US Gun debate formerly "Tough Times apparently" from Versa forum

[bobotech]

Punish the criminal, not the law abiding citizen.

[dblanehopr]

i appreciate the little bit of appreciated common conversationalism, and the fact that there were words written in obvious mutual respect. that makes me be able to give respect when someone says stuff correctly even though they want to act like this thread's Canadian-bashers. even still, there's much rooted feelings that are revelant to how a guy like that acts....

1: if you want a forum with members that participate... you'd rightly tell the one trying to aggrivate situations, and not the guy giving dues back

2: there isn't a single person that appreciates the words that come from people like that, and even though some of mine are misinterpreted, a lot more is accepted than what comes from him

3: i'm genuinely acting as if a normal person would... i'm not faking it for the show

4: there's lines that can be crossed, and i'm not the one that crossed it.. he did

if it isn't insulting members acting like they're freaking special and the mods ignoring the childish way of trying to start arguments on purpose that bugs the hell out of me... , it's people that don't know how to read a normal post without being some sort of highschool teacher wannabe or those without the ability to grasp a fn idea without having a thesis written to explain it to them.

the inability to actually comprehend that some prick acting like a prick deserving some harsh words back, and a normal sentence that an everyday person would use, shows me just how little i need acceptance or respect from any speaking to me involving this.

instead of telling me to stop cussing like your bs virgin ears or vagina is bleeding, maybe you should try acting like you effers do in public at the meets... bring out yalls true self-involved selves. be honest with yourself. i mean really. grow up. if you're the type tellin me to be nice, it's cuz you're blind to see where the real prick stands... mainly the one insulting canadians for being canadians.

funny... i'd think that would be a direct insult to a member... but mod's usually oversee certain things on purpose, so i'll just keep in mind that certain ppl on this forum get away with whatever they want cuz they kissed enough a**

if you're the type telling me to use better grammar, i'd love to see you in real life so i can kick you in your balls... might get them to drop. it's like that one comedian says "i'll fkn stab you; get outta here."

as for the final warning, wtf are you giving me a final warning for? that's the first time i've ever talked to you. so why in the hell would it be final? you need to talk to the jerk that's been insulting every single person in the damn forum,not the guy that cussed that guy out.

speaking of such things, i've had many forum members email before on several forums when stupid nazi crap like that starts up. there's plenty that fully agree but because of some highschool pecking order yall got going around here, nothings going to change. it's real simple.... there's a lot more sane, common sense people on here, than there is of the type that like to go around insulting people like a flaming h0m0 or mods acting like it's ok to be a flaming h0m0 and not someone defending back. lame.

there's a lot of forum members that don't post and don't give a damn about anything on this forum cept lurking for info and tryna ask for info without actually relating to anyone, because of this right here... some jerk wants to act like he's important, and when someone cusses at the jerk... some mod wants to ban the guy defending some ppl that are afraid of gettin banned for talking back to the deserving ****head. and that's why i get emails later saying thankyou for defending me, and you're totally right, those guys are idiots.

it's pathetic... and pathetic to delete this post cuz i know you will even though there isn't a single direct insult in this whole damn post.

could be why i've found another car forum where ppl aren't dou**** all the time and know how to have normal conversations with people without acting like ferryass grammar police or btchn about someone acting normal through words. i'd really like to meet ONE of you that doesn't cuss in real life. and another ONE of you that hasn't cussed on here in some form.

Back on Topic:

what's moronic is the fact that you can't grasp the fact that 9 times outta 10 the crime is committed with a HANDGUN!

as for the Constitutional right to Bear Arms... **made because of the ability to stand against ones own government** ....NO LONGER EXISTS! YOU HAVE TO BE REALLY NAIVE TO THINK THAT THIS GOVERNMENT IS STILL UNDER YOUR CONTROL, AND THAT AN UPRISING WOULD BE ON YOUR TERMS.

it's real simple... ...martial law, patriot acts, fbi, outnumbered by law enforcement **even when rightfully protesting**, and a freedom of information act that is compounded with a use of "Treason" offense that will be put on you if you don't follow their rules.

they don't work for us anymore.. they haven't since WW2. no matter how many weapons you own... you won't be able to stop the government from declaring martial law and you become a prisoner of war. you don't follow their rules, they ruin your life.

you don't happen to fkn notice the thousands of wrongly accused inmates in prison? it's completely retarded to think that you have a chance against this government and whatever they decide to do with YOUR MONEY, YOUR CAPITOL, YOUR LAND, AND YOUR LIFE.

i've just come to the point that if there's no way to defend against your government and tear the bs down to make it right again.... you might as well not have raving lunatics running around shooting ppl with handguns cuz they can't get a fix. rifles and shotguns can't really be carried around town now can they?

Modified by dblanehopr at 7:21 PM 2/19/2009

Modified by dblanehopr at 7:27 PM 2/19/2009

Modified by dblanehopr at 7:29 PM 2/19/2009
Modified by dblanehopr at 7:35 PM 2/19/2009

[liquid_cool]

guess ya cant make a small point about freedome without being bashed..thats cool man..the point is still valid....we as humans have the rite given to us by what ever allmighty ya pray to, to live free and protect our selves and our familys...do we have the rite to carrie full automatic machine guns..wel there im sayin no..but a hand gun..yuppers and a rifle..when i was a youngster..we used to check in out .22lr's before scew-ool and retrieve it after..times have changed for shure.

[liquid_cool]

DO NOT RESORT TO PERSONAL ATTACKS! THIS APPLIES TO EVERYONE.

Read the rules for the politics forum:

zerothread/320940

And do not respond to this with any kind of a "he started it" attitude.

Writing a disclaimer does not excuse poor grammar. Attempt proper grammer. We're not grading you on it, but this is a forum for serious discussion. IT IS easier to read and understand proper grammer. Just because this is on the internet doesn't mean its acceptable to write you like on MySpace. The reason your English teachers tried to teach proper writing is because it works. Communicating effectively through writing requires reasonable structure. There is a reason people take well composed articles much more seriously than internet blogs. Cut down on the foul language as well. It comes off as hostile. This IS NOT the place for it.

Further, if anyone cannot follow the rules for the politics forum, see yourself out of it. Otherwise we will do it for you. Period.

wow man..guess there is no free political speech..unless your grammer is perfect..if you cannot tolorate some poor grammer but a decent point of view..then please..point me the way out if ya like...or just stay on topic.

[Cold_Zero]

1: if you want a forum with members that participate... you'd rightly tell the one trying to aggrivate situations, and not the guy giving dues back

2: there isn't a single person that appreciates the words that come from people like that, and even though some of mine are misinterpreted, a lot more is accepted than what comes from him

3: i'm genuinely acting as if a normal person would... i'm not faking it for the show

4: there's lines that can be crossed, and i'm not the one that crossed it.. he did

if it isn't insulting members acting like they're freaking special and the mods ignoring the childish way of trying to start arguments on purpose that bugs the hell out of me... , it's people that don't know how to read a normal post without being some sort of highschool teacher wannabe or those without the ability to grasp a fn idea without having a thesis written to explain it to them.

the inability to actually comprehend that some prick acting like a prick deserving some harsh words back, and a normal sentence that an everyday person would use, shows me just how little i need acceptance or respect from any speaking to me involving this.

instead of telling me to stop cussing like your bs virgin ears or vagina is bleeding, maybe you should try acting like you effers do in public at the meets... bring out yalls true self-involved selves. be honest with yourself. i mean really. grow up. if you're the type tellin me to be nice, it's cuz you're blind to see where the real prick stands... mainly the one insulting canadians for being canadians.

funny... i'd think that would be a direct insult to a member... but mod's usually oversee certain things on purpose, so i'll just keep in mind that certain ppl on this forum get away with whatever they want cuz they kissed enough a**

if you're the type telling me to use better grammar, i'd love to see you in real life so i can kick you in your balls... might get them to drop. it's like that one comedian says "i'll fkn stab you; get outta here."

as for the final warning, wtf are you giving me a final warning for? that's the first time i've ever talked to you. so why in the hell would it be final? you need to talk to the jerk that's been insulting every single person in the damn forum,not the guy that cussed that guy out.

speaking of such things, i've had many forum members email before on several forums when stupid nazi crap like that starts up. there's plenty that fully agree but because of some highschool pecking order yall got going around here, nothings going to change. it's real simple.... there's a lot more sane, common sense people on here, than there is of the type that like to go around insulting people like a flaming h0m0 or mods acting like it's ok to be a flaming h0m0 and not someone defending back. lame.

there's a lot of forum members that don't post and don't give a damn about anything on this forum cept lurking for info and tryna ask for info without actually relating to anyone, because of this right here... some jerk wants to act like he's important, and when someone cusses at the jerk... some mod wants to ban the guy defending some ppl that are afraid of gettin banned for talking back to the deserving ****head. and that's why i get emails later saying thankyou for defending me, and you're totally right, those guys are idiots.

it's pathetic... and pathetic to delete this post cuz i know you will even though there isn't a single direct insult in this whole damn post.

could be why i've found another car forum where ppl aren't dou**** all the time and know how to have normal conversations with people without acting like ferryass grammar police or btchn about someone acting normal through words. i'd really like to meet ONE of you that doesn't cuss in real life. and another ONE of you that hasn't cussed on here in some form.

I am going to make this as simple as possible, so you can understand. When I said “If you have an issue with this policy, I suggest that you feel free to either contact the NICO staff to discuss the matter..” I thought I made it clear that this was not up for open-air discussion in the forum. There is always a right way to handle things and a wrong way. It would appear that you sir, just don’t grasp that concept. You might not like the fact that you have to abide by other people’s rules, policies and ways of doing things. So when you get over your Jr. High complex of blaming everyone else for getting in trouble and your Joan of Arc complex, waging holy war on the people wronging you and everyone on this forum, then you can rejoin this sub forum. Until then, you need to worry about yourself and not others. Again, if you have issues with the conduct of other members, the appropriate way to handle the situation would be to “contact the NICO staff to discuss the matter” offline. I would suggest that you leave this forum if you have a problem with anything that I said.

Now, I am going to go saw off the trigger locking mechanism on my ban hammer.

[Bubs daddy]

Anyone who writes "cuz" can't be taken seriously. But I am sure you are one bad dude behind a keyboard. The first three quarters of your diatribe was more of the same as before so let's get to the meat of the matter.

Quote »what's moronic is the fact that you can't grasp the fact that 9 times outta 10 the crime is committed with a HANDGUN![/quote]Wrong.

Quote »as for the Constitutional right to Bear Arms... **made because of the ability to stand against ones own government** ....NO LONGER EXISTS! YOU HAVE TO BE REALLY NAIVE TO THINK THAT THIS GOVERNMENT IS STILL UNDER YOUR CONTROL, AND THAT AN UPRISING WOULD BE ON YOUR TERMS.[/quote]Wrong

Quote »it's real simple... ...martial law, patriot acts, fbi, outnumbered by law enforcement **even when rightfully protesting**, and a freedom of information act that is compounded with a use of "Treason" offense that will be put on you if you don't follow their rules.[/quote]Eschew obfuscation.

Quote »they don't work for us anymore.. they haven't since WW2. no matter how many weapons you own... you won't be able to stop the government from declaring martial law and you become a prisoner of war. you don't follow their rules, they ruin your life.[/quote]In your post you're very brave about doing something to someone "in real life." Looks like in real life, when it's liberty or death, your plan is pretty cowardly. Sure glad the militia and founding fathers didn't act that way.

Quote »you don't happen to fkn notice the thousands of wrongly accused inmates in prison? it's completely retarded to think that you have a chance against this government and whatever they decide to do with YOUR MONEY, YOUR CAPITOL, YOUR LAND, AND YOUR LIFE. [/quote]NO system is perfect. Name one that is. The people of this country get a far better shake from the criminal justice system than anywhere else in the world.

And which inmates are those you speak of? How do you know they're wrongly accused? Do you have all the evidence and proof for these cases at your side? And why the retarded reference? I thought people like you were so sensitive to others feelings.

Quote »i've just come to the point that if there's no way to defend against your government and tear the bs down to make it right again.... you might as well not have raving lunatics running around shooting ppl with handguns cuz they can't get a fix. rifles and shotguns can't really be carried around town now can they?[/quote]Make it right again. Again. Like back in the day where...people also had guns to defend life and property.

And by all means, let's disregard the right of law abiding citizens to have guns so only the lunatics will have them. They don't follow the law anyway.

Again, your argument is nonsensical and fragmented. I responded to you the way I did initially because of your arrogant, adolescently worded post.

You want respect? Than show you can type a sentence without the word "fkn" in it.

You're obviously some kid in his parents house who can't string two coherent sentences together because you've been too busy texting instead of writing.

It's frightening that people like you have or will vote in elections. Go watch another Michael Moore video. Maybe that Al Gore flick. Since you don't use facts to make your arguments, I figure you can watch a movie made by those who do the same thing.

Modified by Bubs daddy at 10:12 PM 2/19/2009
Modified by Bubs daddy at 10:14 PM 2/19/2009

[Bubs daddy]

Quote »wow man..guess there is no free political speech..unless your grammer is perfect..if you cannot tolorate some poor grammer but a decent point of view..then please..point me the way out if ya like...or just stay on topic.[/quote]No. The privilege of speech in this private board is given to you with the terms and conditions that you agree to. You have no absolute freedom of speech on this board nor do you have the right of that speech on this board.

Can someone come into your living room and say whatever they want? Disparage your family and call you names? NO. Because the their freedom of speech is limited on your private property.

[bobotech]

No. The privilege of speech in this private board is given to you with the terms and conditions that you agree to. You have no absolute freedom of speech on this board nor do you have the right of that speech on this board.

Can someone come into your living room and say whatever they want? Disparage your family and call you names? NO. Because the their freedom of speech is limited on your private property.

Agreed.

Free speech is mainly limited to government institutions.

[dblanehopr]

hey minnie mouse Obama...

are you really that blind to miss all the "personal attacks" of tha prick that posted directly after you?

really? go get your eyes checked.

i know the fkn difference between someone being a prick for no reason at all, and someone being a normal human being... why can't you?

as for you Bubs... constantly disagreeing with everyone and insulting them has nothing to do with intelligence... you're not worth my time anymore, never were. fkn lame that you can't have a conversation with someone like a normal adult.
Modified by dblanehopr at 1:57 AM 2/20/2009

[Cold_Zero]

hey minnie mouse Obama...

are you really that blind to miss all the "personal attacks" of tha prick that posted directly after you?

really? go get your eyes checked.

i know the fkn difference between someone being a prick for no reason at all, and someone being a normal human being... why can't you?

as for you Bubs... constantly disagreeing with everyone and insulting them has nothing to do with intelligence... you're not worth my time anymore, never were. fkn lame that you can't have a conversation with someone like a normal adult.

Modified by dblanehopr at 1:57 AM 2/20/2009

Banned

[hsckris]

C-Kwik,

Bubs pretty much said it. It has been discussed. That was sort of my point -- we already have regulation, what more regulation would you propose that would have any beneficial effect?

Actually that has been my point all along. I don't know of any possible further regulation that would solve any of the perceived problems of guns. Hence, I would advocate no further regulation.

Seriously... I can't discuss this issue with you unless I know where you stand. Its clear what I'm advocating; as far as I can tell, it is not clear what you are advocating. What regulation/law/whatever would you propose that would actually achieve some tangible benefit (that would outweigh the cost of actual or potential infringement)?


Modified by hsckris at 6:40 AM 2/20/2009

[Cold_Zero]

To Bobo and Bubs-

Thank you guys for your comments. At least some people here understand how the real world works. I didn't think that following the rules, not openly arguing with the NICO staff and unplugging to calm down was such a hard concept to comprehend.

To everyone else that follow the rules of this forum, thank you. To everyone in this discussion that has added their 2 cents to the topic, thank you for making this a good discussion to follow. Bud

[liquid_cool]

No. The privilege of speech in this private board is given to you with the terms and conditions that you agree to. You have no absolute freedom of speech on this board nor do you have the right of that speech on this board.

Can someone come into your living room and say whatever they want? Disparage your family and call you names? NO. Because the their freedom of speech is limited on your private property.

ya ya have a point!..but i will continue to spell the way i like here..it should not matter if i can spell " homeland" or "Hydrogrossularite"..as long as the point im making is tranzparent and fliud in the context of the post...if this is bannable..so be it..

[liquid_cool]

C-Kwik,

Bubs pretty much said it. It has been discussed. That was sort of my point -- we already have regulation, what more regulation would you propose that would have any beneficial effect?

Actually that has been my point all along. I don't know of any possible further regulation that would solve any of the perceived problems of guns. Hence, I would advocate no further regulation.

Seriously... I can't discuss this issue with you unless I know where you stand. Its clear what I'm advocating; as far as I can tell, it is not clear what you are advocating. What regulation/law/whatever would you propose that would actually achieve some tangible benefit (that would outweigh the cost of actual or potential infringement)?

Modified by hsckris at 6:40 AM 2/20/2009

you have a valid point sir!..if we all ready have regulation for gun owners who "Leagally" own guns..then what is the next step..in my view..the crooks will allways find a way to get a gun...to me its punishing the mass-population for the actions of a few...and to me an infringement on our rite to defence.

[C-Kwik]

wow man..guess there is no free political speech..unless your grammer is perfect..if you cannot tolorate some poor grammer but a decent point of view..then please..point me the way out if ya like...or just stay on topic.

The context of that post was in regards to a specific statement made. Read it as such. But to address your comment, you can say what you want so long as it is within the rules of this forum. I'll back your right to hold true to any position you feel or even just for argument's sake. But my point was that people tend to lack any attempt to write in any proper form. Spoken words are much different than written ones. In order to make a written piece be understood the way the writer intends, proper punctuation ond grammer is important. Given the heavy type of topics that tend to come up here, it is even more important that we try to understand each other and communicate our positions clearly.

That said, if you make some small mistakes, no big deal. And frankly, using poor grammer, in that of itself, is not bannable. But don't expect anyone in this forum to take you as seriously if you do not try. Writing like your some kid on My Space blog does not garnmer any credibility whatsoever.

You didn't answer my question. This issue HAS been discussed and the courts recently ruled to force the district to essentially give back the right they took away. How many gun laws are enough?

Sorry, I wasn't part of those discussions. We are involved in a discussion here and now. The Supreme Court decision was based on Constitutionality. Something the pro-gun people seem to latch on to dearly. What I've been saying here is to talk about gun control and perhaps its effects on crime, murder, etc. For the most part, the discussion really doesn't take off as many see this as black and white and are refusing to actually discuss it. So far its, been nothing more than "the Constitution says..." or "we have enough laws". This issue is hugely complicated. I can cite statistics that can support either side of the argument when viewed in a vacuum. Example, Switzerland, requires people of age to be military ready and possess a military grade automatic-fire rifle in their homes. Could be viewed as positive for the pro-gun folk. But consider that Switzerland ranks at #56 for moicides per capita according to this:

http://www.nationmaster.com/gr...apita

But then it jumps up to #19 when you view stas for firearms related homicides:

http://www.nationmaster.com/gr...apita

*note: in both stats, I'd like to have found more recent statistics, but finding one that breaks it down in such a comparison is not easy as google tends to net a large mount of biased sites for and against gun-control.

The reality is we do not live in a vacuum and no statistical results can be automatically applied to anyone else. But what does strike me here is that the US ranks high both on the homicide rate AND the firearm related homicide rate. There is certainly a much bigger difference in the way Americans think, but my issue is we are one of the highest developed countries in the world and yet we rank amongst the top 10 in firearms related homicides. To say we can not do better just feels Un-American to me.

You're saying there needs to be more dialogue? About what? What hasn't been covered? What is an anti gun person going to discuss besides even more regulation?

Well, what is a pro-gun person going to talk about aside from there being too much regulation? See the conundrum there? I'm talking about discussing the issue so that we get the issues with potential solutions out on the table. Frankly, if you really know what you are talking about and feel you are right, then wouldn't it be prudent to inform us of your understandings on this subject?

Consider, there are those of us, like myself, who empathise with gun owner's liberties. But I put a lot more weight on the liberties of people who have fallen victim to gun violence. Unfortunately, for many of them, they no longer have a voice to be heard as their right to live has been lost.

That is the issue. It has been beaten to death and there comes a point to leave well enough alone. You can discuss till the cows come home and you'll be at the same starting point.

That's the type of mentality that keeps the status quo. We must strive to do better. Ironically, most of the people who had a part in the drafting of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, were the same type of people to strive for something better. Most of them probably led relatively comfortable lives, but they put the people ahead of themselves and probably at the most risk in undertaking the Revolution.

I went through this during my college years. Professors in my classes asking the questions no one bothered to ask because the question was irrelevant or ridiculous. We discussed it and it ended up as one of those "What's became before the universe" discussions. Sometimes there just no point. Each side has felt they have given enough.

College students generally do not represent the vast knowledge and experience of the world. It prepares a mind for thought, but application in the real world can not be fully taught in school. The arguments posed there may not be what is posed here.

I know I do. In fact I think we've given too much and want some back. But it's to that point now where even reasoned people just say "enough."

Perhaps its your personal choice to have "given up", but new people are constantly being born into the world. The voice we have here (albeit small) is just one of the ways to bring change. I'd reckon it might have much more importance than that individual vote you cast as its influence potentially could mean more votes in favor of what you want.

We have enough gun laws. We have enough regulation. There is NO utopia and no absolutely safe world. People get hurt. People die. The guy who would shoot his wife in a heated argument is the guy who is going to kill her with another blunt object if it's there.

Perhaps. And I agree there is no utopia. But as the stats I posted show, we can do alot better.

It's like trying to have discourse with an Al Queda member. He would slit your throat if the opportunity came about no matter how much discussion you had with him. It's a waste of time.

That's a bit extreme don't you think? And I've pretty much opened the tablke for discussion and you continue to write it off and dismiss the opportunity simply because you think it will get us nowhere.

Look at the posts on this thread. We have Canadians spewing ridiculous anti American propaganda without any reference of facts or experience. Their ignorance is immense. Where are they getting their information from? Certainly not any reasonable, reliable source because it's full of fabrication, exaggeration, outright lies and misinformation.

As we shouldn't label gun owners as the bad seeds, you can't simply write off everyone else for a potential discussion.

So now I'm looked at as the "arrogant American" because these people are too lazy and/or stupid to get the facts straight. They have been brainwashed by the liberal press and don't know fact from fiction. They border the same country that would protect them in a heartbeat and criticize they very same country that would save their elitist little keister.

Many of these same people make up the gun control crowd. They don't want to listen to facts or reason. They just want to inject fear and hysteria among people and demonize handguns.

One could say the same about pro-gun people. Its all a matter of perspective. But without in-depth discussions, how does either side even begin to understand each other?

It's like the college massacres of recent. Everyone asks "How can we prevent it? The simple answer is YOU CAN'T. The long term, often discussed and highly researched answer is YOU CAN'T.

Nope. But look up school shootings on wikipedia. The US pops up more than any other nation. And these shootings are being recorded in growing frequency. Can we ignore it? If finding ways to keep guns out of the hands of these people are not the solution, then what is? Surely, no single solution is a comprehensively effective solution, but how can we seek to reduce the frequency and impact of such incidents if we do not try.

Gun Free Zones are just a feel good notion and they don't do ANYTHING to prevent innocent student from being gunned down by a crazed killer. There are evil people in the world. That's the issue that people just don't want to believe.

I know there are eveil people. But as I said before, I have a chance to run from a guy with a bat pretty effectively. Guns have a high degree of precision (consistency) and in the right hands, a high degree of accuracy. Couple this with their range and they are highly effective tools for killing. Surely, we can't stop everyone. But even Ebay changed their policy after the VA Tech shooting as the shooter bought some magazines for his gun there. Could he have gotten them from somewhere else? Perhaps. But what happens when theycan no longer find them in accessible channels? How many people know where to buy guns and their equipment illegally? Most common people do not.

C-Kwik,

Bubs pretty much said it. It has been discussed. That was sort of my point -- we already have regulation, what more regulation would you propose that would have any beneficial effect?

Actually that has been my point all along. I don't know of any possible further regulation that would solve any of the perceived problems of guns. Hence, I would advocate no further regulation.

Seriously... I can't discuss this issue with you unless I know where you stand. Its clear what I'm advocating; as far as I can tell, it is not clear what you are advocating. What regulation/law/whatever would you propose that would actually achieve some tangible benefit (that would outweigh the cost of actual or potential infringement)?

Couldn't say for sure to be honest. But I do have a very clear goal of keeping guns out the hands of people who shouldn't have it. Can criminals still get it? Of course. But its not like the shooters at Columbine or VA Tech were known criminals. Arguably, the VA Tech shooter has some mental issues that might have been detected. The Columbine shooters obtained guns illegally from people who perhaps should have never been able to buy a gun considering they ended up selling to minors. And I'm not trying to punish legitimate gun owners in anyway. Its still a rather small percentage of gun owners that cause problems. But the problems are real and they do exist. They are not the same for every country, so its pretty clear that things could be better. How we get there is likely very comprehensive. And it doesn't necessarily need to include an outright ban on all guns. Perhaps though as a starting point for a discussion, we can talk about more complete background checks. Or longer wait times. Limitations based on perhaps experience or age that would dictate what kind of guns can be purchased. There are other countries that allow people to own guns that ask a lot of questions of the potential owner prior to a sale. Have these been discussed. Probably. But I'm hoping for a discussion that evolves. While I doubt we can realistically find a solution here, we can bring a better understanding to both sides of the debate by having such discussions. If you feel this won't be productive, say so and bow out. But don't expect for one minute that I will accept that as final. I have much too much pride in this country to let things be. (Not to say that anyone else here doesn't; just my personal feelings).

[Jacko3]

The best solution for this gun issue is to mandate that everyone in the US, once you reach age 18, MUST own a gun, as a matter of public law and safety. Everyone must be fire-armed trained once a gun is purchased, and the gun cannot be fired or used until training is completed. This should make everyone safe, eliminate a black market for guns, and force a great measure of restraint in the hearts and minds of both stable and unstable people, wishing to use guns in petty disputes or crimes. Once this law is passed, then a death penalty law should also be passed to ensure that voluntary taking of life for no just cause but stupidity, with such weapons, will lead to getting fried in an electric chair. But actual abuse and threats should lead to a severe floggin (45 lashes of the whip, and 2 days in jail) of the owner of the gun until good old sanity makes a trip back to their mind.

Simply, the current gun laws, which bother on voluntary purchase and ownership, creates a severe Moral Hazard. Why? Those who are unstable and who own guns, can commit acts of cowardice by taking the lives of others, and yet have their behavior rewarded, usually, without the death penalty. This is largely unfair and inconsistent.

I believe the gun law in the constitution was meant for a militia. We have no militias and we will never have militias, ever ever again, in this country, once this nation has generally moved so close to having a very strong federal government, and so far away from strong states where the gun ownership ideology, actually was created.

Gun owners, while maintaining their rights, should feel a sense of fear in their hearts, of the numerous consequences of their action, imposed by the federal govt, once they abuse the privilege of owning a gun.

[audtatious]

The best solution for this gun issue is to mandate that everyone in the US, once you reach age 18, MUST own a gun, as a matter of public law and safety.

That worked in Kennesaw, GA. Kennesaw, in the 90's, enacted a law where every household had to own a gun. Robbery and crime rates dropped something like 75%.

[Cold_Zero]

The best solution for this gun issue is to mandate that everyone in the US, once you reach age 18, MUST own a gun, as a matter of public law and safety. Everyone must be fire-armed trained once a gun is purchased, and the gun cannot be fired or used until training is completed. This should make everyone safe, eliminate a black market for guns, and force a great measure of restraint in the hearts and minds of both stable and unstable people, wishing to use guns in petty disputes or crimes. Once this law is passed, then a death penalty law should also be passed to ensure that voluntary taking of life for no just cause but stupidity, with such weapons, will lead to getting fried in an electric chair. But actual abuse and threats should lead to a severe floggin (45 lashes of the whip, and 2 days in jail) of the owner of the gun until good old sanity makes a trip back to their mind.

Just a few things.1. We can institute a system like Switzerland where we have universal conscription and then you are allowed to take your weapon home with you. This might be a better idea.2. I am not sure how your idea eliminates the black market for guns. Criminals will always have a need for firearms that can not be traced back to them.3. The death penalty and floggings probably will not fly due to the Eight Amendment.

Quote »Simply, the current gun laws, which bother on voluntary purchase and ownership, creates a severe Moral Hazard. Why? Those who are unstable and who own guns, can commit acts of cowardice by taking the lives of others, and yet have their behavior rewarded, usually, without the death penalty. This is largely unfair and inconsistent.[/quote]Please see the Gun Control Act of 1968.

Quote »I believe the gun law in the constitution was meant for a militia. We have no militias and we will never have militias, ever ever again, in this country, once this nation has generally moved so close to having a very strong federal government, and so far away from strong states where the gun ownership ideology, actually was created.[/quote]

While I don't think that we have Militias in the same style that they had during the forming of the Constitution, although some states do have purely civilian Militias that are not under the jurisdiction of the Governor, we most certainly do have Militias in this country in the form of the National Guard. If we were to use this logic, since we do not have any soldiers deployed inside of the United States and the fact that Quartering troops has fallen out of favor should we do away with the Third Amendment?But I still maintain that if the founding fathers were talking about the rights of Militias, then they would not have used the words, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms..."

Quote »Gun owners, while maintaining their rights, should feel a sense of fear in their hearts, of the numerous consequences of their action, imposed by the federal govt, once they abuse the privilege of owning a gun.[/quote]I guess the problem that I have with this comment is that it implies that lawful responsible gun owners are inherently predisposed to commit violence or break the law because of an inanimate object that they possess. I no more fear the Law in the case of owning a firearm than I do having a neighbor with nice stuff should cause me to fear the Law as if I were pre disposed to steal his stuff. Also, while a firearm can be used to end the life of a human being, it can be used for other purposes. Your comments seem to imply that it only has one use, taking of life.

[audtatious]

Regardless of anything, history has shown that once the "state" implements a law that stops lawful citizens from owning guns then the crime rate in the area goes up. This statistic is always ignored.

[Jacko3]

Just a few things.1. We can institute a system like Switzerland where we have universal conscription and then you are allowed to take your weapon home with you. This might be a better idea.2. I am not sure how your idea eliminates the black market for guns. Criminals will always have a need for firearms that can not be traced back to them.3. The death penalty and floggings probably will not fly due to the Eight Amendment.

Please see the Gun Control Act of 1968.



While I don't think that we have Militias in the same style that they had during the forming of the Constitution, although some states do have purely civilian Militias that are not under the jurisdiction of the Governor, we most certainly do have Militias in this country in the form of the National Guard. If we were to use this logic, since we do not have any soldiers deployed inside of the United States and the fact that Quartering troops has fallen out of favor should we do away with the Third Amendment?But I still maintain that if the founding fathers were talking about the rights of Militias, then they would not have used the words, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms..."

I guess the problem that I have with this comment is that it implies that lawful responsible gun owners are inherently predisposed to commit violence or break the law because of an inanimate object that they possess. I no more fear the Law in the case of owning a firearm than I do having a neighbor with nice stuff should cause me to fear the Law as if I were pre disposed to steal his stuff. Also, while a firearm can be used to end the life of a human being, it can be used for other purposes. Your comments seem to imply that it only has one use, taking of life.

I really do like your responses. They are well though out. I guess you are getting a feel for Jacko. Beleive me, i made my comments jokingly. I just enjoy banter and raising dust wherever possible. This was meant to be a bait. You once fell for it, but now I think you know me a little now. Nice responses. I generally agree with most of them.

My head is aching at this moment, so, I can't do any research to respond. Maybe tomorrow. For now, I just wanna be silly and hopefully rope someone into getting mad at me and possibly attacking me. Political baiting and showdowns, make for an interesting and lively scenario where emotions run high to boiling point---political thuggery and intolerance. I love it. Anyways, well done!

Simply owning a gun, thus, having the right to kill, without balancing it with the right to be killed, does not make sense to me. Both have to go hand-in-hand.


Modified by Jacko3 at 10:13 AM 2/24/2009

[Cold_Zero]

Oh I am right there with you Jacko. I am fighting a head cold right now.

Simply owning a gun, thus, having the right to kill, without balancing it with the right to be killed, does not make sense to me. Both have to go hand-in-hand.

Should this statement be changed to say, "Simply owning a gun, thus, having the ability to kill, without balancing it with the ability to be killed.."? The way you phrased it kind of sounded a bit weird.I guess the balance that I see is that if you kill someone outside of the law (unlawfully) then the State has the right to take away your rights (imprisonment) or take your life (death penalty).

[Jacko3]

Oh I am right there with you Jacko. I am fighting a head cold right now.

Should this statement be changed to say, "Simply owning a gun, thus, having the ability to kill, without balancing it with the ability to be killed.."? The way you phrased it kind of sounded a bit weird.I guess the balance that I see is that if you kill someone outside of the law (unlawfully) then the State has the right to take away your rights (imprisonment) or take your life (death penalty).

Exactly! Well said! I agree with your phraseology. As you can see, an aching head can make one say weird things. Hehehehehe get well soon, my good friend. We have many more years of banter to enjoy on these forums.

[hsckris]

Couldn't say for sure to be honest. But I do have a very clear goal of keeping guns out the hands of people who shouldn't have it. Can criminals still get it? Of course. But its not like the shooters at Columbine or VA Tech were known criminals. Arguably, the VA Tech shooter has some mental issues that might have been detected. The Columbine shooters obtained guns illegally from people who perhaps should have never been able to buy a gun considering they ended up selling to minors. And I'm not trying to punish legitimate gun owners in anyway. Its still a rather small percentage of gun owners that cause problems. But the problems are real and they do exist. They are not the same for every country, so its pretty clear that things could be better. How we get there is likely very comprehensive. And it doesn't necessarily need to include an outright ban on all guns. Perhaps though as a starting point for a discussion, we can talk about more complete background checks. Or longer wait times. Limitations based on perhaps experience or age that would dictate what kind of guns can be purchased. There are other countries that allow people to own guns that ask a lot of questions of the potential owner prior to a sale. Have these been discussed. Probably. But I'm hoping for a discussion that evolves. While I doubt we can realistically find a solution here, we can bring a better understanding to both sides of the debate by having such discussions. If you feel this won't be productive, say so and bow out. But don't expect for one minute that I will accept that as final. I have much too much pride in this country to let things be. (Not to say that anyone else here doesn't; just my personal feelings).

As to background checks: They are already in place, and are fairly complete. I'm not sure how they could get more in depth aside from some sort of interview or something like that. The problem there is that it would be too discretionary on the part of the interviewer or the interviewer's office.I would support a proficiency and basic safety course and/or test. As to waiting period: I'm not sure what, if anything, this would accomplish. As to the experience or age requirements: Age requirements are already in place. I believe it is 21yrs for handguns. Are you proposing a change?Experience would be difficult to prove, and easy to misrepresent. Knowledge and/or proficiency might be a better measure. I'm not generally opposed to anything of that nature, though it would depend on how it was actually applied and enforced. IMO law abiding citizens should not have to undergo an excessive burden just to obtain a firearm legally.As to asking a lot of questions, I think this would depend. An interview has a lot of potential for problems. You could easily get 'home cooking,' bias, fabrication, falsification, misuse of discretion, etc.

[liquid_cool]

The context of that post was in regards to a specific statement made. Read it as such. But to address your comment, you can say what you want so long as it is within the rules of this forum. I'll back your right to hold true to any position you feel or even just for argument's sake. But my point was that people tend to lack any attempt to write in any proper form. Spoken words are much different than written ones. In order to make a written piece be understood the way the writer intends, proper punctuation ond grammer is important. Given the heavy type of topics that tend to come up here, it is even more important that we try to understand each other and communicate our positions clearly.

That said, if you make some small mistakes, no big deal. And frankly, using poor grammer, in that of itself, is not bannable. But don't expect anyone in this forum to take you as seriously if you do not try. Writing like your some kid on My Space blog does not garnmer any credibility whatsoever.

what your not considering sir is that many people work late hours..i ashure you im no kid on myspace as for my credibility..well as you follow some of the post's here,you will find me no dummie..i make many a grammer mistake's and hold no bias at others who do the same..you and everyone on this planet have the god given rite to live,breath,write and express your self in anyways you see fit..the rest of us on the planet will have to deal with your choice's in spelling and point of view...in no way should anyone ever judge someone for a mistake or mistake's they have made themselves before in there life..i write this after being up for 20 hours..imagine what i could do on a full nights sleep if i wanted..possibly expain corundom to you or chrysoberyl's optical propertys and or atomic density or maybe its reaction to cobalt 60..but im beat man..so ill try this again in the marrow.

as for the topic..just picked me up a nice (Used ) remington modle 700 c ustom .338 winchester magnum as my new N.American game rifle..man it has a punch to it...the stock is amazing..the old guy who gave me the deal carved the stock from whitepine and inlaid with hardwoods.

[Crazyirish]

Most people believe that we all have the right to a variety of things. The right to speak our mind, the right to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. The right to defend ourselves against those who would harm us or our loved ones.

In a perfect world, we wouldn't need firearms (or weapons of any kind). I think we can all agree that it is not a perfect world by any stretch of the imagination. So I own firearms.

I don't believe our forefathers wrote the second amendment with the intention of allowing for local militias. The wrote it because they wanted a system of government where the people were free to rise against their government during periods of social inequity. (I know that sounds strange in a way, but they had just done so, and wanted to protect their children's right to do so again)

As for the classic argument of "Guns don't kill people, people kill people", I think something needs revisiting. Guns are just a tool. (A bloody tool to be sure, but a tool nonetheless) The will to commit violence is what people should be afraid of (whether they commit it rightfully or not. Violence SHOULD be scary). People have always found a way to visit harm on others. Period. European history tell us that pre-gunpowder times were just as violent as today, if not significantly more so.

A lot of people, especially those from countries/locations where criminal violence is less commonplace, point to our freedom to bear arms and shout "There's the problem!", but there is a certain amount of misunderstanding there. You can't look at one symptom and blame it on another symptom. People who have nothing (or at least less) to fear from leaving their doorstep won't be as interested in their firearms rights. It only makes sense.

In America, history has proven time and again that criminals who have the will always find means to enact that will. Gun control laws primarily keep guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. Would creating hefty gun control laws affect the amount of guns available to criminals? Yes. Would criminals still commit violent crimes? Undoubtedly.

I have a lot more thoughts on the matter, but I've typed a lot already. I'll end it with this. I will not be a victim. If that means I have to own a firearm then so be it.

[BusyBadger]

Best post I've read in a long time.

[Bubs daddy]

Quote »College students generally do not represent the vast knowledge and experience of the world. It prepares a mind for thought, but application in the real world can not be fully taught in school. The arguments posed there may not be what is posed here[/quote]I couldn't agree more. Seeing as how that was over two decades ago, I have a lot of real world experience along with my college degree.

When I say discussed I mean previous discussions over the years have yielded legislation, laws and regulations and court decisions regarding guns.

Our laws are based on those discussions which, hopefully, reasonable people and legislators write statutes based upon good intent and the will of their constituents. Within the bounds of the constitution, of course.

And I have based my experiences on the ability to defend life. Life that may have been lost if not for the right to have a firearm. The lives lost from a gun that you mentioned, there's another side. Many of the innocent gun deaths could have been prevented.

No one with a concealed carry permit had a firearm when the Virginia Tech shootings occured. Just the shooter. Again the criminal had the gun. The law abiding citizen did not. So since the law abiding citizen follows the law, even though he could carry and risk breaking the law, he did not. Because that's what law abiding citizens do. But the criminal does whatever he wants.

And the criminal KNOWS that there's little or no chance someone will have a gun to defend themselves because there is a "Gun Free Zone." Fish in a barrel. "Gun Free Zones" don't apply to people who break the law. The criminal has nothing to worry about and can do a lot of killing because no one can defend themselves.

Had responsible citizens who carry guns all the time, have training, and value freedom been allowed to carry on the campus, maybe someone could have killed the shooter and saved lives. It's easy to see why one would pick out a school to do a shooting. No one will fire back because of a misguided gun law.

This is the trade off in living in a free society. There is risk because of the freedoms we cherish. But when you remove those freedoms for safety, you lose both. You lose the safety you sought and the freedoms of law abiding citizens.

So the criminal has more freedom, the law abiding citizen, less. It is easy to see why he would pick a college campus to kill people.

I think I have given up enough of my liberties and freedom because gun control advocates want more restrictions, not less. That will mean less freedom, less safety.

And to think that there couldn't be militias in the future, I wouldn't take that bet. Anything can change in the future. Natural disasters, epic events and revolutions all bring about this.

Hurricane Katrina caused widespread panic and a few days of chaos. Lootings, shootings, pretty much every man for themselves until order was restored. And what did government do? They instructed law enforcement to demand owners of guns to give those up until order was restored. Even though they cannot, it's unconstitutional, and it reduces the safety of the citizenry. It is precisely moments like these that people need their right to keep and bear arms.

So to think that militias and people rebelling against their government couldn't happen today is naive or foolish. It would be unlikely, but there's always that possibility. The founding fathers may have been more wise than we already think they are.

[Jacko3]

Most people believe that we all have the right to a variety of things. The right to speak our mind, the right to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. The right to defend ourselves against those who would harm us or our loved ones.

In a perfect world, we wouldn't need firearms (or weapons of any kind). I think we can all agree that it is not a perfect world by any stretch of the imagination. So I own firearms.

I don't believe our forefathers wrote the second amendment with the intention of allowing for local militias. The wrote it because they wanted a system of government where the people were free to rise against their government during periods of social inequity. (I know that sounds strange in a way, but they had just done so, and wanted to protect their children's right to do so again)

As for the classic argument of "Guns don't kill people, people kill people", I think something needs revisiting. Guns are just a tool. (A bloody tool to be sure, but a tool nonetheless) The will to commit violence is what people should be afraid of (whether they commit it rightfully or not. Violence SHOULD be scary). People have always found a way to visit harm on others. Period. European history tell us that pre-gunpowder times were just as violent as today, if not significantly more so.

A lot of people, especially those from countries/locations where criminal violence is less commonplace, point to our freedom to bear arms and shout "There's the problem!", but there is a certain amount of misunderstanding there. You can't look at one symptom and blame it on another symptom. People who have nothing (or at least less) to fear from leaving their doorstep won't be as interested in their firearms rights. It only makes sense.

In America, history has proven time and again that criminals who have the will always find means to enact that will. Gun control laws primarily keep guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. Would creating hefty gun control laws affect the amount of guns available to criminals? Yes. Would criminals still commit violent crimes? Undoubtedly.

I have a lot more thoughts on the matter, but I've typed a lot already. I'll end it with this. I will not be a victim. If that means I have to own a firearm then so be it.

Very thought provoking post!

[Cold_Zero]

Hurricane Katrina caused widespread panic and a few days of chaos. Lootings, shootings, pretty much every man for themselves until order was restored. And what did government do? They instructed law enforcement to demand owners of guns to give those up until order was restored. Even though they cannot, it's unconstitutional, and it reduces the safety of the citizenry. It is precisely moments like these that people need their right to keep and bear arms.

So that no one gets the wrong idea, when the New Orleans Police Department was rounding up these firearms, it wasn't as if they were storing them (firearms) in evidence lockers so that they could be returned to their owners after the disaster. It took the NRA filing a federal lawsuit to get the New Orleans PD to stop the confiscation order, return the weapons to their rightful owner and pay the owners if the firearms could not be found. The majority of the firearms were either taken home by police officers (stolen) or they were stored in big bins outside, which caused the firearms to rust and rendered them destroyed. I think what infuriates me the most is that the Police in NO engaged in theft against the people they were sworn to serve and protect.

[BusyBadger]

I got so worked up over the whole Katrina debacle. Someone actually tired to defend the decision to collect privately owned firearms by saying that it was because it was such "a dangerous atmosphere" and that "the police can't be everywhere."

I explained it like to them by comparing the guns to a seatbelt. A gun (in the ccw sense), like a seatbelt, is one of those things that you buy and hope to God you never have to use for the purpose that it was designed expressly for.