***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (2 Viewers)

[eoMMan]

I think we all agree that Texas and Florida have some of the loosest gun laws around, right?

Well, look at these stats from 2004 (couldn't find any other years).

According to this, there were 13 states, that we can assume have tougher gun laws, that has more gun homicides.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

Why is that?

I'll hang up and listen.

Couldn't possibly be because there are lots of other variables involved right?

Of course. You mean like people not committing murders with guns because they think someone else might be armed? I agree. Good point.

So I'm not going to shoot someone in South Dakota for fear they have a gun. But I'm going to go in the middle of Chicago or New York or Philly and shoot someone b/c nobody in New York or Chicago has a gun? When we've already proven that gun violence is high in these cities, so I should know that odds are people have guns? Now I'm just confused.

Yes, if you know that someone could have a gun, you will be less likely to pull our yours. It doesn't take a brainiac to figure that one out.And you didn't prove anything.

I thought one of your arguments is that places with high gun restrictions have high gun violence. Didn't we establish earlier that Chicago's gun violence rate is high despite all the laws. So knowing these gun statistics, wouldn't it be prudent to think that these individuals probably have a gun, knowing the high gun violence rate? And then I also thought a common refrain was that someone who was going to commit a crime with a gun was going to do so regardless of whether they could obtain a gun? I believe I saw this argument many times. So knowing that, why would it matter whether the other person was carrying, they were going to commit a crime and nothing was going to stop them. Or is that what was going to stop them?

We didn't establish anything earlier. Do you really want me to print out and read this whole thread? I have a life, sir.Regarding Chicago, yes, in that case, gun laws don't mean much at all. I say that because race, gangs, and the "hood" are the big reasons why murders are so bad there.

My link

 

[shader]

Greetings from Ground Zero here in CT. Been out and about all day, and all I can say is that the game has changed. This "gun control debate" isn't going to be much of a debate anymore if it is shown that the Bushmaster was used extensively during this shooting. The police got to the scene quickly. It sounds like the killer fired a ton of bullets during this brief rampage. Children shot 3-10 times!!!! The Mom had 6 guns.I for one am getting more outraged at the minute. If all this is true the NRA is going to have blood on its hands. Mark my words, if all of the above is true then you are going to see substantial gun control reform. The scenario that just played out is the NRA's worst nightmare.

Keep dreaming.

Your precious Bushmaster is going bye bye my friend. Right to hell. With the likes of all the people who have supported it over the years.

Looky here...a liberal Mike Huckabee

Cut him some slack. He said he's at ground Zero. It's got to be unbelievably tough there.

 

[Mr Two Cents]

I have gone out over a half dozen times in the last 24 hours, every time my Taurus Judge has been on the passenger seat. Do you know how many times I used it?

None, don't ever want to BUT if the need arises and it is needed to protect myself, guess what will happen.

 

[Rayderr]

Bushmaster - capable of holding TWO 30 round magazines. The weapon is legal and NOT banned either federally or in CT.Can we all agree that this type of weapon needs to be banned? Is anyone in here insane enough to argue for the continued sale of these weapons?

I agree what is the point? If you are hunting deer you only get a shot or two in and the deer are gone. Why would anyone need that much ammo?

Not used for deer. Mainly smaller game like coyotes and varmints. I believe New Orleans wildlife dept. uses it for nutria.

 

[sporthenry]

I think we all agree that Texas and Florida have some of the loosest gun laws around, right?

Well, look at these stats from 2004 (couldn't find any other years).

According to this, there were 13 states, that we can assume have tougher gun laws, that has more gun homicides.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

Why is that?

I'll hang up and listen.

Couldn't possibly be because there are lots of other variables involved right?

Of course. You mean like people not committing murders with guns because they think someone else might be armed? I agree. Good point.

So I'm not going to shoot someone in South Dakota for fear they have a gun. But I'm going to go in the middle of Chicago or New York or Philly and shoot someone b/c nobody in New York or Chicago has a gun? When we've already proven that gun violence is high in these cities, so I should know that odds are people have guns? Now I'm just confused.

Yes, if you know that someone could have a gun, you will be less likely to pull our yours. It doesn't take a brainiac to figure that one out.And you didn't prove anything.

I thought one of your arguments is that places with high gun restrictions have high gun violence. Didn't we establish earlier that Chicago's gun violence rate is high despite all the laws. So knowing these gun statistics, wouldn't it be prudent to think that these individuals probably have a gun, knowing the high gun violence rate? And then I also thought a common refrain was that someone who was going to commit a crime with a gun was going to do so regardless of whether they could obtain a gun? I believe I saw this argument many times. So knowing that, why would it matter whether the other person was carrying, they were going to commit a crime and nothing was going to stop them. Or is that what was going to stop them?

We didn't establish anything earlier. Do you really want me to print out and read this whole thread? I have a life, sir.Regarding Chicago, yes, in that case, gun laws don't mean much at all. I say that because race, gangs, and the "hood" are the big reasons why murders are so bad there.

My link

Well I was working under the construct that this is what people argue. SD or some state has no gun laws and little gun crime while Chicago has some of the most strict laws and highest gun violence. As you mention, there are other variables at play. And I think this fact would probably diminish the whole deterrent argument b/c a random person in Chicago would seemingly have as good of a chance of having a gun as someone in Florida.

Additionally as you mention, the reasons for violence in Chicago is rather independent of gun laws but when we don't have uniform gun laws and loopholes, than trying to root out the problem becomes that much harder. If being able to universally limit access to guns will hit these places of high crime, than I am for it, even if it means necessary background and mental checks of all people looking for guns.

 

[General Tso]

Greetings from Ground Zero here in CT. Been out and about all day, and all I can say is that the game has changed. This "gun control debate" isn't going to be much of a debate anymore if it is shown that the Bushmaster was used extensively during this shooting. The police got to the scene quickly. It sounds like the killer fired a ton of bullets during this brief rampage. Children shot 3-10 times!!!! The Mom had 6 guns.I for one am getting more outraged at the minute. If all this is true the NRA is going to have blood on its hands. Mark my words, if all of the above is true then you are going to see substantial gun control reform. The scenario that just played out is the NRA's worst nightmare.

Keep dreaming.

Your precious Bushmaster is going bye bye my friend. Right to hell. With the likes of all the people who have supported it over the years.

Looky here...a liberal Mike Huckabee

Cut him some slack. He said he's at ground Zero. It's got to be unbelievably tough there.

No it's fine. I know what I'm dealing with this guy and I expect nothing less. And I'm not speaking to him anyways.I'm speaking to the silent majority on this issue, the right minded people who have been sitting on the sidelines for years. Enough is enough already. I think we've all had enough of this ridiculous nonsense, that people need to have assault rifles that can pump out 60 rounds without reloading, as if the loss of such a weapon is going to cause them personal harm. I think people like me stayed on the sidelines for a variety of reasons, but that's over now. Now our children are being slaughtered, by guns that are designed for the explicit purpose of shooting LOTS of people quickly. Not to shoot an intruder coming into your home. Not to hunt. But to kill people in a slaughter - quickly - before the police get there to stop it.Keep stumping your indefensible position, Bass. And before you go to sleep tonight you think long and hard about the 20 parents in CT who are wondering tonight if that Bushmaster didn't exist, could he have killed 20 kids in such a short time. What if it would have only been 19? Was my kid #20? Somebody's kid was #20.

 

[Apple Jack]

I have gone out over a half dozen times in the last 24 hours, every time my Taurus Judge has been on the passenger seat. Do you know how many times I used it? None, don't ever want to BUT if the need arises and it is needed to protect myself, guess what will happen.

You'll end up shooting yourself in the balls by accident?

 

[Spanky267]

All of the gun owners that I have known or talked to have all agreed they have no problem filling out paperwork,background checks or whatever else is needed to make it tougher for the bad guys to obtain guns and so far I have yet to read anyone say here they feel that no restrictions should be placed on purchasing a gun.I have no problem at all jumping through hoops to have to buy a gun but I do have a big problem with a total ban of guns in this country.I say let's make it as tough as possible to buy a gun(longer waiting periods,extensive background check,mental health check etc)and also,as a nation,be more aware of clear warning signs of mental health illness and act upon them sooner.Of course this all means more money and time involved but I doubt any responsible gun owner will deny it can't hurt to try.I am one of those willing to do so.

This doesn't solve the problem. You're still putting guns out there. Just like this mom did. She bought guns and registered them. She exercised her "right." And it resulted in not only her own death, but the deaths of 20 small children.So you people can keep exercising your rights and pretend that it only affects you and your rights. But for every one of you who stockpiles guns in a home, there are that many more guns out in circulation, and it's that much more likely that those guns will become a part of something absolutely tragic. No offense to you, but if the risk were limited to you doing something stupid and shooting your own child one night thinking he were a prowler, or your own child shooting a sibling or himself by accident, while I would still think it awful, it would be a risk you ran and you and only you paid the price. But the risk doesn't end there. Because things like this happen.You're taking risks for everyone else too. And that's not fair to us.

So your solution is to ban all guns then,right?

Guns that are designed for killing people, yes.Guns that are designed for hunting deer? I could see leaving those legalized and carefully monitored. Rarely do they lead to the kinds of problems that pistols and assault weapons do.

Could you check your list of these guns designed for killing people and tell me if a Glock G21 and Remington 12 guage pump shotgun are on your list?Both securely stored in a safe(locked away)place that only I have access to.Just to satisfy my curiousity how do you propose to round up these weapons that you want banned?Do we all just turn them in and hope the bad guys do so as well?

Give me one good reason why this woman needed to have an arsenal of 6 guns in her home.**Note: good reasons do not include "it's not our place to inquire; she was exercising her constitutional right."

Actually it is a good reason. She was exercising her rights as granted to her by the constitution and Connecticut law. Just as you are exercising your constitutionally protected right in this forum.

That all you got?

Its all I need!

 

[Otis]

I think we all agree that Texas and Florida have some of the loosest gun laws around, right?Well, look at these stats from 2004 (couldn't find any other years).According to this, there were 13 states, that we can assume have tougher gun laws, that has more gun homicides.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_stateWhy is that?I'll hang up and listen.

Couldn't possibly be because there are lots of other variables involved right?

Of course. You mean like people not committing murders with guns because they think someone else might be armed? I agree. Good point.

Would love to see some statistics to back that up. I highly doubt that would ever be a real deterrent to gun use. But again, love to see your studies.

 

[Otis]

Bushmaster - capable of holding TWO 30 round magazines. The weapon is legal and NOT banned either federally or in CT.Can we all agree that this type of weapon needs to be banned? Is anyone in here insane enough to argue for the continued sale of these weapons?

BUT MY RIGHTS!!!DONT TREAD ON ME, BRO

 

[Otis]

Bushmaster - capable of holding TWO 30 round magazines. The weapon is legal and NOT banned either federally or in CT.Can we all agree that this type of weapon needs to be banned? Is anyone in here insane enough to argue for the continued sale of these weapons?

I agree what is the point? If you are hunting deer you only get a shot or two in and the deer are gone. Why would anyone need that much ammo?

To slaughter as many innocents as possible in a short period of time before help arrives.

 

[Mr Two Cents]

I have gone out over a half dozen times in the last 24 hours, every time my Taurus Judge has been on the passenger seat. Do you know how many times I used it? None, don't ever want to BUT if the need arises and it is needed to protect myself, guess what will happen.

You will kill somebody. Not sure what that has to do with what we're talking about. Congratulations? You're tough?

Not tough but will not be a victim. Big difference.

 

[cobalt_27]

I have gone out over a half dozen times in the last 24 hours, every time my Taurus Judge has been on the passenger seat. Do you know how many times I used it? None, don't ever want to BUT if the need arises and it is needed to protect myself, guess what will happen.

You will kill somebody. Not sure what that has to do with what we're talking about. Congratulations? You're tough?

Not tough but will not be a victim. Big difference.

Yup, and this is the misguided thinking that gets these kids killed. You're obviously not fully responsible, you're just part of the problem. And, I share some of the blame because I haven't consistently voted or made my voice heard about how stupid it is to support gun policies that cater to your paranoia.

 

[Mr Two Cents]

Normally stressed in this amendment are the two obvious assertions: 1. We possess "the right to keep and bear arms" and, 2. That right "shall not be infringed." But of crucial importance is the fact that this amendment is the only one which protects a right our Founders considered "necessary to the security of a free state."

Obvious implications: No armed citizenry = no free state.

This is why the Founders made this amendment so difficult to change or eliminate. Therefore, although it can be changed, the requirements for doing so are near herculean, especially in our day.

The Second Amendment is meaningless.No amount of 12-guages are going to secure the people against oppression by the US government. Their weaponry easily outpaces your own and the amount of firepower you would need to be on an equal footing to overthrow a tyrannical state are already banned. So let's ditch the thing and stop pretending that we're protecting some innate American value by protecting it.

It is the MAIN reason for the 2nd amendment son. At least 7 million households have legal guns. Do you think our sons and daughters will turn their guns on their families? They wont even do that in Egypt. Assuming that 100% of every military person would shoot down his own family, there would not be enough to even begin to secure anything but a very small percentage of the country.

 

[BassNBrew]

No it's fine. I know what I'm dealing with this guy and I expect nothing less. And I'm not speaking to him anyways.

I'm speaking to the silent majority on this issue, the right minded people who have been sitting on the sidelines for years. Enough is enough already. I think we've all had enough of this ridiculous nonsense, that people need to have assault rifles that can pump out 60 rounds without reloading, as if the loss of such a weapon is going to cause them personal harm. I think people like me stayed on the sidelines for a variety of reasons, but that's over now. Now our children are being slaughtered, by guns that are designed for the explicit purpose of shooting LOTS of people quickly. Not to shoot an intruder coming into your home. Not to hunt. But to kill people in a slaughter - quickly - before the police get there to stop it.

Keep stumping your indefensible position, Bass. And before you go to sleep tonight you think long and hard about the 20 parents in CT who are wondering tonight if that Bushmaster didn't exist, could he have killed 20 kids in such a short time. What if it would have only been 19? Was my kid #20? Somebody's kid was #20.

What's my indefensible position GT?If you're going to naunce your position to the end of the second paragragh then there may be room to talk. The reality is that the people on both side have a wide range of positions and can't even agree amongst themselves.

Before you go to sleep tonite think long hard tonite that if alcohol didn't exist that this lady would be alive. http://www.wistv.com/story/20352948/driver-charged-with-felony-dui-after-deadly-crash

I'm not going to spend the time to find 20 of these, but stats say they're out there. It would be much easier to eliminate alcohol than all guns since alcohol is consumed.

 

[cobalt_27]

Completely agree with the poster above. The gun lobby nut cases better have a good compromise ready to go because the consequence of this will be a very severe set of bans and restrictions on firearms because if this. It's terrible that it took the massacre of these kids to promote a change, but the reality is the game has changed. A lot of you who own guns will not own them soon. Or you will own them illegally and/or be going to jail.

 

[BassNBrew]

It is the MAIN reason for the 2nd amendment son. At least 7 million households have legal guns. Do you think our sons and daughters will turn their guns on their families? They wont even do that in Egypt. Assuming that 100% of every military person would shoot down his own family, there would not be enough to even begin to secure anything but a very small percentage of the country.

You and your revolver would get squashed, David Koresh style, if you ever decided to throw off the shackles of tyranny.What the Second Amendment did it can no longer do. It's silly to pretend that it does. We should just sweep it away.

I hope it never comes to that, but short of dropping nuclear bombs on the country there's no way this gov't could control this entire country even with it's superior force. Just last month the gov't couldn't get gas to the area much less stop home invasions and looting after hurricane Sandy. If not for an armed populace things would get real ugly in a hurry.

 

[Apple Jack]

Normally stressed in this amendment are the two obvious assertions: 1. We possess "the right to keep and bear arms" and, 2. That right "shall not be infringed." But of crucial importance is the fact that this amendment is the only one which protects a right our Founders considered "necessary to the security of a free state."

Obvious implications: No armed citizenry = no free state.

This is why the Founders made this amendment so difficult to change or eliminate. Therefore, although it can be changed, the requirements for doing so are near herculean, especially in our day.

The Second Amendment is meaningless.No amount of 12-guages are going to secure the people against oppression by the US government. Their weaponry easily outpaces your own and the amount of firepower you would need to be on an equal footing to overthrow a tyrannical state are already banned. So let's ditch the thing and stop pretending that we're protecting some innate American value by protecting it.

It is the MAIN reason for the 2nd amendment son. At least 7 million households have legal guns. Do you think our sons and daughters will turn their guns on their families? They wont even do that in Egypt. Assuming that 100% of every military person would shoot down his own family, there would not be enough to even begin to secure anything but a very small percentage of the country.

Ok, Jethro. The Second Amendment wasn't apart of the Constitution; it's apart of something called the Bill of Rights that contains AMENDMENTS to the Constitution and the AMENDMENTS were not adopted until four years after the Constitution to address immediate concerns of citizens. All it takes is another AMENDMENT and that becomes the foundation of your rights. Falling back on the Second Amendment is not an argument.

You are a hazard to society. Seriously.

 

[BassNBrew]

And the Second Amendment has been probably the least useful, behind maybe only the Third, in safeguarding any freedom or liberty. The First Amendment is by far the most useful and Article III even more useful than that.

How's that? The threat that Russia and US could wipe each other back to the stone age has been a good enough deterent.

 

[shader]

Face it guys, China is waiting to invade but they can't because they know that Americans have revolvers.

 

[Neovivo]

This will probably be the exact thing I didn't want to happen. A boom in gun and ammo sales. I can already hear the rhetoric, "You saw Obama crying, so you better load up on guns and ammo, because Obama is coming for your arsenal!"

I am so tired of the argument. Nothing is ever going to ####### change! Trying to get people to give up assault weapons is like trying to convince me to go out and buy some.

It's funny because when I was a young guy I hunted all the time with my family, and after serving in the military the last thing I want to be around ever again is a gun. The risk/reward is just not worth it IMO.

I would just like to move to some middle ground at least. Someone out there is smart enough to figure out a way to solve this problem. Hell we sent a man to the moon 50 years ago, and yet we are still having these 'school' shootings over and over.

 

[BassNBrew]

It is the MAIN reason for the 2nd amendment son. At least 7 million households have legal guns. Do you think our sons and daughters will turn their guns on their families? They wont even do that in Egypt. Assuming that 100% of every military person would shoot down his own family, there would not be enough to even begin to secure anything but a very small percentage of the country.

You and your revolver would get squashed, David Koresh style, if you ever decided to throw off the shackles of tyranny.What the Second Amendment did it can no longer do. It's silly to pretend that it does. We should just sweep it away.

I hope it never comes to that, but short of dropping nuclear bombs on the country there's no way this gov't could control this entire country even with it's superior force. Just last month the gov't couldn't get gas to the area much less stop home invasions and looting after hurricane Sandy. If not for an armed populace things would get real ugly in a hurry.

A: Who's to say they wouldn't?B: The US military can take down foreign militaries. It can handle its own citizens armed with shotguns, rifles, and Glocks. Now, it wouldn't be pretty and it doesn't sound realistic, but either does a situation where you have a civilian overthrow of the federal government. You're talking about a state of dictatorship. Heck, the entire South couldn't prevail in the Civil War. And that far predates tanks, predator drones, smart bombs, and whatever else the #### the Pentagon is packing nowadays.It's not people's guns keeping the government at bay. It's a combination of interests that are unlikely to change any time soon. And if the guns aren't serving the purpose to preserve liberty (they aren't) then we're no longer talking about a constitutional right. Because the constitutional right was never about the right to shoot things.

There are many, many good people in the military that would refuse to slaughter their own families.I'll agree and disagree with parts of your last statement. There are times when this country can't defend or protect it's citizens. Citizens have a right to be protected.It's a tough issue and changes do need to be made. I just disagree with the extent of change some are proposing. Guys like Oats are all pumped up to buy a generator when their power is out a few days to protect their family. He's the first guy that will be wanting a gun during the next huricane when some looter kicks in the door of his McMansion to get a cold beer beer and does something to his kid.

 

[BassNBrew]

I wonder if the people who think the second amendment could never be changed know what the word "amendment" means

Care to wager some really cool biking gear that it will be changed in any major way?

 

[Neovivo]

All of the children killed by the gunman were shot multiple times, according to the state’s chief medical examiner, who said that it was worst scene he had witnessed in three decades examining crime scenes.

 

[Apple Jack]

I wonder if the people who think the second amendment could never be changed know what the word "amendment" means

It would be funny if it wasn't so disturbing.

 

[BassNBrew]

This will probably be the exact thing I didn't want to happen. A boom in gun and ammo sales. I can already hear the rhetoric, "You saw Obama crying, so you better load up on guns and ammo, because Obama is coming for your arsenal!" I am so tired of the argument. Nothing is ever going to ####### change! Trying to get people to give up assault weapons is like trying to convince me to go out and buy some. It's funny because when I was a young guy I hunted all the time with my family, and after serving in the military the last thing I want to be around ever again is a gun. The risk/reward is just not worth it IMO. I would just like to move to some middle ground at least. Someone out there is smart enough to figure out a way to solve this problem. Hell we sent a man to the moon 50 years ago, and yet we are still having these 'school' shootings over and over.

I'm sure you are right about the first statement. Check out Ruger stock over the last 8 years.Agree with your last statement. We're on different sides of the spectrum, but I'm sure there's some middle ground.

 

[Soonerman]

Normally stressed in this amendment are the two obvious assertions: 1. We possess "the right to keep and bear arms" and, 2. That right "shall not be infringed." But of crucial importance is the fact that this amendment is the only one which protects a right our Founders considered "necessary to the security of a free state."

Obvious implications: No armed citizenry = no free state.

This is why the Founders made this amendment so difficult to change or eliminate. Therefore, although it can be changed, the requirements for doing so are near herculean, especially in our day.

The Second Amendment is meaningless.No amount of 12-guages are going to secure the people against oppression by the US government. Their weaponry easily outpaces your own and the amount of firepower you would need to be on an equal footing to overthrow a tyrannical state are already banned. So let's ditch the thing and stop pretending that we're protecting some innate American value by protecting it.

It is the MAIN reason for the 2nd amendment son. At least 7 million households have legal guns. Do you think our sons and daughters will turn their guns on their families? They wont even do that in Egypt. Assuming that 100% of every military person would shoot down his own family, there would not be enough to even begin to secure anything but a very small percentage of the country.

Ok, Jethro. The Second Amendment wasn't apart of the Constitution; it's apart of something called the Bill of Rights that contains AMENDMENTS to the Constitution and the AMENDMENTS were not adopted until four years after the Constitution to address immediate concerns of citizens. All it takes is another AMENDMENT and that becomes the foundation of your rights. Falling back on the Second Amendment is not an argument.

You are a hazard to society. Seriously.

Amendments have the full weight and force of any other part of the constitution.

 

[BassNBrew]

Normally stressed in this amendment are the two obvious assertions: 1. We possess "the right to keep and bear arms" and, 2. That right "shall not be infringed." But of crucial importance is the fact that this amendment is the only one which protects a right our Founders considered "necessary to the security of a free state."

Obvious implications: No armed citizenry = no free state.

This is why the Founders made this amendment so difficult to change or eliminate. Therefore, although it can be changed, the requirements for doing so are near herculean, especially in our day.

The Second Amendment is meaningless.No amount of 12-guages are going to secure the people against oppression by the US government. Their weaponry easily outpaces your own and the amount of firepower you would need to be on an equal footing to overthrow a tyrannical state are already banned. So let's ditch the thing and stop pretending that we're protecting some innate American value by protecting it.

It is the MAIN reason for the 2nd amendment son. At least 7 million households have legal guns. Do you think our sons and daughters will turn their guns on their families? They wont even do that in Egypt. Assuming that 100% of every military person would shoot down his own family, there would not be enough to even begin to secure anything but a very small percentage of the country.

Ok, Jethro. The Second Amendment wasn't apart of the Constitution; it's apart of something called the Bill of Rights that contains AMENDMENTS to the Constitution and the AMENDMENTS were not adopted until four years after the Constitution to address immediate concerns of citizens. All it takes is another AMENDMENT and that becomes the foundation of your rights. Falling back on the Second Amendment is not an argument.

You are a hazard to society. Seriously.

Amendments have the full weight and force of any other part of the constitution.

Well you have to admit (despite it being a violation of the TOS here) the him saying Jethro and calling a guy a hazard to society was funny.

 

[sporthenry]

It is the MAIN reason for the 2nd amendment son. At least 7 million households have legal guns. Do you think our sons and daughters will turn their guns on their families? They wont even do that in Egypt. Assuming that 100% of every military person would shoot down his own family, there would not be enough to even begin to secure anything but a very small percentage of the country.

You and your revolver would get squashed, David Koresh style, if you ever decided to throw off the shackles of tyranny.What the Second Amendment did it can no longer do. It's silly to pretend that it does. We should just sweep it away.

I hope it never comes to that, but short of dropping nuclear bombs on the country there's no way this gov't could control this entire country even with it's superior force. Just last month the gov't couldn't get gas to the area much less stop home invasions and looting after hurricane Sandy. If not for an armed populace things would get real ugly in a hurry.

A: Who's to say they wouldn't?B: The US military can take down foreign militaries. It can handle its own citizens armed with shotguns, rifles, and Glocks. Now, it wouldn't be pretty and it doesn't sound realistic, but either does a situation where you have a civilian overthrow of the federal government. You're talking about a state of dictatorship. Heck, the entire South couldn't prevail in the Civil War. And that far predates tanks, predator drones, smart bombs, and whatever else the #### the Pentagon is packing nowadays.It's not people's guns keeping the government at bay. It's a combination of interests that are unlikely to change any time soon. And if the guns aren't serving the purpose to preserve liberty (they aren't) then we're no longer talking about a constitutional right. Because the constitutional right was never about the right to shoot things.

There are many, many good people in the military that would refuse to slaughter their own families.I'll agree and disagree with parts of your last statement. There are times when this country can't defend or protect it's citizens. Citizens have a right to be protected.It's a tough issue and changes do need to be made. I just disagree with the extent of change some are proposing. Guys like Oats are all pumped up to buy a generator when their power is out a few days to protect their family. He's the first guy that will be wanting a gun during the next huricane when some looter kicks in the door of his McMansion to get a cold beer beer and does something to his kid.

Well the point being, during Katrina,most of our military was engaged elsewhere. Additionally, we were woefully unprepared for Katrina from multiple aspects including law enforcement. But law enforcement was more concerned with life and death not a few hundred bucks worth of electronics. Now I'm not for a complete ban either, I think most reasonable people are past that but I think most rational people agree something has to be done. Now as far as an uprising, the other thing that needs to be mentioned is that no uprising succeeds without foreign support. The revolutionary war was won with the aide of France. Libya succeeded with the aide of foreign countries. Gaddhafi was captured after his convoy was shot with a French missile. So even if the US was usurping its power, we would more than likely be able to get support from the international community if this were to happen in the forms of gun, money, etc. And if we had no international support, than I'd assume we were on the wrong side of the coin.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Lot of good the mom's guns did in protecting her.

How about this for an easy start, make gun owners culpable for someone else committing crimes with their guns. And before you say, no way, bar and restaurant owners are culpable for over serving alcohol.

And there is the difference. If a person breaks into a bar and steals a bottle of vodka, gets drunk and runs down a kid on the street, the bar owner is not held liable.

 

[urbanhack]

This is what we are up against and this is the type of thing the NRA has been fighting for just earlier this year. Thankfully it was overturned, but the NRA was behind this one all the way.

Federal Judge Permanently Blocks Florida Law Banning Doctors From Asking About Guns

By Guest Blogger on Jul 3, 2012 at 2:00 pm

Last week, a federal judge permanently blocked Florida from enforcing a law that banned doctors from discussing gun ownership with their patients. The law, the Firearm Owners’ Privacy Act, signed last year by Gov. Rick Scott (R-FL), prohibited “inquiries regarding firearm ownership or possession…by licensed health care practitioners” and “discrimination…based solely on upon a patient’s firearm ownership or possession.”

Because the law’s exceptions, which allow inquiries about guns if a doctor believes in “good faith” that it is relevant to a patient’s care or safety, fail to provide standards for physicians to follow, the law violates the First Amendment rights of doctors.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/07/03/510295/federal-judge-permanently-blocks-florida-law-banning-doctors-from-asking-about-guns/Unreal.

 

[Ursa M]

Can we get past the semi-automatic vs fully automatic weapon semantic BS?

What is the BS? The guns function totally different. If someone wants to ban assault rifles, well they are already banned!!

As a society, do you feel we have too many gun laws, not enough or have it exactly right currently?

I think we have enough laws, but I think they could do a better job enforcing them.

Rewind the clock a few days/weeks. What laws on the books would have saved those kids' lives yesterday? How would you have suggested they be enforced differently. If you don't have an answer to either question (preferably both), then we obviously need more laws. Because, what happened yesterday is part of a pattern that is inexcusable. And, to be perfectly frank, we all share responsibility for not doing enough to protect those kids; perhaps you for being an ardent gun supporter and certainly me for not doing enough in the past to get them out circulation.

I asked Tso this earlier but he didn't respond, so I'll ask you (any other person who thinks we need to get rid of all semi-automatic weapons can also respond.)If all the semi-automatic guns are banned and confiscated, what do we do when these incidents happen with revolvers and pump action shotguns?

There is absolutely no reason for a normal everyday citizen to own a pump action shot gun. Not any more reason than to own a hand grenade or an missile launcher. Absolutely insane. So, let's start with the semi-automatic guns, pump action shotguns and see what happens from there. And, my god, let's get some licensing requirements to own any firearm. The process to register to vote, to get a driver's license, to apply for college....it's more difficult to do any of this than it is to walk into WalMart and buy a gun. That's ### backwards.

Make it more difficult to vote but easier to own guns of all types. ### backward indeed.

That is BS and you've clearly never walked into WalMart to buy a gun. All legal guns sales require a criminal background check, and WalMart is no exception.

Gun shows?

 

[Otis]

Normally stressed in this amendment are the two obvious assertions: 1. We possess "the right to keep and bear arms" and, 2. That right "shall not be infringed." But of crucial importance is the fact that this amendment is the only one which protects a right our Founders considered "necessary to the security of a free state."

Obvious implications: No armed citizenry = no free state.

This is why the Founders made this amendment so difficult to change or eliminate. Therefore, although it can be changed, the requirements for doing so are near herculean, especially in our day.

The Second Amendment is meaningless.No amount of 12-guages are going to secure the people against oppression by the US government. Their weaponry easily outpaces your own and the amount of firepower you would need to be on an equal footing to overthrow a tyrannical state are already banned. So let's ditch the thing and stop pretending that we're protecting some innate American value by protecting it.

It is the MAIN reason for the 2nd amendment son. At least 7 million households have legal guns. Do you think our sons and daughters will turn their guns on their families? They wont even do that in Egypt. Assuming that 100% of every military person would shoot down his own family, there would not be enough to even begin to secure anything but a very small percentage of the country.

Ok, Jethro. The Second Amendment wasn't apart of the Constitution; it's apart of something called the Bill of Rights that contains AMENDMENTS to the Constitution and the AMENDMENTS were not adopted until four years after the Constitution to address immediate concerns of citizens. All it takes is another AMENDMENT and that becomes the foundation of your rights. Falling back on the Second Amendment is not an argument.

You are a hazard to society. Seriously.

Mr Two Cents sounds like a bit of a lunatic with all this revolution and civil war business.TRY AND TAKE MY GUNS!

 

[Otis]

Let's start with the low hanging fruit here:

Would any of you lunatics oppose a ban on assault weapons/assault rifles?

If so I'd love to hear your reasoning. If not, why the hell are these things still legal?

 

[urbanhack]

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/12/tactical_reality.php?m=1

 

[sporthenry]

Lot of good the mom's guns did in protecting her.

How about this for an easy start, make gun owners culpable for someone else committing crimes with their guns. And before you say, no way, bar and restaurant owners are culpable for over serving alcohol.

And there is the difference. If a person breaks into a bar and steals a bottle of vodka, gets drunk and runs down a kid on the street, the bar owner is not held liable.

I know some states (perhaps all, never researched all of them) hold parents liable for a party at their house with underage drinking regardless of whether it was thrown under their supervision. I'm not sure about the whole liability with the bartender, but if he had sufficient safeguards to securing his liquor, I wouldn't hold him liable. But if he had bottles just laying around and I stole one, then I would hold him liable. Of course he doesn't want to do this b/c it will affect his business from a financial standpoint. But I digress, I think most agree that guns, at least in the hands of ill-trained, irresponsible people is more dangerous than alcohol. So I think the main argument is that the owner of a gun should have more of a responsibility to ensure these guns don't get into others hands if they want to get a gun. Some countries require gun safes bolted to the floor. If someone steals a gun from there, I'm not going to hold you liable. But if you have a gun just sitting in your closet and the friend steals it, than I think you should be held more liable.

 

[shader]

Let's start with the low hanging fruit here:

Would any of you lunatics oppose a ban on assault weapons/assault rifles?

If so I'd love to hear your reasoning. If not, why the hell are these things still legal?

I still haven't heard a good reason why they exist. Do they hunters stink so bad that they need guns that can shoot really fast?

 

[urbanhack]

More Americans die from guns in 6 months than 25yrs of terrorism+Iraq/Afghan wars combined

 

[Furious Styles]

Governor Malloy's remarks about love, courage and compassion were excellent. Obviously emotions are running high as people give opinions around here but I'm pretty sure everyone agrees that there needs to be some changes in our society and not just our laws. Perhaps we could start by having a bit more respect for those with different opinions.

 

[lod01]

I wonder if the people who think the second amendment could never be changed know what the word "amendment" means

Care to wager some really cool biking gear that it will be changed in any major way?

This train wreck of a country can't even agree to legislation both sides want currently. Yay America! Keep being awesome!

You said it, brother. Lunatic shoots up hosptial today.

Lunatic planned to kill all his classmates Friday.

 

[Otis]

Let's start with the low hanging fruit here:

Would any of you lunatics oppose a ban on assault weapons/assault rifles?

If so I'd love to hear your reasoning. If not, why the hell are these things still legal?

I still haven't heard a good reason why they exist. Do they hunters stink so bad that they need guns that can shoot really fast?

Na, it's because they're cool and awesome and do lots of damage. Macho cool super sweet!!!

 

[Apple Jack]

More Americans die from guns in 6 months than 25yrs of terrorism+Iraq/Afghan wars combined

BUT WUT ABOUT ACCIDENTUL SHOWAR DETHS? SHUD WE GET RID OF ELEMENTZ?

 

[urbanhack]

The rate of people killed by guns in the US is 19.5 times higher than similar high-income countries in the world

 

[Otis]

God Bless America

 

[Otis]

More Americans die from guns in 6 months than 25yrs of terrorism+Iraq/Afghan wars combined

BUT WUT ABOUT ACCIDENTUL SHOWAR DETHS? SHUD WE GET RID OF ELEMENTZ?

If you're going to ban guns, I know a guy who was choked to death by another guy with his bare hands, so you have to ban hands too.ITS UH SLIPPERY SLOPE!!111r

 

[Otis]

I haven't felt this strongly about anything since I was astonished that people really thought Romney could win the election.

And people think guns are a good idea???

Wouldn't stun me to learn these are the same people.

 

[shader]

More Americans die from guns in 6 months than 25yrs of terrorism+Iraq/Afghan wars combined

Um...I find that hard to believe.

 

[johnnycakes]

I wonder if that guy who was buying an airsoft outfit for his kid for Christmas is having second thoughts.

 

[BassNBrew]

Governor Malloy's remarks about love, courage and compassion were excellent. Obviously emotions are running high as people give opinions around here but I'm pretty sure everyone agrees that there needs to be some changes in our society and not just our laws. Perhaps we could start by having a bit more respect for those with different opinions.

Nah...then we wouldn't have guys like Oats to enjoy.

 

[Otis]

Governor Malloy's remarks about love, courage and compassion were excellent. Obviously emotions are running high as people give opinions around here but I'm pretty sure everyone agrees that there needs to be some changes in our society and not just our laws. Perhaps we could start by having a bit more respect for those with different opinions.

Nah...then we wouldn't have guys like Oats to enjoy.

I can't respect a facially stupid opinion. If your opinion was that 10 year olds should be able to drive cars, I'd think it was pretty stupid, and I'd tell you that. This isn't far off.