplined militia when the need for defense was necessary. You can even see this action during the Civil War, where soldiers who had no stake in the slavery or the more encompassing federal vs. state rights argument still went to war because the dedication to the state was greater than the patriotism to the nation.

Fast forward to today. We have a large standing federal army (which is against the Founders original intents and beliefs, by the way). We have an air force. Our navy is, I believe, the largest in the world. The national guard, which serves as reserve forces, also is partly run by the state, which would be today's equivalent to a militia. The purpose was never for individual citizens to own guns which fired 30 rounds in 25 seconds. The purpose was for the individual citizen to be ready to come to the defense of the state when necessary. This is no longer the case for most people who own guns. And the guns citizens do have, they do not use in military actions.

At the end of the day, you have to ask yourself this question. If the 2nd Amendment was simply about an individual's right to own a gun, why did the brightest minds in our country at the time even bother including the words "well-regulated militia"?

I agree with you on the intent of the first part of the second amendment. But the second parts states "being necessary for the secuity of a free, the rights of the people to bear arms must not be infringed."

Let's look at some other quotes:

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"
Samuel Adams
quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington
First President of the United States

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
Patrick Henry

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
Thomas Paine

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Ben Franklin

It's apparent that the founding fathers wanted citizens to have arms to have security from government and each other. Yes, they believed in the militia having them, but back then, the militia and everyday citizens were one in the same. Which is why the second part of the amendment is written like it is.

No, your comparison is just fucking horrible. You removed guns, put in marriage. Thus trying to say guns have the same rights as people, and that's utterly ridiculous.

No one is saying government can have guns and citizens cannot. We're simply choosing which guns citizens can have, which is something we already do.

Your example sucked. Try again.

When you ban guns(for those that want to), you're taking away a right we have. Such as everyone should have a right to marry.

I wonder if you realize how stupid this makes you look right now. Here's a hint..."if the aggressor didn't HAVE a gun..."

If the man in China had been preempted with a gun, your argument would be "if the aggressor didn't HAVE a knife.." Again, you focus solely on the weapon and not the person. Did you also not see how it mentioned pilots carrying guns now too. Did the terrorists have guns on those flights? If the pilot had a gun, could that not help? Once again, you're missing the point here.

Well when you find the cure to cancer and Alzheimer's disease, I'll be more than happy to entertain your point here. Otherwise, it's absolutely stupid to compare medical conditions with being shot in the head.

Riiiight, so focusing on taking away AR-15s that killed a whopping 323 people last year is way more important than focusing on curing diseases.

Imagine how much lower murder would decrease with strict gun control. Hell, our murder rate might get as low as the UK.

Actually some contries in the UK have higher murder rates than some of our states. When you keep in mind that the UK's population is a lot smaller than ours, it's a fair comparison to make.

http://libertarianhome.co.uk/2012/12/uk-murder-rate-higher-than-some-us-states/

Irrelevant evidence to the discussion at hand. If Town A bans guns, people just drive to Town B to acquire them. For this to work, it has to be a nationwide effort.

But Colorado has liberal gun laws. See why playing this game is silly?

Point being murderers generally go to places where guns are banned. Colorado allows citizens to have a concealed weapon, that specific movie theater didn't, which is why the shooter probably went there.

Like Columbine, right?

The link I posted listed occurances where someone with a gun on hand preempted shootings from happening. Columbine proves more of the exception and less of the rule.

First of all, your number is very wrong. There are over 30,000 gun related deaths every year. There are roughly 10,000 gun related homicides every year. And if you're one of the 10,000, does it really matter what percentage of guns was used to kill you?

I should've said "gun related murders" because that is what I meant, so my mistake. The percentage matters because more people who own guns, don't harm others with them. Take a look at some gacts from this link:

http://americangunfacts.com/

I know the violent crime rate statistic is off, so take all other facts as you may. They do source everything. In any case, it shows that guns are proven to be more useful than harmful and as I've said, a few bad apples shouldn't spoil the whole bunch.

And there are plenty of guns that are not handguns or assault rifles which can do so. Not to mention the danger of a home invasion goes way down if you make it difficult for anyone to obtain handguns.

I'm not competely disagreeing with you, but I think that the shootings that take place could have easily happened with revolvers. Sure, lives would've been spared in that case, but yet again, the real issue goes unnoticed. As far as making it difficult to get handguns. That doesn't seem to be working well with drugs so I don't have much confidence with that. You could compare us to the UK and Canada here, but they don't have the gang violence or drug problems we have either.

They are responsible people who only possess the ability to see the here and now and not see the big picture. What does it say about a country when they cling to the very thing which makes them feel threatened in the first place?

When I think about someone breaking in, I don't even think of the weapon they're carrying. I think about the fear I'd feel and not knowing what malicious intent the intruder has. I'm afraid of the person, not the weapon.

Oh? Do tell.

Hitler? I know your prepared for that, so go ahead...

Yes, we saw you had a link on how guns preempted....guns. And apparently you consider that a point in your favor.

Of course. The article also states how guns can preempt other attacks. As I've mentioned, such as the terrorists attacks and even the attack in China.

And OUR point is that if we have to decide on the varying degree of lethality of weapons, we need to be taking the least lethal approach. Get rid of the weapons whose intent are to harm people.

It's really not that hard to understand.

Many things can be used as a weapon. Many items you can find in the average household can be used as a weapon. You can ban all the weapons you want, but people will still try and kill other people.

It always amuses me how they keep bringing up cars. The fact the intended purpose of a car and the intended purpose of a handgun or assault rifle are completely different never seems to register.

It's because intent doesn't matter. The argument is if the framers on the Constitution knew about the dangers of guns today, then they might have wrote things differently. Well, how were they supposed to know about cars too? A drunk driver behind the wheel is no bit as dangerous as an angry crazy man with a gun. As I've said, they saw great intent for firearms, so my guess is they'd write it the same. Maybe a litle easier so people will stop debating about it.

The 2nd Amendment doesn't stand a chance against a tyrannical US government in 2012. It doesn't stand a chance against a democratic US government in 2012. It is Hubris to think otherwise.

Many factors play into this. Such as whether or not the military would even go along with an uprising. It's immaterial, however, because the 2nd amendment exists and even though it might not protect us against a tyranica government, it still allows is to try

I'm not Sly, I'm not going to call you a "DUMBASS". It would be rude if I called you a "DUMBASS". No matter how stupid of an dumbass argument you make I hereby promise to not call you a "DUMBASS".

Now tell us more about your hands and feet theory.

Well, around 300 people were killed last year by AR-15's. Around 700 were killed from hands and feet of another person, i.e. beaten to death.

Are you really assuming that forum members think that certain weapons bans will stop all crazy people from hurting people? Now you're the one who is being rude. This comment clearly shows that you think the members of this forum are borderline, no completely inept of rational thought. How rude?

I havent said, nor implied that. I honestly didn't remember if I addressed the incident in China or not.

How about we do both?

Today is my daughter's birthday party. She is turning 5 tomorrow and we are having 23 kids get together at a local party place. I hope we all don't get killed.

Your last statement makes me uncomfortable.

You brought it up but you're neglecting the most important part of it......yes, he was crazy and tried to kill...the point is, because he didn't have a gun to use and only had a knife, he didn't do what he was trying to accomplish.

lol....yes, my basic argument was kids getting stabbed and living is better than kids getting shot and dying. Are you saying it's not? Because agreeing with me is the only way you can look at it.

I don't disagree with you, I just think people who support gun control try and always shift the argument back to taking away people's guns when there are many other incidents of attempted murder that don't include guns.