Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

[CreepersWiener]

Either way, arms are absolutely as necessary to protect out rights and keep us a Free people as speech is, and that is the very reason why it's our first and second amendment.

Just a quick question.

How does your right to bear arms make you any more or less free than me? bearing in mind that I dont have the right to bear arms.

Bearing arms enables me to protect myself, my family, and my property. If you have no means to protect yourself, you won't remain free for long, and can look forward to a long life of being abused. If you are unable to protect yourself or your family, I would go out on a limb and say that one who can protect themselves and their family is just a wee bit more free than one who does not have the right to protect themself.

But what if I live in a society where I have no need to defend myself/others with lethal force? Considering this, are you still more free than me?

Is that society Heaven?

Perhaps that "society" being referred to is not "heaven", but the Christian's "Kingdom of God". These are the times...

Christian belief is that this world is ruled by Satan, but in the end of days God's Kingdom will come to earth. For that to happen, don't you think guns need to go away?

Christians should be all for banning firearms, not hording them for some type of Apocalypse.

I got scolded by one of my uncles for not owning a gun. In his paranoid Christian mind, he believes that a gun will mean survival during these end times; but if this is indeed those "end times" what good is a gun? What good is fear? Did not Jesus teach to fear not and that fear was the enemy? To love each other as He loved you?

If this is the "end of days", I am sure a gun is the last thing on my mind. I would be too busy being kind towards people and trying to help my community the best way I could...without a gun. And if a gun is absolutely necessary, I have friends and family (and I am sure strangers as well) who would be willing to give me a spare weapon.

The world is material...the things that must change are not material. The things that must change deal with thoughts and reasoning, of which you may claim spirituality.

When you think that gold is important, or food, or shelter, or water...when "the Lord" comes a knockin' all that material stuff seems to drift farther away.

When the Scriptures said the Word of God is bread and water, it meant that the TEACHINGS of moral conduct are more important than those material things we desire...and desire is sin...and sin is death.

If we are within those days (and you will know those days as you know the season of the fig tree), then be at peace that God will provide all comfort...not a gun.

Amen.

[Night Strike]

"Who needs these military-style assault weapons? Who needs an ammunition feeding device capable of holding 100 rounds? These weapons are not for hunting deer, they're for hunting people."

She's going to introduce a bill to ban assault weapons.

I would like to introduce a bill banning her right to a trial by jury, and that of every other person who wants to take away the right to own guns.

Gun ownership has the most restrictions on it of any other right listed in the Constitution, yet people want it to be restricted even more?! The entire purpose of the Constitution is to clearly list the rights that the government is NOT allowed to infringe upon, yet they're allowed to do so at every turn when it comes to guns? Why don't we just go around taking away the vote of anyone who might vote incorrectly? Voting and owning guns are completely equal when it comes to Constitutional rights, so that sounds fair to me.

[Symmetry]

"Who needs these military-style assault weapons? Who needs an ammunition feeding device capable of holding 100 rounds? These weapons are not for hunting deer, they're for hunting people."

She's going to introduce a bill to ban assault weapons.

I would like to introduce a bill banning her right to a trial by jury, and that of every other person who wants to take away the right to own guns.

Gun ownership has the most restrictions on it of any other right listed in the Constitution, yet people want it to be restricted even more?! The entire purpose of the Constitution is to clearly list the rights that the government is NOT allowed to infringe upon, yet they're allowed to do so at every turn when it comes to guns? Why don't we just go around taking away the vote of anyone who might vote incorrectly? Voting and owning guns are completely equal when it comes to Constitutional rights, so that sounds fair to me.

They're really not, and it's odd that you feel they're equivalent.

[Night Strike]

"Who needs these military-style assault weapons? Who needs an ammunition feeding device capable of holding 100 rounds? These weapons are not for hunting deer, they're for hunting people."

She's going to introduce a bill to ban assault weapons.

I would like to introduce a bill banning her right to a trial by jury, and that of every other person who wants to take away the right to own guns.

Gun ownership has the most restrictions on it of any other right listed in the Constitution, yet people want it to be restricted even more?! The entire purpose of the Constitution is to clearly list the rights that the government is NOT allowed to infringe upon, yet they're allowed to do so at every turn when it comes to guns? Why don't we just go around taking away the vote of anyone who might vote incorrectly? Voting and owning guns are completely equal when it comes to Constitutional rights, so that sounds fair to me.

They're really not, and it's odd that you feel they're equivalent.

They are both listed in the Constitution, so yes, they are equal. How about another example: anyone who wants to remove gun rights can forfeit their freedom of speech. Or protections from unlawful searches and seizures. Or forfeit protections from self-incrimination. On attack without a Constitutional amendment on one right is an attack on ALL our rights.

[Phatscotty]

My question was serious.

I feel absolutely no need to defend myself with a lethal weapon, and it's because the society I live in poses little risk; do you think I am letting down my family by not protecting them via a lethal weapon (and relevant training)?

no, but if one were in a bind and needed to feed their family and weren't too concerned about anyone else, they know who's house is the easiest of pickings, and can have their way with, for however long they want

[Phatscotty]

My question was serious.

I feel absolutely no need to defend myself with a lethal weapon, and it's because the society I live in poses little risk; do you think I am letting down my family by not protecting them via a lethal weapon (and relevant training)?

The Shooter's mother bought a gun to protect herself from this kind of violence.

I'm reading the shooters mother thought the world was coming to an end, from global warming...

[Symmetry]

"Who needs these military-style assault weapons? Who needs an ammunition feeding device capable of holding 100 rounds? These weapons are not for hunting deer, they're for hunting people."

She's going to introduce a bill to ban assault weapons.

I would like to introduce a bill banning her right to a trial by jury, and that of every other person who wants to take away the right to own guns.

Gun ownership has the most restrictions on it of any other right listed in the Constitution, yet people want it to be restricted even more?! The entire purpose of the Constitution is to clearly list the rights that the government is NOT allowed to infringe upon, yet they're allowed to do so at every turn when it comes to guns? Why don't we just go around taking away the vote of anyone who might vote incorrectly? Voting and owning guns are completely equal when it comes to Constitutional rights, so that sounds fair to me.

They're really not, and it's odd that you feel they're equivalent.

They are both listed in the Constitution, so yes, they are equal. How about another example: anyone who wants to remove gun rights can forfeit their freedom of speech. Or protections from unlawful searches and seizures. Or forfeit protections from self-incrimination. On attack without a Constitutional amendment on one right is an attack on ALL our rights.

As I've said before, the right to vote does not and should not be about purchase. The right to bear arms is much more complicated, and involves a right to purchase. I'm assuming that you narrowly interpret the right to bear arms as being exclusively guns of a certain type. Presumably you're not in favour of open-carry bazookas, or personal nuclear munitions. It's difficult to tell with you, as you rarely give details.

[Juan_Bottom]

As a felon I'm not allowed to own a gun. But as you saw from the video I posted earlier, you can buy a gun at a gun show without a background check or a waiting period. And this is where most guns are sold in this country.
Gun purchases aren't restricted whatsoever to criminals. Yet yes, obviously the government does have the ability to take away your rights if felons can't vote or buy guns.

[Night Strike]

As a felon I'm not allowed to own a gun. But as you saw from the video I posted earlier, you can buy a gun at a gun show without a background check or a waiting period. And this is where most guns are sold in this country.
Gun purchases aren't restricted whatsoever to criminals. Yet yes, obviously the government does have the ability to take away your rights if felons can't vote or buy guns.

If you've chosen to commit a felony, then you've chosen to forfeit certain rights. I have not chosen to commit a felony, so why should by right to own a gun be taken away from me?

[Juan_Bottom]

I didn't choose to commit a felony, I got it from a plea deal for a traffic accident.
Furthermore, if it's a "right" it can never ever be taken away. That's why it's called a "right," right?

Besides, as I said, I could just go to a gun show and buy whatever I want anyway.

[Night Strike]

I didn't choose to commit a felony, I got it from a plea deal for a traffic accident.
Furthermore, if it's a "right" it can never ever be taken away. That's why it's called a "right," right?

You also have a right to not be detained against your will........unless you violate the rights of someone else. Committing certain felonies results in a forfeiture of certain rights because the felon first violated the rights of another.

[Juan_Bottom]

"Deepest Darkest Africa, 1903 -
Little boy says 'Daddy, I just discovered Relativity. Big eclipse is coming, And I'll prove it wait and see.

Better eclipse yourself outta here son, and find a tree. There's a lion in the front yard, and he knows he won't catch me.

How many Albert Einsteins were cut down in their prime? How many little Ronald Reagan's gobbled up before their time? I don't believe in Evolution, but it occurs to me - What if little Howard Taft had to face a lion? or god forbid - climb a tree? Where would this country be?"

Think about these lyrics and what they mean for this country. This is what it's all about.
Conquerclub, gun-wielding Tea Party Nutbags have tamed this country, and made it so safe for our children. Our kids can take time to learn a book, because they don't have to run for their lives from Passenger Pigeons, various species of North American Wolves, the Eastern Cougar, or the Sea Mink. The great-grandfathers of these Tea-Party nutters hunted them all down... and now,... after their people have spent two hundred years or more with a gun in their hands, you want to take away their pistols. They can't just hand these guns over,... it's been locked into their DNA that they need their 20-round 9mm to protect us from bears and Indians and stuff. That's why I propose we take all of the Tea Party, and anyone else who, based on Evolutionary Theory, should have the same mutated genes as they do*, and send them to Africa. Or that area in the South Pacific where everything is deadly and poisonous. Let them tame those jungles and savannas and help bring those children the same peace that we enjoy here in America.

*this doesn't make them less human

** nobody wanted to discuss what measurable steps we could take to solve the problem.
"you can't have our guns because"
vs
"I am not giving my 5 year-old a derringer"

[Night Strike]

Why don't we just let the people who want to ban all guns leave for their own utopia lands? They can all live in peace with themselves and the rest of us can rely on ourselves for self-protection instead of praying that the government will show up in time.

The ultimate nanny-state has been achieved when the only means people have of protection is waiting on the government to arrive.

[Symmetry]

Why don't we just let the people who want to ban all guns leave for their own utopia lands? They can all live in peace with themselves and the rest of us can rely on ourselves for self-protection instead of praying that the government will show up in time.

The ultimate nanny-state has been achieved when the only means people have of protection is waiting on the government to arrive.

Once again, it's disturbing that you equate owning a gun with freedom to such an extent that you feel that not having a gun is both a fantastical utopia and a recipe for some kind of dictatorship.

[Night Strike]

Why don't we just let the people who want to ban all guns leave for their own utopia lands? They can all live in peace with themselves and the rest of us can rely on ourselves for self-protection instead of praying that the government will show up in time.

The ultimate nanny-state has been achieved when the only means people have of protection is waiting on the government to arrive.

Once again, it's disturbing that you equate owning a gun with freedom to such an extent that you feel that not having a gun is both a fantastical utopia and a recipe for some kind of dictatorship.

Have you read the Constitution? The right to own guns is a fundamental right specifically listed for the government to not infringe upon. It wasn't something that was lumped into the 9th amendment for the government to pick and choose whether or not it wants to protect. It is on the exact same fundamental level as freedoms of speech, religion, trial by jury, etc. Using governmental dictates to take away one right is an assault on all the others.

[Symmetry]

Why don't we just let the people who want to ban all guns leave for their own utopia lands? They can all live in peace with themselves and the rest of us can rely on ourselves for self-protection instead of praying that the government will show up in time.

The ultimate nanny-state has been achieved when the only means people have of protection is waiting on the government to arrive.

Once again, it's disturbing that you equate owning a gun with freedom to such an extent that you feel that not having a gun is both a fantastical utopia and a recipe for some kind of dictatorship.

Have you read the Constitution? The right to own guns is a fundamental right specifically listed for the government to not infringe upon. It wasn't something that was lumped into the 9th amendment for the government to pick and choose whether or not it wants to protect. It is on the exact same fundamental level as freedoms of speech, religion, trial by jury, etc. Using governmental dictates to take away one right is an assault on all the others.

The right to bear arms is listed in as an amendment to the constitution, that it refers to ownership of certain types of guns is a legal interpretation of that amendment. As i pointed out, you don't really think that it covers all forms of weaponry.

I''m also also assuming that you're ok with the 13th amendment outlawing the right to own slaves. You've read the constitution, right, and I hope that you don't consider the 13th to be an assault on all other rights.

[Juan_Bottom]

I didn't choose to commit a felony, I got it from a plea deal for a traffic accident.
Furthermore, if it's a "right" it can never ever be taken away. That's why it's called a "right," right?

You also have a right to not be detained against your will........unless you violate the rights of someone else. Committing certain felonies results in a forfeiture of certain rights because the felon first violated the rights of another.

Ahem, right, but that's according to your state... The Bill of Rights, that you're using for your gun defense, says that owning a gun is 'infringable.'
You see where I am taking this? You're selective in it's application yourself.

[Phatscotty]

Where the impact of all this will be felt

CREDO, a progressive grassroots group, is organizing a march on the National Rifle Association's lobbying arm in Washington, D.C. Monday.

"After the shooter Adam Lanza, no one is more to blame for the massacre of 20 first graders and six women at the Sandy Hook Elementary School than the National Rifle Association," CREDO wrote on the Facebook page where the march is being organized. "To stop the senseless killing we must first stop the NRA."

[HapSmo19]

Once again, it's disturbing that you equate owning a gun with freedom to such an extent that you feel that not having a gun is both a fantastical utopia and a recipe for some kind of dictatorship.

Thi is a serious question: Is there a country as well armed as the american public that become a dictatorship without first being stripped of it's guns? Seriously.

[Symmetry]

Once again, it's disturbing that you equate owning a gun with freedom to such an extent that you feel that not having a gun is both a fantastical utopia and a recipe for some kind of dictatorship.

Thi is a serious question: Is there a country as well armed as the american public that become a dictatorship without first being stripped of it's guns? Seriously.

Could you ask the serious question again, but a little more coherently?

[Juan_Bottom]

[jay_a2j]

The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun

No guns = No bad guys with guns...period.

Yeah, DRUGS are illegal. So tell me how hard it is to get them.....


If you outlaw guns, only criminals will have them...

[chang50]

The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun

No guns = No bad guys with guns...period.

Yeah, DRUGS are illegal. So tell me how hard it is to get them.....


If you outlaw guns, only criminals will have them...

Only because the US has allowed a situation to develop where the country is saturated with guns making it nearly impossible to implement sane policies,but you gotta start somewhere or carry on down the insane track..As a father I look at the US from a safe distance and thank my lucky stars my family will never have to live amongst such madness.

[Juan_Bottom]

We aren't even talking about taking away all guns. We're talking about controlling what guns can be sold and who can have access to them.

1) No more handgun sales to the public, but handguns that are already in private ownership can still be bought, sold, inherited, and traded.

2) No more sales of military/assault weapons, clips, jackets, ect.

3) Most guns sold are sold through gun shows where sales are not controlled. There are no background checks, allowing gun manufacturers to sell indirectly to criminals. So either we need to:

a) strictly enforce background checks
b) allow victims of gun violence to sue gun manufacturers
c) ban gun shows

4) Anyone who houses or has an unsound or unstable mind may not have a gun in the home. No exceptions.


Is this not a respectable compromise? This is fair and addresses the problems that both sides have. Gun enthusiasts can keep all the rifles and shotguns that they like, while liberals can rest easier knowing that insane and violent people wont have access to handguns or assault rifles. You even get to keep your hand guns.
If you don't budge an inch you wont get anything you want at all. Because Democrats have repeatedly shown, over and over, that if you wont compromise then we will wait and wait until we have the majority. And then Conservatives get nothing.

[Juan_Bottom]

A Note From Michael Moore

I am truly beside myself this time. I tried to ring a warning bell about this a decade ago. The disease has only gotten worse.

But...you feel something different in the air across America tonight, don't you? People have had it and the outrage is loud and visible. I'm convinced the majority of Americans will now back strong gun control laws. And a better mental health care system. And perhaps a few are willing to look at the deeper issue of how this country officially sanctions violence as a means to an end.

The NRA, for the first time ever, has gone silent. They've taken their Facebook page down. They know they can't show up in Newtown next week and stick it to the people there, like they usually do after one of these mass killings. Let's face it, the gun lobby tonight is on the ropes. Now is the time to act. We can't let this sad moment pass without a true response and a president willing to be a strong leader.

continued