Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

At least 18 children and 9 others dead in Connecticut school shooting. Does this change your mind ab Options · View
Monkey1282
Posted: Monday, December 17, 2012 5:04:45 PM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 11/9/2012
Posts: 12
I have to head off to work, so feel free to flame away on my comments. That's the wonderful thing about this country that we live in, you can have your opinion, and I can have mine, and we both can voice them. And as long as we respect and value the opinion of the other person, things keep moving along.

Trust me, I understand your viewpoint, and can definitely see the merits of it. We just don't quite agree on the implementation. But, if you feel that we need another "assault weapons ban", or a complete firearms ban, or even need to remove the Second Amendment from the Constitution, please do me one favor. Do it. Petition your congressman. Call your senator. Write to the President. Picket the NRA (actually, please do. I'm tired of their "two minutes hate" posts on my Facebook wall).

Do whatever you can, to make your voice heard. Because that's how this democracy works. And if the day comes that you get what you want, then that's a good thing, because that's democracy in action. I won't agree with it, but that's the price we all have to pay to keep this great democracy alive.
echopomp
Posted: Monday, December 17, 2012 5:14:01 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/16/2011
Posts: 190

why are guns the target?

well because they are designed to kill, and only to kill.

we do not have access to hand guns or rifles in the UK. Our gun crime is very much reduced. Ok we have other crime, but gun crime is down.

personally, if I was in the states I would willingly give up my right to carry a gun, even if it only saved 1 life.

not 1 life a year, but 1 life ever!

you are talking about a fraction of 22,750 as if it is simply a number. if you save 1% that is 227 people per year. hell that is worth it!


Foxjack, what good come out of guns? As far as I am aware only bullets come from Guns, at very high speed.

as for DVGTSC - i am sorry about your situation, but it shows how far the US has sunk. you have 300million + guns, ofcourse that is going to cause problems. but more guns is never the answer
sprite
Posted: Monday, December 17, 2012 7:07:55 PM

Rank: Her Royal Spriteness
Moderator

Joined: 6/18/2010
Posts: 23,841
Location:
foxjack wrote:

I think his point is that it’s okay to own a gun as long as others continue their own equally deadly hobbies. Especially when good things can come from guns, the only good thing you get from cigarettes and alcohol is good feelings.


in a lot of cities and states, laws have been enacted dealing with second hand smoke, banning it in the restaurants, schools, airplanes, workplaces, bars, some go as far as prohibiting smoking anywhere public. slowly but surely smoking in public is being banned.

drinking alchohol, while legal, is illegal while driving and being drunk in public is a punishable offense, as is underage drinking and supplying minors with booze.

i think that those keep in line the idea that, while guns may remain legal, it will be illegal to own assault rifles and semi automatic weapons.


Monkey1282
Posted: Monday, December 17, 2012 7:09:21 PM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 11/9/2012
Posts: 12
echopomp wrote:

personally, if I was in the states I would willingly give up my right to carry a gun, even if it only saved 1 life.


Maybe that makes you a better person than me. Maybe my psyche is too "savage" to become that pacifist. But that's not really the issue. You can make all the choices you want in your life, and that's fine. Where it becomes an issue is when you try to make choices for my life, and tell me how I can and cannot protect my children.

Personally, I choose to dance with the devil, so my kids never have to see his face.

Monkey1282
Posted: Monday, December 17, 2012 7:20:11 PM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 11/9/2012
Posts: 12
sprite wrote:


in a lot of cities and states, laws have been enacted dealing with second hand smoke, banning it in the restaurants, schools, airplanes, workplaces, bars, some go as far as prohibiting smoking anywhere public. slowly but surely smoking in public is being banned.

drinking alchohol, while legal, is illegal while driving and being drunk in public is a punishable offense, as is underage drinking and supplying minors with booze.

i think that those keep in line the idea that, while guns may remain legal, it will be illegal to own assault rifles and semi automatic weapons.


I don't have to agree with your stance to appreciate a respectful and well articulated response. So, thank you. Seriously. :)

I think there are two different debates here: whether or not all guns should be banned, and whether or not these "assault weapons" should be banned. The latter argument depends entirely on your interpretation of the Second Amendment and the reasoning behind it.
DavidTheDeer
Posted: Monday, December 17, 2012 7:31:15 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/25/2010
Posts: 923
Location: Pierre, United States
sprite wrote:


in a lot of cities and states, laws have been enacted dealing with second hand smoke, banning it in the restaurants, schools, airplanes, workplaces, bars, some go as far as prohibiting smoking anywhere public. slowly but surely smoking in public is being banned.

drinking alchohol, while legal, is illegal while driving and being drunk in public is a punishable offense, as is underage drinking and supplying minors with booze.

i think that those keep in line the idea that, while guns may remain legal, it will be illegal to own assault rifles and semi automatic weapons.

I was talking more about the alcohol, the smoking bans have been happening here for 4 or more years now, they also jacked the price up to hell on them. However, even though drinking and driving is illegal, people still manage to make bad choices. Clearly people aren't concerned about what their actions might be when they get drunk, so the solution to that issue might also be the removal of the "tool" since people aren't smart enough to use it safely.

If you put the question to a friend’s life "Would you quit drinking to save just one life your entire life" I'm sure they'd say yes, however they wouldn't do it, not unless they had proof that their drinking would actually cost a life. This is basically the same issue you are putting against gun owners, asking them to give up their hobby to save lives that they probably won’t have affected in the first place.
sprite
Posted: Monday, December 17, 2012 7:44:56 PM

Rank: Her Royal Spriteness
Moderator

Joined: 6/18/2010
Posts: 23,841
Location:
Monkey1282 wrote:


Not at all. Actually, I never even mentioned kids in that post. Read my post before that one to see how I feel about this... individual... who shot those children. The reason I posted that statement was simply a response to Foxjack's post about drunk driving, and was adding another bit of information to his statement.

But, if you want me to make a logic argument out of my statement, then let me ask this. If alcohol, smoking, drug abuse, and accidental poisonings (among others) are each responsible for more avoidable deaths than firearms, why are firearms the target? If you're looking to save lives, shouldn't you logically start at the deadliest "unnecessary" right and work your way down the list? What percentage of the people who are against guns have never fired a gun in their life, and are acting more out of a fear based on lack of knowledge, fear inducing media buzzwords (assault weapon, sniper rifle, automatic rifle, etc), or our Attorney General's "brainwashing" (his word, not mine)?


i have fired guns before. we had them in our house while i was growing up. i was educated enough to know how to handle them, that they are not toys. outside of the house i have handled handguns. i hung with gangs for a while. some of them were friends. that was my hood. i have seen, close up, what guns do to a human body. it's not pretty. perhaps the relevant question is, how many of you who are pro-gun have ever been shot, shot someone, or seen the aftermath of a shooting up close and personal?

Monkey1282 wrote:

If illicit drugs are illegal, drunk driving is illegal, and alcohol used to be illegal, but nothing changed, why will making guns illegal be the one prohibition that works?


if even one life is saved by making guns that are manufactured for killing as opposed to sport, is that not worth it? just one? 19 kids in CT instead of 20, lets say. one family spared the pain. i'm willing to try it in hope that even one life is spared. to me, life is more important then owning something that has no use other then killing another human being.

Monkey1282 wrote:

Why aren't smoking and civilian availability of poisons targeted? Both of them are good for only one thing: killing. There is a difference in intent, and She is right about that. But I own guns, I use them responsibly, and I have no "intent" to kill anybody. So the argument is being based on the "intent" of the criminals, not of the law abiding citizens, which doesn't seem fair, regardless of what the topic is.


see my above post as far a smoking goes. and really, do you live in a cave that you miss the information declaring smoking bad for your health plastered all over everything, including the cigerette package? also, i'm fairly certain that no one has ever walked into an elementary school and murdered 20 kids with a carton of cigs.

Monkey1282 wrote:

I've read so much over the past few days that I can't remember where I read it, so if this point is regurgitating something that someone else on here said, I apologize, but it is a good point:

Using 2009's numbers, roughly 30,000 people were killed with guns. FBI stats say that approximately 3/4 of those involve legally owned firearms, so about 22,750. Banning guns would probably only save a fraction of that; a murderer uses a gun because it's easier, and if there's no guns, they'll use the next best thing.

Obviously, you and others think that if banning firearms could save a fraction of that 22,750, then it's worth it. Let me ask you this though, which other rights would you be willing to give up to save that fraction?


yes, i do. take a look around you at the basic rights we were all so happy to give up in the aftermath of 9/11. been thru an airport lately? why aren't you out there complaining about the right not to be invasively searched at the security gate?

Monkey1282 wrote:

Would you be willing to give up your Fourth Amendment rights, and allow the government or it's entities to take you, your family, or your possessions with no justification?

Would you be willing to give up your Fifth Amendment rights, and be locked away, or even executed without due process?

Would you give up your Sixth Amendment rights and be held for an indeterminable amount of time, in secret, without a lawyer?


if you truly think that is going to happen, you're kind of delusional. just saying. for the record, it has happened in the past. WWII - japanese internent. I don't recall the NRA making a stink about it, though. oh, and Guantanemo Bay. How do all of you who are against gun control feel about that? Why doesn't the NRA pour their billions of dollars into calling attention to that, rather then into making sure everyone who wants a machine gun can buy a machine gun?

Monkey1282 wrote:

What about the First Amendment? Would you give that up to save a fraction of 22,750? Would you allow yourself to lose the freedom to voice your thoughts, worship as you please, gather together with your friends peaceably?


Once again, i am fairly certain that there won't be mass murders where someone walks into a school and talks 20 kids to death, prays them to death, or peaceably gathers them to death.

Monkey1282 wrote:

If you would, I would be very interested to hear your viewpoint on things. Also, you may be interested in North Korea. I hear they have unicorns! ()


actually, i think i have a firmer grip on reality than a lot of people on the pro-gun side. after all, i'm not the paranoid one stockpiling guns for when the jack booted gov't thugs kick in my door. oh, and you really should avoid taking cheap shots at unicorns. unicorn have nasty tempers.

Monkey1282 wrote:

But if you wouldn't, why is the Second Amendment allowed? Right after the Founding Fathers enumerated the freedom of speech, religion, and the press, the next most important right they wanted to protect was the right to bear arms. And honestly, if the Second Amendment were about protecting the rights of hunters and recreational shooters, then the Bill of Rights would be full of references to other things they enjoyed in their free time, like pies and prostitutes.


the second amendment, as written by the founding fathers, was to insure that we as a country had the means to raise a standing army in our defense at a moments notice. last time i checked, we still have the means. it's called the armed forces, making the need for a militia kind of redundant. and really, do you think Jefferson, etc, didn't have better things to do then add silliness to the constitution like the protection of pies and hookers? really, i may be blonde, but you don't have to talk down to me like i'm a complete ditz.



Monkey1282
Posted: Monday, December 17, 2012 8:00:57 PM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 11/9/2012
Posts: 12
Sprite, you make valid points that deserve a response, but not ones that I can adequately give using my iPhone. So I'm stepping out of this debate for now.

I am only replying right now to apologize if you felt my comment was condescending or insinuated that you were a "ditz". It was only an apparently misguided attempt to add a brief moment of levity to a very emotional and serious discussion. I've seen too many of these debates devolve into vitriolic rhetoric, and sometimes we just need to step back and breathe, and realize that a healthy debate is a good thing. I won't change your mind, you won't change mine, but a well articulated debate is a good thing.
Dudealicious
Posted: Monday, December 17, 2012 9:02:05 PM

Rank: Wise Ass
Moderator

Joined: 11/12/2010
Posts: 5,680
Location: The center of the universe, Canada
foxjack wrote:

I was talking more about the alcohol, the smoking bans have been happening here for 4 or more years now, they also jacked the price up to hell on them. However, even though drinking and driving is illegal, people still manage to make bad choices. Clearly people aren't concerned about what their actions might be when they get drunk, so the solution to that issue might also be the removal of the "tool" since people aren't smart enough to use it safely.

If you put the question to a friend’s life "Would you quit drinking to save just one life your entire life" I'm sure they'd say yes, however they wouldn't do it, not unless they had proof that their drinking would actually cost a life. This is basically the same issue you are putting against gun owners, asking them to give up their hobby to save lives that they probably won’t have affected in the first place.


So out of curiosity, how many guns do you own? You seem to be pro gun, I would just like to know (and quantify) seeing as you are bringing up other causes of death outside of this horrible tragedy. In this case this firearm is as damned close to an M16 as you can get, oh and you can purchase this at your local Wal-Mart.

How fucked up is that?



The night that changed my life, a four part series of a married man lusting after his co-worker

Dudealicious
Posted: Monday, December 17, 2012 9:10:45 PM

Rank: Wise Ass
Moderator

Joined: 11/12/2010
Posts: 5,680
Location: The center of the universe, Canada
foxjack wrote:

I think his point is that it’s okay to own a gun as long as others continue their own equally deadly hobbies. Especially when good things can come from guns, the only good thing you get from cigarettes and alcohol is good feelings.


I sure hope you mean a supper for a less fortunate family by the means of wild game. But why does a family need a semi-automatic firearm capable of piercing a bullet proof vest, that holds 30 or more rounds?

Why did that sick fuck need to unload 11 bullets into an innocent child? Actually no, why does a government allow a person to possess such an instrument of death? Because something was written in the late 1700's - uh yeah sorry it's your "right".

Walks away whistling O'Canada.

The night that changed my life, a four part series of a married man lusting after his co-worker

Guest
Posted: Monday, December 17, 2012 10:25:23 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 883,390
my heart goes out to all the families out n connecticut that lost their love ones. it was a bad thing that happened.
DavidTheDeer
Posted: Monday, December 17, 2012 10:28:07 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/25/2010
Posts: 923
Location: Pierre, United States
Dudealicious wrote:


I sure hope you mean a supper for a less fortunate family by the means of wild game. But why does a family need a semi-automatic firearm capable of piercing a bullet proof vest, that holds 30 or more rounds?

Why did that sick fuck need to unload 11 bullets into an innocent child? Actually no, why does a government allow a person to possess such an instrument of death? Because something was written in the late 1700's - uh yeah sorry it's your "right".

Walks away whistling O'Canada.

If I recall correctly Canada actually got rid of some of their gun laws last year (or maybe the year before).
Monkey1282
Posted: Monday, December 17, 2012 10:36:05 PM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 11/9/2012
Posts: 12
Actually, I'm bowing out of this debate all together. I just read that they're just now starting to bury these children, and honestly, I'm still sick to my stomach over the whole thing. If you want to read my "delusional" opinion on the 2nd amendment, including it's relation to standing armies, there's a link to my blog in my profile.

Be kind to each other. I think both sides can agree that is something we need more of.
VanGogh
Posted: Monday, December 17, 2012 11:37:28 PM

Rank: Sarcastic Coffee Aficionado

Joined: 2/10/2012
Posts: 4,079
Location: Vancouver
foxjack wrote:

If I recall correctly Canada actually got rid of some of their gun laws last year (or maybe the year before).


Yes we did ....

Quote:
Changes to the Canadian Firearms Program

On April 5, 2012, Bill C-19, Ending the Long-Gun RegistryAct, came into effect. The key changes are as follows:

Removal of the requirement to register non-restricted firearms
Destruction of the existing non-restricted firearms registration records
Allowing the transferor of a non-restricted firearm to obtain confirmation of a transferee’s firearms acquisition licence prior to the transfer being finalized

Until further notice, due to a Court Order issued by the Quebec Superior Court, residents of Quebec are still required to register non-restricted firearms with the RCMP Canadian Firearms Program.

It is important to note that the new law does not change the requirement for all individuals to hold a licence in order to possess a firearm. The licensing, safety training and safe storage requirements for anyone who uses or owns a firearm continue to be in force.

The legislation also does not impact registration requirements for restricted or prohibited firearms.

The Three Legal Classes of Firearms in Canada:

Non-Restricted Shotgun Non-restricted firearms are ordinary hunting and sporting rifles, shotguns and airguns with an overall length of 660mm or greater. Many airguns fall into this class because they are capable of achieving a muzzle velocity of 500 feet per second. If it is a centrefire semi-automatic firearm, the barrel length must be at least 470mm to be non-restricted. These firearms must be stored, transported and displayed according to Federal regulations and you need a firearms licence to possess them. Provincial and municipal rules may further regulate these firearms (e.g., Ontario hunting regulations require that firearms being transported be encased at night). Certain firearms, although they meet the above criteria, have been classified as "restricted" or "prohibited" by order-in-council.

Restricted Handgun - Para-Ordnance Restricted firearms include many handguns and other firearms which do not meet the above specifications. Some firearms are classified as "restricted" by Federal order-in-council. A transport permit is required to transport a restricted firearm from the location where the firearm is registered. Anyone with the appropriate firearms licence and a valid purpose can acquire this type of firearm. Hunting with restricted firearms is not allowed in Canada.

Prohibited Firearm - AK47Prohibited firearms include all fully automatic firearms, converted automatics and a variety of other scary looking firearms which have been classified as "prohibited" by order-in-council. Most types of prohibited firearms are "grandfathered" to their current legal owners (i.e., owners are allowed to keep them), but cannot be transfered to non-grandfathered individuals. Firearms converted from full-automatic to semi-automatic, and many handguns (barrel lengths less than or equal to 105mm, .25 or .32 calibre) fall into the prohibited class. If you do not already own prohibited long guns, there is generally no legal means to acquire firearms of this type.

Guest
Posted: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 2:04:02 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 883,390
lafayettemister wrote:


I know what you mean. I disagree though, anyone who drinks and chooses to drive is intending to be irresponsible. If my child is killed by a bullet or a drunk driver, I'm not really going to care about his intent. My only care would be my kid.


Society is damaged and you are saying that it is not the tool that kills but person, and yes, you are right but.. Our society is damaged, its all kinds of us and we are all quite different in our standards and that's why we have rules and laws, to prevent accidents and try to keep society as clean as possible. It is not perfect world, and we as human race most certainly are not perfect, not even close, but we do develope we do change and we do get new toys to play with every decade or so, but my friend, guns were made to kill. There is no other purpose for them but to kill and I cannot agre with comparison of a drunken driver and gun shooter beause cars were made to take you from A to B, guns for killing, there is no need for them in private houses.
myself
Posted: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 5:09:35 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 3/17/2010
Posts: 966
Location: .showyourdick.org/
It was not an assault weapon that did this deed and furthermore, they will never take away America's guns. I know the difference between assault weapons and single shot weapons and am sad that there will ever be a time that any non military person would need the use of a assault weapon but still I know that we the American people will take every measure to protect ourselves.

A LITTLE GUN HISTORY

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. >From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total
of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.
Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!
The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.
With guns, we are 'citizens'. Without them, we are 'subjects'.

During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!
If you value your freedom, please spread this anti gun-control message to all of your friends.

SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN!
SWITZERLAND'S GOVERNMENT TRAINS EVERY ADULT THEY ISSUE A RIFLE.
SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!!
IT'S A NO BRAINER!
DON'T LET OUR GOVERNMENT WASTE MILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS AN EASY TARGET.

Spread the word everywhere you can that you are a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment!

It's time to speak loud before they try to silence and disarm us.
You're not imagining it, history shows that governments always manipulate tragedies to attempt to disarm the people~



Torture the data long enough and they will confess to anything.
VanGogh
Posted: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 7:56:14 AM

Rank: Sarcastic Coffee Aficionado

Joined: 2/10/2012
Posts: 4,079
Location: Vancouver
holy fuck

after that post .... it's a LOST cause

good luck America!
LadyX
Posted: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 8:08:41 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,771
PersonalAssistant wrote:
holy fuck

after that post .... it's a LOST cause

good luck America!


Thanks. :(. We'll obviously need it.
sprite
Posted: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 8:34:15 AM

Rank: Her Royal Spriteness
Moderator

Joined: 6/18/2010
Posts: 23,841
Location:
myself wrote:
It was not an assault weapon that did this deed and furthermore, they will never take away America's guns. I know the difference between assault weapons and single shot weapons and am sad that there will ever be a time that any non military person would need the use of a assault weapon but still I know that we the American people will take every measure to protect ourselves.

A LITTLE GUN HISTORY

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. >From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total
of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.
Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!
The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.
With guns, we are 'citizens'. Without them, we are 'subjects'.

During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!
If you value your freedom, please spread this anti gun-control message to all of your friends.

SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN!
SWITZERLAND'S GOVERNMENT TRAINS EVERY ADULT THEY ISSUE A RIFLE.
SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!!
IT'S A NO BRAINER!
DON'T LET OUR GOVERNMENT WASTE MILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS AN EASY TARGET.

Spread the word everywhere you can that you are a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment!

It's time to speak loud before they try to silence and disarm us.
You're not imagining it, history shows that governments always manipulate tragedies to attempt to disarm the people~



paranoid, much? yes, my biggest worry, if we were to take away people's guns is that there will be mass executions of american citizens. in fact, they've already started doing that in CT (27), Columbine(15), VirginiaTech(33), Aurora(12), Seattle(4), Crandon(6), Tuscon(6), Oakland(7)... i could, sadly, go on for a very long time, but i'll leave it at that.


ByronLord
Posted: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 8:35:41 AM

Rank: Forum Guru
Moderator

Joined: 11/14/2010
Posts: 855
Location: Massachusetts, United States
Where were the gun wankers during the fight against slavery?

Oh yes, they were committing treason against the federal government, taking up their arms against it to keep black people as slaves.

Where were the gun wankers during the civil rights movement?

Oh yes they were running round with pillow cases on their heads

Where were the gun wankers in NAZI germany?

Oh yes, they were the ones with polished jackboots goose stepping.


Putting a gun in people's hands does not make them a good person. The idea that gun wankers protect freedom is completely a-historical. It is pure wankery.

We have heard rather too much from the North American Man-Gun Love Association on this topic.

The US has an Aurora massacre and a Newtown massacre every single day. Unrepresentative cases make bad laws but Newtown was not an unusual event in any sense. It is merely a symbol of the gun wankery that the NRA and its supporters stand for.

echopomp
Posted: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 9:26:40 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/16/2011
Posts: 190
oh my god!

just when i thought that i had heard it all, someone posts something like 'myself'.

if that is the opinion of people in the US it is not a surprise that you are killing each other in droves.

that is without doubt the maddest rant I have ever heard. If myself owns a gun (which i would assume), then I am very very glad that my kids and I are a long long way away from him.

Monkey, how exactly would you having a gun have helped if it had been one of your kids killed the other day? you planning to camp out at your kids school all day every day watching to see if a nut with a gun turns up?

The point is that legally owned guns caused this along with 60+% of similar events. So if you had gun control you could potentially stop 60% of these events. Why would you object to that?

I have to say that the thought process that powers the pro-gun lobby makes me really sad.

YOU DO NOT NEED A GUN TO BE A MAN!

& not having a gun does not make you a pacifist or a coward or someone who doesn't want to look after his family.

Guest
Posted: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 9:40:08 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 883,390
From The Atlantic -

The Secret History of Guns
THE KU KLUX KLAN, RONALD REAGAN, AND, FOR MOST OF ITS HISTORY, THE NRA ALL WORKED TO CONTROL GUNS. THE FOUNDING FATHERS? THEY REQUIRED GUN OWNERSHIP—AND REGULATED IT. AND NO GROUP HAS MORE FIERCELY ADVOCATED THE RIGHT TO BEAR LOADED WEAPONS IN PUBLIC THAN THE BLACK PANTHERS—THE TRUE PIONEERS OF THE MODERN PRO-GUN MOVEMENT. IN THE BATTLE OVER GUN RIGHTS IN AMERICA, BOTH SIDES HAVE DISTORTED HISTORY AND THE LAW, AND THERE’S NO RESOLUTION IN SIGHT.




http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/print/2011/09/the-secret-history-of-guns/308608/
ByronLord
Posted: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 9:59:21 AM

Rank: Forum Guru
Moderator

Joined: 11/14/2010
Posts: 855
Location: Massachusetts, United States
echopomp wrote:
oh my god!

just when i thought that i had heard it all, someone posts something like 'myself'.


I have heard the same rant from Timothy McVeigh.

Then he went out and murdered almost 200 people.

When someone says that the gun they are waving in my face protects my freedom I see a pair of stinking jackboots and a NAZI salute. I see the carbines that the guards carried on the watchtowers on the Berlin wall.

I don't see freedom, I see a threat.

lafayettemister
Posted: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 10:05:14 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,695
Location: Alabama, United States
For those of you that promote "gun control", what kind of control are you advocating. What plan of action would you like to see take place? What restrictions do you want in place? If you want to ban all guns completely, how do you propose to get the ones already out there? How do you propose to gather the millions of unlicensed/unregistered guns possessed by criminals? After guns are banned, what will happen to someone who commits a crime with an illegal gun?

Tell us what you mean by "gun control". Right now I'm reading nothing but ban guns and hope for the best. That's a scary idea in my mind.





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
DavidTheDeer
Posted: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 11:16:47 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/25/2010
Posts: 923
Location: Pierre, United States
ByronLord wrote:


I have heard the same rant from Timothy McVeigh.

Then he went out and murdered almost 200 people.

When someone says that the gun they are waving in my face protects my freedom I see a pair of stinking jackboots and a NAZI salute. I see the carbines that the guards carried on the watchtowers on the Berlin wall.

I don't see freedom, I see a threat.


And what do you when you see a threat and have nothing to combat it? Get in line for the gas chambers I suppose...

Drunk driving kills about 27 people a day, guns do about 24-30 (some articles state less and others state more); I see a threat, worst yet that threat is everywhere on the road. I'll also point out that some gun violence is directly linked with drinking. Getting rid of the 21st seems like just as good of an idea as the second, if not better. After all, all drinking does is cost you money and allow you to temporally run away from your problems, sometimes having the side effect of making them much worse. At least when gun violence comes up it isn’t' the gun that caused the mental instability, it was already present.
CleverFox
Posted: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 11:49:36 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/25/2012
Posts: 484
Location: United States
foxjack wrote:


And what do you when you see a threat and have nothing to combat it? Get in line for the gas chambers I suppose...

Drunk driving kills about 27 people a day, guns do about 24-30 (some articles state less and others state more); I see a threat, worst yet that threat is everywhere on the road. I'll also point out that some gun violence is directly linked with drinking. Getting rid of the 21st seems like just as good of an idea as the second, if not better. After all, all drinking does is cost you money and allow you to temporally run away from your problems, sometimes having the side effect of making them much worse. At least when gun violence comes up it isn’t' the gun that caused the mental instability, it was already present.


Take all of you semi-automatic weapons you want. If the military decided to take over this country they would use M-1 tanks, preditor drones with hell fire missiles and other equipment that your guns couldn't do squat to stop. You won't have to line up for the gas chamber, it will be brought to you.
WellMadeMale
Posted: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 11:50:59 AM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 11,199
Location: Cakeland
lafayettemister wrote:
For those of you that promote "gun control", what kind of control are you advocating. What plan of action would you like to see take place? What restrictions do you want in place? If you want to ban all guns completely, how do you propose to get the ones already out there? How do you propose to gather the millions of unlicensed/unregistered guns possessed by criminals? After guns are banned, what will happen to someone who commits a crime with an illegal gun?

Tell us what you mean by "gun control". Right now I'm reading nothing but ban guns and hope for the best. That's a scary idea in my mind.


We could start by making the sale of assault-styled replica combat rifles as illegal as selling an ounce of cocaine. Same goes for having one or some in your possession. There's nothing sporting about shooting one of those things, to claim otherwise is disingenuous.

Outlaw the ownership of clips which contain over a certain amount of cartridges. Make the punishments for having those in your possession similar to possessing drug paraphernalia.

We as a society have allowed the arms race to migrate from our military to our civilian population. Outlaw all weapons which hold more than 9 cartridges, 8, 7, 6... pick a number.

Handguns? When is the last time anyone here can claim they went hunting with a semi-automatic machine/handgun and for what species? I own a revolver and have never aimed it nor triggered it at a living organism.

Hold many amnesty periods for the first several years. Request voluntary weapon surrender. Just like the old days in Dodge City, except you don't get your murder machine back when you leave town.

How many cartridges do you require when you're target shooting? I need five shells chambered when I trap shoot clays. Just like at any other target range I've ever visited, you better damned well know what you're doing or you will not be allowed to participate. Everyone's eyes are on you - and yours on them. Gun safety is priority number one.

There are many gun clubs already established around the country. To my knowledge you bring your own gun to them. Establish a library of guns to be checked out and utilized while on premises. You break it, you buy it. It stays on the premises.

Don't choose to surrender your weapons? That's okay too. If your house catches fire and your cache is discovered - there will be hell to pay.

Get caught firing your .357 into the sky on fourth of july or new year's eve - hell to pay.

You have several tens of thousand of dollars invested in your toys/hobby now, tough titty little kitty. Develop another hobby, get different toys or...Maybe you can apply for a special permit to continue to hold them. Firing mechanisms removed. If you have 'special' rifles and handguns, you can't also have/hold/own ammunition.

Ammunition is only available at the firing/target ranges/clubs.

I depend on the conscience of those already enlisted and those in the future who enlist in our Armed Forces to disregard any and every order to turn on and march or fire upon the civilian population of the United States of America.

If a law is passed, I'll relinquish my revolver, half a box of cartridges and my Ithaca .12 gauge pump. I haven't carried either one into the field to hunt since I was 17 years old.

Killing critters like that, started to my stomach about the time I started growing pubic hair and my brain started developing.

I can join a trap or target shooting club and abide by those kinds of rules.

Obscenity is the last refuge of an inarticulate motherfucker.
LadyX
Posted: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 11:57:14 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,771
I'd start with a ban on sale and transport of assault firearms. What should qualify as an "assault firearm"? I think that's up for discussion; I'm not a gun expert, and I have respect for the gray area. But that's not to say that it doesn't need to be sussed out. The whole point is to work our way through the analysis paralysis and take some responsible action (and it goes without saying that many will vehemently disagree on the definition of 'responsible' here). If a handful of non-government occupations seem to need the type of firearm that is classified as banned assault firearms, then perhaps a restricted permit system can be implemented.

I'd ban the high round clips that allow people to squeeze off 10, 20, 30 shots at a time. What's the need for that, unless you want to mow down a herd of something?

I'd introduce mandatory licensing and registration at the federal level, for all firearms as well as firearm owners and users. In order to own a legal firearm, you would need to pass an extensive test as well as the background check. The licenses for both guns and for owners would be revoked for any number of reasons (documented mental health issues, convictions, etc.)


lafayettemister
Posted: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 12:09:24 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,695
Location: Alabama, United States
WellMadeMale wrote:


We could start by making the sale of assault-styled replica combat rifles as illegal as selling an ounce of cocaine. Same goes for having one or some in your possession. There's nothing sporting about shooting one of those things, to claim otherwise is disingenuous.

Outlaw the ownership of clips which contain over a certain amount of cartridges. Make the punishments for having those in your possession similar to possessing drug paraphernalia.

We as a society have allowed the arms race to migrate from our military to our civilian population. Outlaw all weapons which hold more than 9 cartridges, 8, 7, 6... pick a number.

Handguns? When is the last time anyone here can claim they went hunting with a semi-automatic machine/handgun and for what species? I own a revolver and have never aimed it nor triggered it at a living organism.

Hold many amnesty periods for the first several years. Request voluntary weapon surrender. Just like the old days in Dodge City, except you don't get your murder machine back when you leave town.

How many cartridges do you require when you're target shooting? I need five shells chambered when I trap shoot clays. Just like at any other target range I've ever visited, you better damned well know what you're doing or you will not be allowed to participate. Everyone's eyes are on you - and yours on them. Gun safety is priority number one.

There are many gun clubs already established around the country. To my knowledge you bring your own gun to them. Establish a library of guns to be checked out and utilized while on premises. You break it, you buy it. It stays on the premises.

Don't choose to surrender your weapons? That's okay too. If your house catches fire and your cache is discovered - there will be hell to pay.

Get caught firing your .357 into the sky on fourth of july or new year's eve - hell to pay.

You have several tens of thousand of dollars invested in your toys/hobby now, tough titty little kitty. Develop another hobby, get different toys or...Maybe you can apply for a special permit to continue to hold them. Firing mechanisms removed. If you have 'special' rifles and handguns, you can't also have/hold/own ammunition.

Ammunition is only available at the firing/target ranges/clubs.

I depend on the conscience of those already enlisted and those in the future who enlist in our Armed Forces to disregard any and every order to turn on and march or fire upon the civilian population of the United States of America.

If a law is passed, I'll relinquish my revolver, half a box of cartridges and my Ithaca .12 gauge pump. I haven't carried either one into the field to hunt since I was 17 years old.

Killing critters like that, started to my stomach about the time I started growing pubic hair and my brain started developing.

I can join a trap or target shooting club and abide by those kinds of rules.


Nice list. All of those are viable ideas and options. But for the sake of argument...

Assault styled replica rifles, I can see the need for banning them. My 30 year old 30-06 with a 5 round clip used for deer hunting could be just as effective in defending my home. As well as my grandfather's side-by-side double barrel 12 gauge.

Multi-round clips. I've thought of this as well. But in my mind, I'm not sure that a gun holding 8 rounds is much of an improvement. A psycho with a hunting rifle could still invade a school and take out eight innocent lives. Eight is better than twenty, but I'd feel just as awful about the loss of eight lives. I don't know the answer, just don't think eliminating rounds solves the problem.

I don't own a handgun and have limited experience with one, but I'm not opposed to them. Maybe require anyone who purchases one, must take some sort of safety class before they can take possession of the gun? In Louisiana (maybe other states too) you cannot get a hunting license until you've taken the Hunter Safety class and passed the test. All handguns purchases must include a trigger lock? And must be stored in a gun safe when not in use? Not sure how to regulate or monitor that though.

Total agreement about firing any weapon into the sky at anytime. Firing any weapon anytime in any direction for no reason - Hell To Pay







When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
sprite
Posted: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 12:11:52 PM

Rank: Her Royal Spriteness
Moderator

Joined: 6/18/2010
Posts: 23,841
Location:
This is how you do it;

Arturo Hurtado of Richmond was still stricken with grief over the mass shooting in Newtown, Conn., that left 20 schoolchildren dead when he awoke Saturday morning.

So he decided to get rid of his gun - "that darn thing," he called it - and purged it from his home.

"I've got kids, man," said Hurtado, who works at Waste Management in Oakland and has children ages 14, 10, 6 and 1. "Kids are curious. Kids don't know any better. I had it locked in a toolbox, so I don't know. ... I just know it had to go."

Hurtado was among hundreds of Bay Area residents who dropped off their firearms at buyback locations in Oakland and San Francisco on Saturday, collecting $200 cash for their weapon, no questions asked.

Organizers said both locations saw crowds twice as large as expected. In East Oakland, a mile-long line of cars waited on 82nd Avenue to enter a parking lot at St. Benedict's Church, with some running out of gas while idling. In San Francisco, people stood in pouring rain outside the Omega Boys Club in the Dogpatch neighborhood to exchange their guns for cash.

By the end of the day, organizers expected more than 600 guns to be turned in.

Hurtado was a rare customer. Not only was Friday's school shooting his primary motivation, but also he walked away without taking the cash.
"I'm just glad it's out of my house," he said.


Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/S-F-Oakland-gun-buyback-nets-hundreds-4121621.php#ixzz2FQrbVViJ


Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.