Gun Control Thread- Should we?

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

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

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by Giantone

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.

Originally Posted by Giantone

"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

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.

[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.

[RedskinRat]

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.

[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.

[RedskinRat]

Sam Harris - 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.

[FRPLG]

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.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

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.

It's the misuse of the guns, not the amount.

[RedskinRat]

You're sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom. Half-awake and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers.

At least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way.

With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun.

You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it.

In the darkness, you make out two shadows.

One holds something that looks like a crowbar.

When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire.

The blast knocks both thugs to the floor.

One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to the front door and lurches outside.

As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you're in trouble.

In your country, most guns were outlawed years before, and the few that are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless..

Yours was never registered.

Police arrive and inform you that the second burglar has died.

They arrest you for First Degree Murder and Illegal Possession of a Firearm.

When you talk to your attorney, he tells you not to worry: authorities will probably plea the case down to manslaughter.

"What kind of sentence will I get?" you ask.

"Only ten-to-twelve years," he replies, as if that's nothing.

"Behave yourself, and you'll be out in seven."

The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper. Somehow, you're portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot are represented as choirboys.

Their friends and relatives can't find an unkind word to say about them..

Buried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both "victims" have been arrested numerous times.

But the next day's headline says it all:

"Lovable Rogue Son Didn't Deserve to Die."

The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters.

As the days wear on, the story takes wings.

The national media picks it up, then the international media.

The surviving burglar has become a folk hero.

Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you, and he'll probably win.

The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and that you've been critical of local police for their lack of effort in apprehending the suspects.

After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time.

The District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in wait for the burglars.

A few months later, you go to trial.

The charges haven't been reduced, as your lawyer had so confidently predicted.

When you take the stand, your anger at the injustice of it all works against you..

Prosecutors paint a picture of you as a mean, vengeful man.

It doesn't take long for the jury to convict you of all charges.

The judge sentences you to life in prison.


This case really happened:

On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk , England , killed one burglar and wounded a second.

In April, 2000, he was convicted and is now serving a life term.

How did it become a crime to defend one's own life in the once great British Empire?

It started with the Pistols Act of 1903.

This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and established that handgun sales were to be made only to those who had a license.
The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except shotguns.

Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns.

Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the Hungerfordmass shooting in 1987.

Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed man with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the streets shooting everyone he saw.

When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead.

The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of "gun control", demanded even tougher restrictions. (The seizure of all privately owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a rifle.)

Nine years later, at Dunblane, Scotland, Thomas Hamilton used a semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a public school.

For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally unstable, or worse, criminals.

Now the press had a real kook with which to beat up law-abiding gun owners.

Day after day, week after week, the media gave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all handguns.

The Dunblane Inquiry, a few months later, sealed the fate of the few sidearms still owned by private citizens.

During the years in which the British government incrementally took away most gun rights, the notion that a citizen had the right to armed self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism.

Authorities refused to grant gun licenses to people who were threatened, claiming that self-defense was no longer considered a reason to own a gun.

Citizens who shot burglars or robbers or rapists were charged while the real criminals were released.

Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying,
"We cannot have people take the law into their own hands."

All of Martin's neighbors had been robbed numerous times, and several elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young thugs who had no fear of the consequences.
Martin himself, a collector of antiques, had seen most of his collection trashed or stolen by burglars.

When the Dunblane Inquiry ended, citizens who owned handguns were given three months to turn them over to local authorities.

Being good British subjects, most people obeyed the law. The few who didn't were visited by police and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn't comply.

Police later bragged that they'd taken nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens.

How did the authorities know who had handguns?

The guns had been registered and licensed.

Kind of like cars. Sound familiar?

[mlmpetert]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

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.

Eric Holder: Gun Owners Should 'Cower' in Shame Like Smokers | NewsBusters.org

This is kind of like the 1990's Carlton Banks version of Eric Holder.

But instead of brain washing people to view gun owners like cigarette smokers, perhaps the government should lead by example/action. Why do police departments need military weapons? I would be supportive of a ban that reserved military weapons for the..... military, while empowering private citizens to defend themselves with the capability equal to that of local and federal law enforcement.

I agree it would be preferable to live in a country/world where people dont want to own guns, even though they can. Maybe one day we live in a world where people dont want guns, but that will likely only happen when we live in a world where people dont need guns.

[HailGreen28]

New York just went full retard.

Gov. Cuomo and legislative leaders were on the verge Sunday night of finalizing a major gun-control deal that would give New York the nation’s toughest assault weapons ban, sources told the Daily News.

I like the tying of mental health to gun ownership. The devil (or angel) of that will be in the details. But the rest... ban of private sales, some weapons, ammunition limits, all this will do nothing to reduce crime or violence.

And the whole pre 1994 thing is NOT a "loophole". Is the mag restriction also non-grandfather clause? Ex post facto if so...and makes previous law abiding citizens into instant felons. While still doing nothing positive.

It'll be interesting to see what emerges, and if anything is struck down judicially.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by HailGreen28

New York just went full retard.

Gov. Cuomo and legislative leaders were on the verge Sunday night of finalizing a major gun-control deal that would give New York the nation’s toughest assault weapons ban, sources told the Daily News.

I like the tying of mental health to gun ownership. The devil (or angel) of that will be in the details. But the rest... ban of private sales, some weapons, ammunition limits, all this will do nothing to reduce crime or violence.

And the whole pre 1994 thing is NOT a "loophole". Is the mag restriction also non-grandfather clause? Ex post facto if so...and makes previous law abiding citizens into instant felons. While still doing nothing positive.

It'll be interesting to see what emerges, and if anything is struck down judicially.

Done deal.Maryland next

New York passes nation's toughest gun control law | NJ.com

York state enacted the nation's toughest gun restrictions today and the first since the Connecticut school massacre, including an expanded assault-weapon ban and background checks for buying ammunition.
Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed the measure into law less than an hour after it won final passage in the Legislature, with supporters hailing it as a model for the nation and gun-rights activists condemning it as a knee-jerk piece of legislation that won't make anyone safer and is too extreme to win support in the rest of the country.
"Common sense can win," Cuomo said. "You can overpower the extremists with intelligence and with reason and with common sense."