Gun Control Thread- Should we?

So what, in your opinion, GiantOne, did they (the Gifford's) actually say?



If you read the link you can read what it is they are saying and trying to do.AND THEY ARE GUN OWNERS.

"Kelly said the new political action committee will raise money to support tougher gun controls and will lobby elected officials to pass tougher legislation, including measures to require rigorous background checks of gun purchasers and to eliminate the sale of high-capacity magazines.

It was not immediately clear if the PAC also would campaign for or against individual candidates. More than 10,000 people liked the group on Facebook in the first hours of its existence.

The PAC may coordinate some efforts with the anti-gun group founded by Mayor Bloomberg, City Hall sources said. Giffords and Kelly met with Bloomberg last week before traveling to Newtown."

Read more: Gabby Giffords and Mark Kelly launch campaign against gun violence on second anniversary of Tucson shooting - NY Daily News (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/gabby-giffords-mark-kelly-launch-anti-gun-violence-campaign-article-1.1235517#ixzz2HenFyNBf)

If you read the link you can read what it is they are saying and trying to do.AND THEY ARE GUN OWNERS.That's just as pathetic as begging BUT I HAVE LOTS OF BLACK/GAY/REPUBLICAN/DEMOCRAT FRIENDS. And kind of revealing that line has to be used to push a gun control argument here.

"Kelly said the new political action committee will raise money to support tougher gun controls and will lobby elected officials to pass tougher legislation, including measures to require rigorous background checks of gun purchasers and to eliminate the sale of high-capacity magazines.

It was not immediately clear if the PAC also would campaign for or against individual candidates. More than 10,000 people liked the group on Facebook in the first hours of its existence.

The PAC may coordinate some efforts with the anti-gun group founded by Mayor Bloomberg, City Hall sources said. Giffords and Kelly met with Bloomberg last week before traveling to Newtown."

Read more: Gabby Giffords and Mark Kelly launch campaign against gun violence on second anniversary of Tucson shooting - NY Daily News (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/gabby-giffords-mark-kelly-launch-anti-gun-violence-campaign-article-1.1235517#ixzz2HenFyNBf)Made the mistake of reading the link. Gifford's wasn't shot with an assault weapon. And her shooter showed many warning signs which were ignored. But hey, why let facts get in the way here?

Typical liberal "solution", try to use a crisis to push through something desired by those in power. Just like the "fiscal cliff" crisis was used to keep discretionary spending at status quo.

Made the mistake of reading the link. Gifford's wasn't shot with an assault weapon. And her shooter showed many warning signs which were ignored. But hey, why let facts get in the way here?
.


My mistake,I apologize I thought the title of this thread was"Gun Control Thread- Should we? "
1)Fact ,Nobody is going after the 2nd amement

2)Nobody said you can't own a gun

3)Fact,changes are coming and it would be in the best interest of the NRA and the rest of the gun toting gun culture to be part of the solution instead of crying to everyone under the sun that the "libs"your word not mine,are killing us .
Want some cheese with your whine?

My mistake,I apologize I thought the title of this thread was"Gun Control Thread- Should we? "
1)Fact ,Nobody is going after the 2nd amement

2)Nobody said you can't own a gun

3)Fact,changes are coming and it would be in the best interest of the NRA and the rest of the gun toting gun culture to be part of the solution instead of crying to everyone under the sun that the "libs"your word not mine,are killing us .
Want some cheese with your whine?

1) Where you getting that FACT from?

2) Yet.....

3) "Do what we say, you have no choice." GTFOOH!

My mistake,I apologize I thought the title of this thread was"Gun Control Thread- Should we? "No problem. The links you post prove that as far as your proposals for more gun control, the answer is "no".

1)Fact ,Nobody is going after the 2nd amement

2)Nobody said you can't own a gunStop lying, Giantone.

Re. 1): From a link you posted HERE (http://www.nj.com/times-opinion/index.ssf/2013/01/opinions_civilians_have_no_rig.html#incart_m-rpt-1), and described as "Pretty good opinion peace" second paragraph of the link:

"The Amendment, which is one of the most awkwardly written sentences in American history, has always been fraught with ambiguity. Traditionally, the Court had ruled in cases such as United States vs. Miller (1939) that the Amendment’s first clause, about “a well regulated Militia,” expressed its true purpose. In Heller, however, Justice Scalia was able to convince the Court that the Amendment’s second clause, about “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” trumped the first clause, and that the word “people” somehow refers to individuals rather than to a militia or a collective."

Re. 2): This isn't going after gun ownership?

FRPLG: ".....but guns are absolutely part of the problem. Or more accurately the fact that we own so many guns in this country is an indicator of a deeper problem that is caused by many different things. But the pro-gun crowd seems to want to ignore the "fact" that we own TOO MANY guns in this country. Perhaps gun control isn't the answer to effectively reducing them but we do need to reduce them." (http://www.thewarpath.net/debating-with-the-enemy/48456-gun-control-thread-should-we-16.html#post977534)

More than a few posts this thread about this. Here Is a List of All the Assholes Handsome Law-Abiding Citizens Who Own Guns Some People in New York City (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/08/gawker-publishes-complete-446-page-list-of-all-the-aholes-who-own-guns-in-new-york-city/)

Oh and it bears repeating, first tangible result of this "outing" like you Giantone posted saying "I would be beneficial for Gun owners to help rather then fight against new gun laws." Monkeydad posted this: Inmates using newspaper's gun owner map to threaten guards, sheriff says. (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/04/law-enforcement-latest-critics-on-public-display-gun-owner-data-officers/) "They have inmates coming up to them and telling them exactly where they live. That's not acceptable to me," Falco said, according to Newsday."

3)Fact,changes are coming and it would be in the best interest of the NRA and the rest of the gun toting gun culture to be part of the solution instead of crying to everyone under the sun that the "libs"your word not mine,are killing us .You've demonstrated many times this thread that you are not part of the solution. The history of gun control in this country, particularly in urban areas today, point to your way of thinking making problems worse. And creating new problems like above.

Want some cheese with your whine?You insult redskinrat, then complain about being insulted, now this?

No problem. The links you post prove that as far as your proposals for more gun control, the answer is "no".

Stop lying, Giantone.

Re. 1): From a link you posted HERE (http://www.nj.com/times-opinion/index.ssf/2013/01/opinions_civilians_have_no_rig.html#incart_m-rpt-1), and described as "Pretty good opinion peace" second paragraph of the link:

"The Amendment, which is one of the most awkwardly written sentences in American history, has always been fraught with ambiguity. Traditionally, the Court had ruled in cases such as United States vs. Miller (1939) that the Amendment’s first clause, about “a well regulated Militia,” expressed its true purpose. In Heller, however, Justice Scalia was able to convince the Court that the Amendment’s second clause, about “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” trumped the first clause, and that the word “people” somehow refers to individuals rather than to a militia or a collective."

Re. 2): This isn't going after gun ownership?

FRPLG: ".....but guns are absolutely part of the problem. Or more accurately the fact that we own so many guns in this country is an indicator of a deeper problem that is caused by many different things. But the pro-gun crowd seems to want to ignore the "fact" that we own TOO MANY guns in this country. Perhaps gun control isn't the answer to effectively reducing them but we do need to reduce them." (http://www.thewarpath.net/debating-with-the-enemy/48456-gun-control-thread-should-we-16.html#post977534)

More than a few posts this thread about this. Here Is a List of All the Assholes Handsome Law-Abiding Citizens Who Own Guns Some People in New York City (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/08/gawker-publishes-complete-446-page-list-of-all-the-aholes-who-own-guns-in-new-york-city/)

Oh and it bears repeating, first tangible result of this "outing" like you Giantone posted saying "I would be beneficial for Gun owners to help rather then fight against new gun laws." Monkeydad posted this: Inmates using newspaper's gun owner map to threaten guards, sheriff says. (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/04/law-enforcement-latest-critics-on-public-display-gun-owner-data-officers/) "They have inmates coming up to them and telling them exactly where they live. That's not acceptable to me," Falco said, according to Newsday."

You've demonstrated many times this thread that you are not part of the solution. The history of gun control in this country, particularly in urban areas today, point to your way of thinking making problems worse. And creating new problems like above.

You insult redskinrat, then complain about being insulted, now this?

The bolded part of your statement is my issue. Creating a policy in one city/state doesn't really stop anything. It's still easy to go outside the city /state to obtain what you want. Until it is impossible to do so inside the entire country, it isn't possible to use past regulation as a barometer for future regulation.

I do agree that setting regulations in certain areas is pointless, but when a law becomes federal that adds many unique and much stronger implications. I feel the pro-gun argument on this site, and in general, have not really given any real justification for the necessity for assault rifles. I'm not looking for people to be unable to get hunting rifles, but I do want to keep assault rifles from being widely available.

To be honest, I think that the assault rifle ban is even acceptable by most members of this board and the culture -- at face value. However, there is 'slippery slope' concerns where eventually an assault rifle ban means a rifle ban. I understand the slippery slope argument, but at some point making it difficult, not impossible, for the mentally instable to get assault rifles will lower the amount of deaths from said assault rifles. I just don't think that the benefits of having assault rifles readily available outweigh the negatives of having assault rifles available.

Until there is agreement on what constitutes an 'assault weapon' and both sides agree it's difficult to discuss. A 1911 could be used as an assault weapon. There are third party add-ons for my Glock that can turn it into a sub-machine gun.

You've(Giantone) demonstrated many times this thread that you are not part of the solution. The history of gun control in this country, particularly in urban areas today, point to your way of thinking making problems worse. And creating new problems like above.

The bolded part of your statement is my issue. Creating a policy in one city/state doesn't really stop anything. It's still easy to go outside the city /state to obtain what you want. Until it is impossible to do so inside the entire country, it isn't possible to use past regulation as a barometer for future regulation.

I do agree that setting regulations in certain areas is pointless, but when a law becomes federal that adds many unique and much stronger implications. I feel the pro-gun argument on this site, and in general, have not really given any real justification for the necessity for assault rifles. I'm not looking for people to be unable to get hunting rifles, but I do want to keep assault rifles from being widely available.

To be honest, I think that the assault rifle ban is even acceptable by most members of this board and the culture -- at face value. However, there is 'slippery slope' concerns where eventually an assault rifle ban means a rifle ban. I understand the slippery slope argument, but at some point making it difficult, not impossible, for the mentally instable to get assault rifles will lower the amount of deaths from said assault rifles. I just don't think that the benefits of having assault rifles readily available outweigh the negatives of having assault rifles available.When those cities/states have more crime, including gun usage, than the cities/states that guns can be purchased from, it's not the guns that are the problem. But that would mean politicians would have to look inwards at their own social and economic policies.

When you have the ilk of Diane Fienstein setting definitions that include much more than actual assault rifles, and people like giantone posted willing to abuse existing laws (using legal gun registrations to try "outing" people), discussing reasonable gun control like a new assault weapon ban is impossible. Not that I think the old AWB accomplished a thing. Just saying. As long as there's the inclination of politicians to turn gun control into the travesty of gun regulation in DC, where a DC reporter illustrated the ridiculous hoops needed to legally own a gun LINK (http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/guns/2012/feb/8/miller-emily-got-her-gun/) (and look how well DC turned out), there's no point talking gun control. It'll only do more harm than good.

Sam Harris - Riddle of the Gun (http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-riddle-of-the-gun)

Finally, I have said nothing here about what might cause a person like Adam Lanza to enter a school for the purpose of slaughtering innocent children. Clearly, we need more resources in the areas of childhood and teenage mental health, and we need protocols for parents, teachers, and fellow students to follow when a young man in their midst begins to worry them. In the majority of cases, someone planning a public assassination or a mass murder will communicate his intentions to others in advance of the crime. People need to feel personally responsible for acting on this information—and the authorities must be able to do something once the information gets passed along. But again, any law that allows us to commit or imprison people on the basis of a mere perception of risk would guarantee that large numbers of innocent people will be held against their will.

Rather than new laws, I believe we need a general shift in our attitude toward public violence—wherein everyone begins to assume some responsibility for containing it. It is worth noting that this shift has already occurred in one area of our lives, without anyone’s having received special training or even agreeing that a change in attitude was necessary: Just imagine how a few men with box cutters would now be greeted by their fellow passengers at 30,000 feet.

The best synopsis of the issue I've read to date.

Goodness you gunnies are defensive about all this. The mere mention that reducing gun ownership in this country somehow unequivocally amounts to advocating gun control? Not what I meant.


I think part of the problem is that people like me, who doesn't own a gun, think the amount of guns this country has shows a problem. Understand this...when I say "reduce" I mean get our country to naturally not want to own over half the guns in the world. My gut is that taking guns from them isn't the way to achieve that.