Obama takes no action on gun control;

[3rdnlng]

All things being equal, I'd like to see guns completely gone from existence- I honestly think most people would. Things, however are not equal, and guns have been around for a long time. Just like the prohibition, a ban on guns would fail. There are few people who want them banned, despite what the talking heads tell us.

 

I think any loophole (and I don't know if it exists or not) allowing guns to be sold without a background check should be eliminated, vaporized, gone....poof! Background checks should be thorough and done my an independent source that isn't tied to the government, the NRA, pro or anti gun people (note, I separated the NRA from the pro gun crowd). Mental health should factor in and ONLY be determined by specialist physicians- I don't want the government making the laws and determining who fits that criteria.

 

My preference is no assault type weapons, but I think a middel ground can be found on this. Make the background checks even more stringent.

 

I do believe, despite all the rhetoric from our wonderful government (and the ones pulling their strings), we are headed for an eventual all-out ban and they won't consider whether all things are equal or not. Expect the worst, as it will probably happen. There is no hope and little change.

 

 

 

How'd that background check work out for the Webster shooter?

[Adam]

Don't even start thinking that way, much less talking that way. They can't do it until people acquiesce. If the society as a whole strongly resists the notion of gun bans they can never make it happen.

 

Also, at the risk of sounding Dr. Strangelove, every genocide of the 20th century was preceeded by a disarming of the population. I know, I know, it could never happen here. Not even in 50 or 100 years because it's not like that now and look how little things have changed over the last 100 years.

i think they can and will. And it won't be the gun-free society that all of us (including the pro-gun people) would like.

 

How can you be so sure? It's already happening in piece meal to change our perceptions of gun owners to gradually depict and frame them as "gun nuts" "fringe" "crime" "unreasonable" etc... its a slippery slope and at what point will the pendulum have swung too far to be stopped?

Well said. It already has reached that point.

 

How'd that background check work out for the Webster shooter?

You make a good point 3rd, but the problem is that we need to find a solution to make things safer, as no solution will truly make us safe. Unfortunately, I don't think safety will factor into anything that is done at this point.

[Buftex]

I would exempt you personally from that analysis, but too many of your co-libs are too anxious to exploit these things, giddily as it were, that I have a hard time believing otherwise.

 

Lets' see what happens when there is another school shooting...let's see what the gun advocates will have to say. I will bet, sure as ****, the role of any gun restrictions in the episode (or lack of) will be included in their take.

 

I don't know anyone who was "giddy" about what happened in Connecticut.

Edited January 16, 2013 by Buftex

[TakeYouToTasker]

As for the bolded section:

OP:Perhaps it is time to refresh the tree of liberty with the blood of those who deny us our 2nd amendment rights?

You: I promise to make a few of your children fatherless as a reward for your reckless tyranny.

Sodbuster: it gives the public the teeth to ensure that their leaders keep their end of the bargain. when they fail to keep their end of the bargain...

Fingon: If they come door to door taking guns then people will do it. Have you ever heard the expression "from my cold dead hands"?

Tim: (who likened this to the wars on Afghanistan) you don't have to win an all out head to head rebellion, you just need to make a point, scramble a few eggs and you'll be eating your omlet in no time.

You again: All of these rights we hold dear, every last solitary one of them, are defended by guns and the men and women willing to use them in that defense, who value the concept of freedom for their children more than they value their own lives.

You again: when you come knocking on it to take away their guns, they'll give you all of their bullets first.

 

It sure sounds like you are mentioning a war on police officers.

It absolutely does not sound that way to any reasonable thinking person. A war against police officers would be to actively stalk them out in order to perpetrate violence against them. What is actually being described is an instance in which police officers are engaging in a proactive war against gun owning citizens.

 

Owning a gun is your right, when it becomes illegal it is no longer your right. At times in this country cocaine and lsd were legal. They aren't anymore.

Absolutely incorrect on every level. The law doesn't create rights, it either protects them or infringes upon them. Your argument logically leads to the notion that women living under Sharia Law aren't being abused, because the law has decided they are not. It pardons the forced labor camps of Myanmar. It justifies slavery, and shouts down the women's lib movement. Rights are a philisophical construct that exist independant of law, and any law which deprives a man of his natural rights is unjust, and should be opposed as such.

 

I don't support gun ownership to the point that I am willing to MURDER other people. If the government comes for your weapons and you respond by getting into a shootout with them you are a lunatic. Plain and simple. Good for you that you were able to take a few with you, now your children and their children are fatherless, that is an okay outcome for you? The thing is - they aren't coming for your weapons. Yes now certain things are illegal, that doesn't mean they are going to go door to door doing ammunition checks.

No, it wouldn't be murder. Murder is a legal term with a specific meaning, and your example doesn't meet it. Self defense is not murder. Defending your property against an aggressor is not murder. It is killing, but all killing is not murder.

 

I'll buttress this point by repeating something I said earlier in this thread:

 

"The Freedom of Speech is not protected by the Constitution, the Congress, or the Supreme Court. Nor is it protected by your voice or your opinion. Similarly, your Freedom of the Press and your Right to Peaceably Assemble or The Freedom of Associate are not safeguarded by the pen and your desire to spend time with others of your choosing respectively. Your Freedom of Religion is not shielded by your faith. Your Right to Travel is not insured by your legs. Your Right to Vote is not guarenteed by your ballot. And even more to the point... your Right to Bear Arms is not protected by the Second Amendment.

 

All of these rights we hold dear, every last solitary one of them, are defended by guns and the men and women willing to use them in that defense, who value the concept of freedom for their children more than they value their own lives."

 

Given that we live in a world that is conducting an assault on my second amendment rights, how does it make one a lunitic to be concerned that other rights may be next, given that they are already attempting to take from me my right to defend them?

[B-Man]

Lets' see what happens when there is another school shooting...let's see what the gun advocates will have to say. I will bet, sure as ****, the role of any gun restrictions in the episode (or lack of) will be included in their take.

 

 

 

An obvious simplification of peoples responses, I'm afraid.

 

Responsible people pointed out that there were already many, many gun restrictions already in place in Connecticut, they stopped nothing because the guns were stolen from their owner.

 

Now, there are approximately 180 million guns in the U.S. right now. The Government can put on a show all they want, but its not really addressing the problem.

 

 

So, indeed, lets see what the response is if, (God forbid) there is another school shooting.

 

 

 

 

How Does the Sandy Hook Massacre Demonstrate the Need for Gun Controls That Have Nothing to Do With It?

 

It’s like they’re just cynically exploiting tragedy to advance a pre-existing agenda.

Edited January 16, 2013 by B-Man

[Buftex]

An obvious simplification of peoples responses, I'm afraid.

 

Responsible people pointed out that there were already many, many gun restrictions already in place in Connecticut, they stopped nothing because the guns were stolen from their owner.

 

Now, there are approximately 180 million guns in the U.S. right now. The Government can put on a show all they want, but its not really addressing the problem.

 

 

So, indeed, lets see what the response is if, (God forbid) there is another school shooting.

 

 

 

Yes, guns aren't going away, and neither are school shootings. The only "solution" offered by gun advocates is to put an emphasis on "mental health". Then, no doubt, the advocates will make the argument that the government doesn't have the right to tell them they are too mentally unstable to own a gun... so, in effect, the solution really seems to do nothing. That is what I am getting all of this...

Edited January 16, 2013 by Buftex

[B-Man]

Rifles were used in all of five murders in New York state in 2011; fists killed 28.

 

 

.

[Adam]

It absolutely does not sound that way to any reasonable thinking person. A war against police officers would be to actively stalk them out in order to perpetrate violence against them. What is actually being described is an instance in which police officers are engaging in a proactive war against gun owning citizens.

 

 

Absolutely incorrect on every level. The law doesn't create rights, it either protects them or infringes upon them. Your argument logically leads to the notion that women living under Sharia Law aren't being abused, because the law has decided they are not. It pardons the forced labor camps of Myanmar. It justifies slavery, and shouts down the women's lib movement. Rights are a philisophical construct that exist independant of law, and any law which deprives a man of his natural rights is unjust, and should be opposed as such.

 

 

No, it wouldn't be murder. Murder is a legal term with a specific meaning, and your example doesn't meet it. Self defense is not murder. Defending your property against an aggressor is not murder. It is killing, but all killing is not murder.

 

I'll buttress this point by repeating something I said earlier in this thread:

 

"The Freedom of Speech is not protected by the Constitution, the Congress, or the Supreme Court. Nor is it protected by your voice or your opinion. Similarly, your Freedom of the Press and your Right to Peaceably Assemble or The Freedom of Associate are not safeguarded by the pen and your desire to spend time with others of your choosing respectively. Your Freedom of Religion is not shielded by your faith. Your Right to Travel is not insured by your legs. Your Right to Vote is not guarenteed by your ballot. And even more to the point... your Right to Bear Arms is not protected by the Second Amendment.

 

All of these rights we hold dear, every last solitary one of them, are defended by guns and the men and women willing to use them in that defense, who value the concept of freedom for their children more than they value their own lives."

 

Given that we live in a world that is conducting an assault on my second amendment rights, how does it make one a lunitic to be concerned that other rights may be next, given that they are already attempting to take from me my right to defend them?

In essence, the world we live in is really screwed up. So is this country.

[B-Man]

 

 

I think any loophole (and I don't know if it exists or not) allowing guns to be sold without a background check should be eliminated, vaporized, gone....poof! Background checks should be thorough and done my an independent source that isn't tied to the government, the NRA, pro or anti gun people (note, I separated the NRA from the pro gun crowd). Mental health should factor in and ONLY be determined by specialist physicians- I don't want the government making the laws and determining who fits that criteria.

 

What Closing the Gun-Show Loophole Won’t Do

 

It is an article of faith that closing the “gun-show loophole” would make America a safer place. But that is what it is: faith. In 2008, three criminologists (one of them not at all friendly to guns) studied the effects on murder and suicide rates in California (which prohibits private sales without a background check) and Texas (which does not). They looked at homicide and suicide rates for adjacent ZIP codes for a week after gun shows. They found no change in suicide rates, and in Texas, which has no restrictions on private party sales, a small but statistically significant reduction in gun homicides.

 

This might seem surprising, and at first glance, it is. Except for one little detail: Criminals appear not to buy guns at gun shows, because guns are expensive. It is so much cheaper to steal guns instead. At Newtown, the killer first murdered his mother to steal the gun. At Clackamas Mall in Oregon in December, the shooter used a rifle he’d acquired by stealing it from a friend. In April of 2007, David Logsdon of Kansas City, Mo., murdered his neighbor and stole her late husband’s rifle for a mass murder.

 

I do not have a serious problem with requiring all firearms sales to go through a background check. But I do have a serious problem with pretending that this is going to make much of a difference in murder rates. You want to do something about murder? Look at the typical murders — not the highly atypical ones.

 

 

.

[Adam]

What Closing the Gun-Show Loophole Won’t Do

 

It is an article of faith that closing the “gun-show loophole” would make America a safer place. But that is what it is: faith. In 2008, three criminologists (one of them not at all friendly to guns) studied the effects on murder and suicide rates in California (which prohibits private sales without a background check) and Texas (which does not). They looked at homicide and suicide rates for adjacent ZIP codes for a week after gun shows. They found no change in suicide rates, and in Texas, which has no restrictions on private party sales, a small but statistically significant reduction in gun homicides.

 

This might seem surprising, and at first glance, it is. Except for one little detail: Criminals appear not to buy guns at gun shows, because guns are expensive. It is so much cheaper to steal guns instead. At Newtown, the killer first murdered his mother to steal the gun. At Clackamas Mall in Oregon in December, the shooter used a rifle he’d acquired by stealing it from a friend. In April of 2007, David Logsdon of Kansas City, Mo., murdered his neighbor and stole her late husband’s rifle for a mass murder.

 

I do not have a serious problem with requiring all firearms sales to go through a background check. But I do have a serious problem with pretending that this is going to make much of a difference in murder rates. You want to do something about murder? Look at the typical murders — not the highly atypical ones.

 

 

.

I don't disagree with you on that premise- it won't make things all good. I don't think there is any way to do that. And yes, the criminal element will always have access, one way or another. I wish there was a golden solution to this problem and many other problems, but there isn't.

 

I think one step in the right direction, is for people on both sides to come together. After that, people need to realize that just because no change has been made, doesn't mean that itellectual discussion hasn't happened.

[Alaska Darin]

That's the thing thought - they aren't revoking them. You can still own guns in NYS. They have just made modifications to what guns, ammo, attachments are allowed. When this right was given people owned muskets not ak's.

When it was written the government wasn't dropping 2000 pounders on restaurants in sovereign nations or using drones to monitor its citizens.

 

When it was written the government wasn't dropping 2000 pounders on restaurants in soveriegn nations or using drones to monitor its citizens.

What Closing the Gun-Show Loophole Won’t Do

 

It is an article of faith that closing the “gun-show loophole” would make America a safer place. But that is what it is: faith. In 2008, three criminologists (one of them not at all friendly to guns) studied the effects on murder and suicide rates in California (which prohibits private sales without a background check) and Texas (which does not). They looked at homicide and suicide rates for adjacent ZIP codes for a week after gun shows. They found no change in suicide rates, and in Texas, which has no restrictions on private party sales, a small but statistically significant reduction in gun homicides.

 

This might seem surprising, and at first glance, it is. Except for one little detail: Criminals appear not to buy guns at gun shows, because guns are expensive. It is so much cheaper to steal guns instead. At Newtown, the killer first murdered his mother to steal the gun. At Clackamas Mall in Oregon in December, the shooter used a rifle he’d acquired by stealing it from a friend. In April of 2007, David Logsdon of Kansas City, Mo., murdered his neighbor and stole her late husband’s rifle for a mass murder.

 

I do not have a serious problem with requiring all firearms sales to go through a background check. But I do have a serious problem with pretending that this is going to make much of a difference in murder rates. You want to do something about murder? Look at the typical murders — not the highly atypical ones.

 

 

.

I think the solution is probably to publish the locations of all legally owned firearms.

 

Sincerely,

Liberals

[Alaska Darin]

Then, no doubt, the advocates will make the argument that the government doesn't have the right to tell them they are too mentally unstable to own a gun

That's a fair point - it's actually already happened regarding veterans who've returned from combat and gone through counseling.

[Adam]

That's a fair point - it's actually already happened regarding veterans who've returned from combat and gone through counseling.

Not to mention, they will control the healthcare and the ability to declare one mentally ill. That gives the people (countries) controlling them a lot of power too.

[Nanker]

 

 

If it could save just one life, we should ban cars.

 

 

If it could save just one life, we should ban trains.

 

 

If it could save just one life, we should ban knives.

 

 

If it could save just one life, we should ban rat poison.

 

 

If it could save just one life, we should ban fertilizer.

 

 

If it could save just one life, we should ban can openers.

 

 

If it could save just one life, we should ban electric outlets.

 

 

If it could save just one life, we should ban subways.

 

 

If it could save just one life, we should ban pushing.

 

 

If it could save just one life, we should ban stairs.

 

 

If it could save just one life, we should ban ropes.

 

 

If it could save just one life, we should ban sharp objects.

 

 

If it could save just one life, we should ban marbles.

 

 

If it could save just one life, we should ban oil spills.

 

 

If it could save just one life, we should ban slippery roads.

 

 

If it could save just one life, we should ban piles of leaves.

 

 

If it could save just one life, we should ban swimming

 

 

If it could save just one life, we should ban choking.

 

 

If it could save just one life, we should ban prescription drugs.

 

 

If it could save just one life, we should ban glass.

 

 

If it could save just one life, we should ban pets.

 

 

If it could save just one life, we should ban hammers.

 

 

If it could save just one life, we should ban baseball bats.

 

 

If it could save just one life, we should ban liberals.

 

Think of the children. Pass more laws. Make the world safe from... the world.

 

Think I'm kidding? Dog kills man.

 

Subway kills man.

 

Refused change, homeless man kills with baseball bat.

 

Children killed while swimming.

 

Children killed by drones.

oops, that should be part of Homeland.

 

People killed by waterspout.

 

 

Help us BO! Help us! Help us, help us, help us!

We're in danger! We need more laws to protect us.

For Gosh's sake man, do something!

[Rob's House]

Think I'm kidding? Dog kills man.

 

Subway kills man.

 

Refused change, homeless man kills with baseball bat.

 

Children killed while swimming.

 

Children killed by drones.

oops, that should be part of Homeland.

 

People killed by waterspout.

 

 

Help us BO! Help us! Help us, help us, help us!

We're in danger! We need more laws to protect us.

For Gosh's sake man, do something!

It's a good list, but we only need to worry about things that kill when they fall in line with our preconceived notions.

[Rob's House]

Lets' see what happens when there is another school shooting...let's see what the gun advocates will have to say. I will bet, sure as ****, the role of any gun restrictions in the episode (or lack of) will be included in their take.

 

I don't know anyone who was "giddy" about what happened in Connecticut.

Not outwardly, that would defeat the purpose. They act real sad, and probably even convince themselves that they're really devastated by the whole thing, but at the same time this growing happiness wells up in them at the realization that this will be great PR for their anti-gun movement. I just don't believe that someone could simultaneously be as moved by this situation as so many of these guys pretend to be, and at the same time so shamelessly exploit it to further their own ends.

[dayman]

It's a good list, but we only need to worry about things that kill when they fall in line with our preconceived notions.

 

Of course many of those things are not designed solely to kill...as certain powerful guns are. And in any event...we have done things such as DUI law, which people rarely complain about, that really are radical and truly ruin people's lives even those who's incidents involve pretty low BAC and they harm nobody ...

 

It's all moot anyway...nothing will happen. Nothing will pass.

[B-Man]

“Perhaps, if we all encourage our children write Obama about their angst regarding the national debt,

 

he will publish 23 ways to address federal spending.”

 

 

 

Naaah.

[Just Jack]

Think I'm kidding? Dog kills man.

 

Subway kills man.

 

Refused change, homeless man kills with baseball bat.

 

Children killed while swimming.

 

Children killed by drones.

oops, that should be part of Homeland.

 

People killed by waterspout.

 

 

Help us BO! Help us! Help us, help us, help us!

We're in danger! We need more laws to protect us.

For Gosh's sake man, do something!

 

Need to ban hiking also now....

 

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/14/air-force-veteran-and-his-2-sons-die-while-hiking-missouri-trail/

[Rob's House]

 

 

Of course many of those things are not designed solely to kill...as certain powerful guns are. And in any event...we have done things such as DUI law, which people rarely complain about, that really are radical and truly ruin people's lives even those who's incidents involve pretty low BAC and they harm nobody ...

 

It's all moot anyway...nothing will happen. Nothing will pass.

Designed for killing is irrelevant as there are legitimate reasons to weild that power. I agree w/ you on DUI. People who can't separate logic from emotion come up w/ all kinds of useless & bizarre punishments related to DUI.