Gun Control Thread- Should we?

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by HailGreen28

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?

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by Giantone

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!

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by Giantone

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".

Originally Posted by Giantone

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

2)Nobody said you can't own a gun

Stop lying, Giantone.

Re. 1): From a link you posted HERE, 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."

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

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. "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."

Originally Posted by Giantone

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.

Originally Posted by Giantone

Want some cheese with your whine?

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

[Daseal]

Originally Posted by HailGreen28

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, 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."

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

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. "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.

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by HailGreen28

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.

Originally Posted by Daseal

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 (and look how well DC turned out), there's no point talking gun control. It'll only do more harm than good.