How about we compromise then(something politicians are unwilling to really understand)? Make it a requirement that the original purchaser is held liable if the firearm he purchased is used in a crime(If he is unable to prove that he made a reasonable effort to secure the firearm, say it was not in a properly installed and locked safe), and that ALL sales must go through an FFL(for a background check). Lets also add in that if a person has had more than 3 incidents of their firearms being stolen, they are placed on the denied list for NICS. In exchange allow private ownership of machine guns again.
Lets also add in that if a person has had more than 3 incidents of their firearms being stolen, they are placed on the denied list for NICS I would go for that if instead of denied they are placed in prison for 10 years hard labor. You have to be joking… How is that a compromise? Someone may have assisted in murder and robbery by criminal activity and you want to just put them on the denied list after they do it 3 times. Sorry according to federal law now, from the 1960’s, they should be on the denied list after doing it the first time because they are a criminal. How is that a compromise? That would actually opening another loophole in the law as it stands now.
I would hold people to the reasonable person standard. In most states you must file a police report for any insurance claim involving theft or robbery. The courts have ruled that to be a reasonable standard. What is so difficult about reporting a theft loss? If your TV is stolen you would not call the police? Why is a firearm any different? I would really like to know what is so difficult about reporting a that a deadly weapon was stolen? You say a gun is a tool and I agree, if my band saw is stolen I will report it, what would make a "resonable person" not report a firearm stolen?
Aaaand again:
The founding fathers wanted us armed to prevent our government from pushing us around like yours does to you.
The US is not a socialist nanny state yet, though we seem to be getting closer all the time.
the usa is no different to any other western world country, except that is one of the youngest and feel like they have something to prove. We over here in the uk don't get pushed around any more or less than the americans do... this was true even back in the "founding father" days, just didn't want to pay the kings taxes, but they ended up paying their own tax, amusing.
i'll never be convinced of being pro-gun owner ship, especially arming people to the teeth, that is just immature and ignorant. if there is a problem with massacres, handing out more guns will not resolve the issue, it would just make it easier for the suspect to do what they will do.
i went to Vegas a few years ago, even the car valet people have pistols, how ridiculous, et they will be arming MacDonald's employees next. That is one of the most off putting things about the USA, their fetish for guns.
but as i said before, ban and make automatic and some semi automatic weapons, anyone who has an arsenal of weapons has intent, if you only wanted to own a weapon for protection, you would only need a small pistol or something to that extent. Anything bigger or more powerful and it goes beyond defence and into the realm of intent.
Intent to what, though? You're assuming that gun enthusiasts want to launch a revolution vs their govt? :raise:
I would go for that if instead of denied they are placed in prison for 10 years hard labor. You have to be joking… How is that a compromise? Someone may have assisted in murder and robbery by criminal activity and you want to just put them on the denied list after they do it 3 times. Sorry according to federal law now, from the 1960’s, they should be on the denied list after doing it the first time because they are a criminal. How is that a compromise? That would actually opening another loophole in the law as it stands now.
I would hold people to the reasonable person standard. In most states you must file a police report for any insurance claim involving theft or robbery. The courts have ruled that to be a reasonable standard. What is so difficult about reporting a theft loss? If your TV is stolen you would not call the police? Why is a firearm any different? I would really like to know what is so difficult about reporting a that a deadly weapon was stolen? You say a gun is a tool and I agree, if my band saw is stolen I will report it, what would make a "resonable person" not report a firearm stolen?
You missed the parenthesis of the previous line. IF, even after they have made all reasonable efforts to secure their firearms(Locked in a properly installed safe when not in use), they have their firearms stolen three times THEN they are placed on the permanently denied list. It happened to a friend of mine. His gun safe was broken free from the foundation by the use of a nearby bulldozer. You would have him do 10 years hard labor for someone else wrapping a chain around his gun safe? Again, it's about REASONABLE EFFORT. It's not opening a loophole, in fact it's closing the current loophole. As it stands now, the guy simply reports that his guns were stolen from under his bed, and he's free to go buy more. Oh hey he bought more AK's. whoops stolen again. darn thieves. Buy more AK's Whoops stolen again. It's like they know he has them under his bed or something. In your haste to dismiss my post as not compromising, you must have missed this section.
Make it a requirement that the original purchaser is held liable if the firearm he purchased is used in a crime(If he is unable to prove that he made a reasonable effort to secure the firearm, say it was not in a properly installed and locked safe), and that ALL sales must go through an FFL(for a background check). Lets also add in that if a person has had more than 3 incidents of their firearms being stolen, they are placed on the denied list for NICS.
So that covered all of your reasoning.
1) Straw buyers cannot simply hand off their purchases to a buyer and claim their firearms were stolen without having to show an extreme effort was made to get them.
2) IF you buy a gun and it is used in a crime, YOU are liable. Which means that YOU MUST REPORT IT STOLEN BEFORE IT IS USED IN A CRIME! So I have no idea where you get off with that tangent about not reporting it stolen.
3) They cannot just sell it on the street and keep the money, as that sale HAS TO GO THROUGH AN FFL. That prevents people from saying, "Yeah I sold that to a dude I met at the gun show. What was his name? I dunno."
Of course this could all be a moot point anyway as the 3d printing technology gets better. You could print your own gun. Then there's relatively inexpensive CNC milling machines that could easily be adapted to make firearm frames(which are the only parts that have to go through an FFL). Ain't technology grand?
the usa is no different to any other western world country, except that is one of the youngest and feel like they have something to prove. We over here in the uk don't get pushed around any more or less than the americans do... this was true even back in the "founding father" days, just didn't want to pay the kings taxes, but they ended up paying their own tax, amusing.
i'll never be convinced of being pro-gun owner ship, especially arming people to the teeth, that is just immature and ignorant. if there is a problem with massacres, handing out more guns will not resolve the issue, it would just make it easier for the suspect to do what they will do.
i went to Vegas a few years ago, even the car valet people have pistols, how ridiculous, et they will be arming MacDonald's employees next. That is one of the most off putting things about the USA, their fetish for guns.
but as i said before, ban and make automatic and some semi automatic weapons, anyone who has an arsenal of weapons has intent, if you only wanted to own a weapon for protection, you would only need a small pistol or something to that extent. Anything bigger or more powerful and it goes beyond defence and into the realm of intent.
Um, life in the colonies wasn't exactly all roses and sunshine. We had to pay taxes on goods from England as well as having high tariffs on our goods. And look at the third amendment. It was put there because British troops could come into your home, eat your crops, slaughter your livestock and even have their way with your wife and daughter, and you couldn't do anything about it. While taxation gets the primary focus, it wasn't the only thing. And it was taxation WITHOUT REPRESENTATION. The colonies had NO SAY in Parliament. And they kept raising the taxes on things in the colonies, but we had no say in the matter.
Gun ownership does not cause massacres. The worst massacres in history were caused by means other than firearms. Bath Michigan. 38 children killed in a school. No gun was used. Weapon of choice? Dynamite. Oklahoma city. 168 souls, including 19 under 6. Weapon of choice? explosives(home made). And of course New York 9/11. 3000+ lost. Not a gun in sight. weapon of choice? Aircraft. Crazy people intent on killing massive numbers of people are far less concerned with the weapon they need than how to do the most damage.
Valets in Vegas had firearms? I never noticed that. Maybe it's because I don't let my knickers get all knotted because someone has a firearm. Or maybe it's because I rarely valet my car. But I would understand it, as they are sometimes in vehicles that are very expensive, and often have to run out to a darkened lot with the keys to that car in their hands.
And the whole "Arsenal" argument is just plain silly. A rifle is more accurate than a pistol. Plain and simple. A rifle also has less overspray than a shotgun. There are a ton of people who like to collect things. Some like firearms that look a certain way.
1 AUTOMATIC WEAPONS ARE REALLY HARD TO GET.
2 IF YOU HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE FEDS TO GET ONE THEY CAN RAID YOUR HOME AT ANY TIME.
3 YOU CANNOT BUY ONE THAT WAS REGISTERED AFTER 1 MAY 1986 UNLESS YOU ARE LAW ENFORCEMENT
4 THERE HAS BEEN ONE CRIME COMMITTED WITH A LEGALLY OBTAINED AUTOMATIC WEAPON BY A CIVILIAN SINCE 1934
(2 if you include the cop)
there... maybe NOW people will see it.
I am on that because the NRA is against requiring people to report stolen guns. Someone buys a gun for someone, it is used in a murder, police trace it back to person that bought it, they say it was stolen and case is done. That is way the system works now. Chicago is trying to get this changed, but the NRA is against it.
As to your friend, I am against that still, but for another reason. If he did what a reasonable person would have done in protecting his weapons and they were still stolen and he reported them stolen, then I would be against him not being able to purchasing more guns. Hell, he probably actually needs them for protection more than the rest of us and he did nothing wrong to have one of his rights taken away. He was responsible and others violated his rights, then government should not step in and further remove his rights. Only thing the 3 times would do is make more people not report stolen weapons until the police knocked on the door.
I am on that because the NRA is against requiring people to report stolen guns. Someone buys a gun for someone, it is used in a murder, police trace it back to person that bought it, they say it was stolen and case is done. That is way the system works now. Chicago is trying to get this changed, but the NRA is against it.
As to your friend, I am against that still, but for another reason. If he did what a reasonable person would have done in protecting his weapons and they were still stolen and he reported them stolen, then I would be against him not being able to purchasing more guns. Hell, he probably actually needs them for protection more than the rest of us and he did nothing wrong to have one of his rights taken away. He was responsible and others violated his rights, then government should not step in and further remove his rights. Only thing the 3 times would do is make more people not report stolen weapons until the police knocked on the door.
And I said it was a compromise. You inferred it was NOT a compromise. Hence why I'm a little peeved at your response that supplanted the NRA stance over mine. I may be a member of the NRA, but that does not mean that I agree with everything they say. And I write them to tell them when I disagree. I disagree on their "NO" stance on background checks on all firearm sales. I disagree on not requiring persons to report stolen firearms. Though I agree in that I feel that we SHOULD be able to have any small arms that can be used to defend ourselves(note that does not extend to portable nukes, as even if you could CCW a nuke, you cannot use it to defend yourself from an attacker). US V Miller states we cannot have arms that have no military use, yet we are limited to not being able to use firearms that are used by the military?
Actually I believe that if you have those firearms stolen 3 times you must be doing something wrong. One time having your safe ripped from the foundation I can understand. 3 times becomes suspicious. Maybe have a timeframe. 3 times in a year? I mean if you end up setting up a method for allowing the straw buyers to set up a "Steal from me" house, then you have the same problem.
Actually I believe that if you have those firearms stolen 3 times you must be doing something wrong. One time having your safe ripped from the foundation I can understand. 3 times becomes suspicious. Maybe have a timeframe. 3 times in a year? I mean if you end up setting up a method for allowing the straw buyers to set up a "Steal from me" house, then you have the same problem.not always true... Let be honest certain area in the Nation like certain neighborhoods you are 10000 times more likely to shot yourself than to ever be robed or murdered by someone outside your family or friends. The only reason to have a weapon there is to for sports, hunting or to make up for other inadequacies in someone's life.
However, some live in neighborhoods that have extremely high crime rates where having a weapon could mean the difference between life and death. So I am not willing to take away someone right to defend their home just because they live in a bad neighborhood. Sorry look at the statics once your home is robed once, if they got some good stuff they are very likely to come back in a few months after you had a chance to collect from the insurance company and replace the items. Someone has a safe, has it locked, I am not willing to tell them they lost the right to defend their family. I work in the insurance industry and any adjustor will tell people once they are burglarized to expect a return trip. We are in the business to make money so if we had a easy answer for this problem, we would definitely tell our policy holders.
I am sick in tired of criminals and stupid people doing stupid stuff and then forcing changes that make the innocent suffer. Just like the stupidest thing ever the 1,000,000 plus people on the watch list because a few idiot flew planes into buildings.
Gun stolen report it, no problem....Gun stolen don't report it, gun used in crime traced back to you, go to jail for aiding and abetting. Jail time depended on what crime was committed. No ifs ands or buts. Detectives are not stupid, someone constantly reports thefts that were not thefts they will see the pattern and they are already laws on the books to handle that. No new acts of congress or presidential orders need to fix that. Police just need to have their hands untied and given the ability to enforce the laws.
You missed the parenthesis of the previous line. IF, even after they have made all reasonable efforts to secure their firearms(Locked in a properly installed safe when not in use), they have their firearms stolen three times THEN they are placed on the permanently denied list. It happened to a friend of mine. His gun safe was broken free from the foundation by the use of a nearby bulldozer. You would have him do 10 years hard labor for someone else wrapping a chain around his gun safe? Again, it's about REASONABLE EFFORT. It's not opening a loophole, in fact it's closing the current loophole. As it stands now, the guy simply reports that his guns were stolen from under his bed, and he's free to go buy more. Oh hey he bought more AK's. whoops stolen again. darn thieves. Buy more AK's Whoops stolen again. It's like they know he has them under his bed or something. In your haste to dismiss my post as not compromising, you must have missed this section.
So that covered all of your reasoning.
1) Straw buyers cannot simply hand off their purchases to a buyer and claim their firearms were stolen without having to show an extreme effort was made to get them.
2) IF you buy a gun and it is used in a crime, YOU are liable. Which means that YOU MUST REPORT IT STOLEN BEFORE IT IS USED IN A CRIME! So I have no idea where you get off with that tangent about not reporting it stolen.
3) They cannot just sell it on the street and keep the money, as that sale HAS TO GO THROUGH AN FFL. That prevents people from saying, "Yeah I sold that to a dude I met at the gun show. What was his name? I dunno."
Of course this could all be a moot point anyway as the 3d printing technology gets better. You could print your own gun. Then there's relatively inexpensive CNC milling machines that could easily be adapted to make firearm frames(which are the only parts that have to go through an FFL). Ain't technology grand?
Um, life in the colonies wasn't exactly all roses and sunshine. We had to pay taxes on goods from England as well as having high tariffs on our goods. And look at the third amendment. It was put there because British troops could come into your home, eat your crops, slaughter your livestock and even have their way with your wife and daughter, and you couldn't do anything about it. While taxation gets the primary focus, it wasn't the only thing. And it was taxation WITHOUT REPRESENTATION. The colonies had NO SAY in Parliament. And they kept raising the taxes on things in the colonies, but we had no say in the matter.
Gun ownership does not cause massacres. The worst massacres in history were caused by means other than firearms. Bath Michigan. 38 children killed in a school. No gun was used. Weapon of choice? Dynamite. Oklahoma city. 168 souls, including 19 under 6. Weapon of choice? explosives(home made). And of course New York 9/11. 3000+ lost. Not a gun in sight. weapon of choice? Aircraft. Crazy people intent on killing massive numbers of people are far less concerned with the weapon they need than how to do the most damage.
Valets in Vegas had firearms? I never noticed that. Maybe it's because I don't let my knickers get all knotted because someone has a firearm. Or maybe it's because I rarely valet my car. But I would understand it, as they are sometimes in vehicles that are very expensive, and often have to run out to a darkened lot with the keys to that car in their hands.
And the whole "Arsenal" argument is just plain silly. A rifle is more accurate than a pistol. Plain and simple. A rifle also has less overspray than a shotgun. There are a ton of people who like to collect things. Some like firearms that look a certain way.
1 AUTOMATIC WEAPONS ARE REALLY HARD TO GET.
2 IF YOU HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE FEDS TO GET ONE THEY CAN RAID YOUR HOME AT ANY TIME.
3 YOU CANNOT BUY ONE THAT WAS REGISTERED AFTER 1 MAY 1986 UNLESS YOU ARE LAW ENFORCEMENT
4 THERE HAS BEEN ONE CRIME COMMITTED WITH A LEGALLY OBTAINED AUTOMATIC WEAPON BY A CIVILIAN SINCE 1934
(2 if you include the cop)
there... maybe NOW people will see it.
you give the list of the lost, which in itself is a sad read and their loss will always be remembered, but in america there were 12,664 murders in 2011. Of those, 8,583 were caused by firearms.. that is ONE year, one SINGLE year as opposed to in the uk there were 550 murders and a very small percentage were gun related.
i will never be convinced gun ownership is a good idea and arming those who are not professionals, like valet parking attendants or even school teachers is just "typically american" as we say, amusing really.. so uncivilised.
guns were made for one thing, no matter how you dress it up or try to endlessly justify it, they are made for one purpose and the statistics show this.
There is a huge gun problem in america, you cannot deny this, the whole world see's it and shakes their head and with organisations like the NRA, they just make it easier for criminals or those who have a mental break down to gain the means to kill.
one of the posters mentioned that all massacres or most were from stolen guns, the killing at that primary school, the man used his mothers guns (yes, she had an arsenal, ridiculous) after killing her with them. The Batman shootings, i believe the man there actually owned most of his guns, saw a documentary on it on the BBC, even though he had failed x amount of the restrictions etc he still managed to buy fire arms.
lets face it, there are 2-4 massacres in america every year with no decline in the past 40-50 years involving guns, each of which have atleast 10 fatalities minimum.. that should be enough to have some form of ban or referendum or what have you..
the NRA say "guns don't kill people, people do" that s very true, but very ignorant at the same time.. guns were made for killing, it is what they are made for and sold for, wrap it up as self defence if you wish, but if you kill in self defence, you still have killed. People will always try to kill one another, the best thing to do is try to minimize the casualty list.
@mim: You make a good point. But how do we give the police the power to arrest the people they know are straw buyers. Of course universal registration might work, but I would demand that any registration information be SEALED except as required in an investigation requiring a warrant for that information. I don't want the Journal news advertising where all the guns are. Granted, in Texas, that would look like they painted the map red.
@xavier: You fail to take in to account that in the US guns were used for defensive purposes(on the lowest estimate) roughly 700,000 times per year. In those murder statistics(which are actually not the murder statistics, but homicides, including Justified homicides) the majority are gang violence. I believe it's 75%(again on the low estimate). We have 20 times the number of heavy population centers as in the UK. AND your violent crime and crimes against women have gone up sharply since the banning of firearms(our rape has gone down 6% England and wales had gone up 11%). The majority of mass killings have occurred in areas that were labeled "Gun Free" with nobody to enforce it. If guns were the problem, why hasn't there been a mass shooting at a gun show? Removing guns from an area can work, but you have to have someone armed to enforce it. Like at the airport.
Do you truly think you can remove guns from a society that was founded on guns? We have by low estimates over 300,000,000 firearms(using 0's to show how large that number really is) in the US. We have 90,000,000 legal firearm owners(again a very low estimate). A firearm is a relatively simple machine. I can make one in a shop in about 2 hours(4 if I want to make a semiautomatic, 6 to make an automatic. Give me about 36 hours and I can actually manufacture a fully functioning M4). And that's to make one that fires gunpowder rounds. A lethal air rifle is not that hard to manufacture either.
Guns are an equalizer. They make a 90 lb woman able to beat a 200 lb man.
Also, it was the Brady Campaign(anti-gun group) that pointed out that most firearms used in massacres(which they called 2 or more people dead, including the shooter) were gained illegally. Generally through people lieing on their application. Oh that's right it's a crime to do that.
as you said, the country was founded using weaponry and guns were used for defensive purposes to defend the freedom the country once had, which, n turn, didn't last very long until a centre of government was formed, effectively taking most senses of the word of freedom, away.
freedom isn't free, as they say.
all past tenses, guns are tools for killing, nothing more, nothing less. sure they can be used as a deterrent, but that only goes so far, arming everyone just makes everything ergh.. uncivilised.
we can throw figures at each other, but they are just figures, they neglect to take into consideration a varity of other factors, education, employment, drugs, alcohol. America has one of the worst gun crimes in the world, the uk has a pretty bad violence related to alcohol issue..
equal rights does not mean giving a weak person a gun and giving a strong person a gun, that is just barbaric.
as you said, the country was founded using weaponry and guns were used for defensive purposes to defend the freedom the country once had, which, n turn, didn't last very long until a centre of government was formed, effectively taking most senses of the word of freedom, away.
freedom isn't free, as they say.
all past tenses, guns are tools for killing, nothing more, nothing less. sure they can be used as a deterrent, but that only goes so far, arming everyone just makes everything ergh.. uncivilised.
An armed society is a polite society. Strangely enough that was true back in the old west(not the wild west, that's Hollywood, where Johnny Ringo was in a hundred places he never really was). Are police in the UK uncivilized because they carry firearms?
we can throw figures at each other, but they are just figures, they neglect to take into consideration a varity of other factors, education, employment, drugs, alcohol. America has one of the worst gun crimes in the world, the uk has a pretty bad violence related to alcohol issue..
equal rights does not mean giving a weak person a gun and giving a strong person a gun, that is just barbaric.
The US does not have a gun problem. 300000000 firearms in circulation(again super low estimate), and roughly 9000 homicides works out to .00003 % of firearms used in murder. Statistically, you're more likely to get run over by a drunk driver than murdered with a firearm. And that statistical likelihood drops even lower if you aren't a member of a gang(I think it gets down to the same likelihood of being eaten by a shark). And if we take it even further, to the "assault weapons" that number drops to the same statistical likelihood of being bitten by a shark in Poland(350 since the end of the Federal Assault Weapons ban).
And honestly you are claiming that WE have a problem. You point out how few mass murders you have had since your ban. How many did you have before the ban?
I didn't say it was equal rights. Simply that it places them on equal footing. Assuming of course there is no difference in training. If a 90 lb woman has a firearm and a 200 lb man has a firearm, who has the advantage? If a 90 lb woman is facing off against a 200 lb man, who has the advantage.
The US does not have a gun problem. 300000000 firearms in circulation(again super low estimate), and roughly 9000 homicides works out to .00003 % of firearms used in murder. Statistically, you're more likely to get run over by a drunk driver than murdered with a firearm.
http://www.vamworld.com/file/view/cherry.jpg/371253746/cherry.jpg)
•In 2010, 10,228 people were killed in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for nearly one-third (31%) of all traffic-related deaths in the United States.
In 2010, guns took the lives of 31,076 Americans in homicides, suicides and unintentional shootings. This is the equivalent of more than 85 deaths each day and more than three deaths each hour
correct me if I am wrong, but guns take more lives in the US than drunk driving, at least in 2010.
It's more than a little hypocritical that the same administration that thought it was a good idea to "gunwalk" thousands of assault weapons into the hands of Mexican drug cartels (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal) wants to prohibit legal ownership of the same type of weapons by law-abiding American citizens. :wonder:
No, that actually fits the idea that the firearms were able to be legally purchased here in the US by people who could pass the NICS check. What's hypocritical is that this administration sent Arms to Libyan Rebels (
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/06/world/africa/weapons-sent-to-libyan-rebels-with-us-approval-fell-into-islamist-hands.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0) but thinks we shouldn't be able to purchase the same arms they GAVE AWAY.
I'm guessing that the Libya move was considered beneficial to US foreign policy.
As for the Mexican Cartel move, everybody likes drugs right?:thmbup1:
In regards to how any of that affects a US citizens gun rights, it doesn't in the governments eyes I imagine.
When a government doesn't have a problem with breaking its own laws, it's time for that government to be replaced by one that does, and that's what the gun control issue is all about, really.
correct me if I am wrong, but guns take more lives in the US than drunk driving, at least in 2010.
Actually, it's people taking lives in both cases.
I KNOW: LET'S BAN TEH PEOPLE!!!!!111!1!111ONE [/kneejerk] :p
@Q:
Well I think when it comes to foreign and domestic issues they can view them as two separate things where one has absolutely nothing to do with the other, hence doing something abroad which you wouldn't do at home is a non-issue.
Whether that's hypocritical is another discussion.
The "gunwalking" originated on US soil.
@TommyCat
the average policeman in the uk does not carry a gun, an armed society is an uncivilised and ignorant society.
we have armed units, just incase something is to occur (bank robbers, terrorists and the like) but they are only called when the situation requires them. To arm everyone is to live in fear, fear is not the tool of democracy.
And the usa does have a gun control problem, 2-4 massacres per year every year screams problem to me, you try telling the parents who lost their children in the stupidly high amount of school shootings that there isn't a problem, throw what ever statistics you like, it is a way to detatch yourself from the reality, when even one child dies from a fire-arm incident, then there is a huge problem, end of.
You're doing a wonderful job of living up to your stereotype.
Far be it from me to stop you. Pontificate on.
When a government doesn't have a problem with breaking its own laws, it's time for that government to be replaced by one that does, and that's what the gun control issue is all about, really.
Sorry no, that is what people want to say, but even if you had machine guns, tanks.... you are not taking down a government that spends more on defense than the other 13 countries in the world with guns people have in their home. Fortunately the founding fathers thought of that and gave us another method of change the government, less deadly too. VOTE. Sorry the American people seem to vote against most of your ideas, but other people have their own opinions.
So Q. beside my petty misplace use of words, do you agree with Tommycat that you are less likely to be killed with a gun involved than involved in a death involving a car and impaired driver or are you just trying to cherry pick to and take the discussion off the real problem. Idiots that shouldn't have guns are killing people and themselves with them. I said straight off I don't want to ban guns, but you are sounding more and more like the NRA's solution give everyone a gun and let the last person standing win.
So, you're admitting that we live under an unassailable oligarchy, now, which is not at all what the founding fathers intended? Good. I agree. Democracy here is an illusion, so what's the point of voting when you're forced to choose between bad and worse? What a joke. Voting has become nothing more than humoring a feel-good farce.
Gun ownership isn't about taking over the government; it's about taking as many of the jack-booted government thugs with you as you can when they finally come for you. They're not nearly as likely to come for you as long as there's a fairly good chance that they're going to get shot.
As to your second point: Why can't we just shoot the idiots when they enter a crowded place and open fire? And if people want to kill themselves, why can't we just let them? :giveup:
@TommyCat
the average policeman in the uk does not carry a gun, an armed society is an uncivilised and ignorant society.
we have armed units, just incase something is to occur (bank robbers, terrorists and the like) but they are only called when the situation requires them. To arm everyone is to live in fear, fear is not the tool of democracy.
I'm asking if the armed police officers suddenly become uncivilized simply for carrying a firearm. You seem to believe that simply having the firearm on them makes them uncivilized. I beg to differ. Or maybe we have different definitions of civilized. I tend to believe that "civil" is part of it. I have found that places that are disarmed have a greater chance of being uncivil than places that nobody knows if you are armed.
And the usa does have a gun control problem, 2-4 massacres per year every year screams problem to me, you try telling the parents who lost their children in the stupidly high amount of school shootings that there isn't a problem, throw what ever statistics you like, it is a way to detatch yourself from the reality, when even one child dies from a fire-arm incident, then there is a huge problem, end of.
And the emotional "for the kids" argument. Again, I point out that the firearm is NOT what causes these mass killings. How many people could he have killed if instead of a gun he used a tanker full of fuel? These parents instead would be crying over the fact that their child was so burned that the only thing left was ashes and a strip of cloth. The worst mass killing in a school in the US had NO firearms involved. The problem is that we make these schools into targets. The only thing those "Gun Free Zone" signs keep out are the sane people who wouldn't turn their guns on kids.
Again, I point out that there are no mass killings at gun shows. And don't tell me it's because they check them to make sure they are not loaded, because quite frankly that little zip tie wouldn't stop a determined killer anymore than a "Gun Free Zone" sign. Our problem is NOT the gun. With the majority of violence being gang related and drug related, I'd say that's what we should work on cleaning up.
I promised myself I wouldn't get involved as it's not for us Johnny Foreigners to tell you how to solve the 'problem' of guns and gun control - though to me it seems the recent cases are more a failing of a woeful lack of intervention on the part of the mental health services, but I'll leave it at that.
the average policeman in the uk does not carry a gun, an armed society is an uncivilised and ignorant society.
Our population may not be armed, but we're just as uncivilised and ignorant.
we have armed units, just incase something is to occur (bank robbers, terrorists and the like) but they are only called when the situation requires them.
Or when the NHS need to break into your home while you're out at work to remove someone for their own safety. Oh, and they'll charge you for the privilege, too. And yes folks, that is based on a real life experience.
To arm everyone is to live in fear, fear is not the tool of democracy.
Have you followed any recent elections on either side of the Atlantic lately? Fear, justified or not, is used on a daily basis by those who seek to lead us.
And the usa does have a gun control problem, 2-4 massacres per year every year screams problem to me, you try telling the parents who lost their children in the stupidly high amount of school shootings that there isn't a problem, throw what ever statistics you like, it is a way to detatch yourself from the reality, when even one child dies from a fire-arm incident, then there is a huge problem, end of.
But it's not our problem, it's theirs, though as I say, I'm not convinced the problem starts and ends solely with gun ownership.
As to your second point: Why can't we just shoot the idiots when they enter a crowded place and open fire? And if people want to kill themselves, why can't we just let them? :giveup: So cherry picking is the answer, you are just looking at only the parts that fit you argument. How many of the 31,076 deaths in 2010 were from people entering crowed places and opening fire? Compare that to the unintentional shootings or even those 5 years old and under that died from unintentional gunshots. I am pretty sure we can also say a kid 5 year old and under is not responsible for a accidental shooting. Well considering this thread maybe I should not assume that.
I have never written anything in this thread that people should not have the right and ability to defend their-self.
I am just not willing to
http://www.freeclipartnow.com/d/2305-1/ostrich-head-In-Sand.jpg)
and pretend there is not a problem like some of you seem to be.
So no, I don't want the person, that would leave a gun out so a small child could get hold of it, to open up on a crazy in a crowed place. If they are so irresponsible with their weapon, what makes you think they will not add to the body count rather than limiting it? People have just watched too many Rambo, John Wayne, Dirty Harry movies...John Wayne is dead, unless you have real training or are willing to die to protect others run away not towards. In that situation you must pick your target and be absolutely sure that is your target and you have a shot, if not you are just a wanna-be hero that accidentally killed a innocent.
I think we're kind of in agreement mimartin. I place others' lives above my own, and would rather defend them than worry about myself. Perhaps it's me projecting my own mentality on others that makes me feel that allowing people to carry is acceptable. Besides, from what I understand, if you are shooting at a bad guy and miss and kill someone else, you're still liable for that as 1)reckless endangerment, 2) second degree Manslaughter, 3) possibly murder.
Unless you're law enforcement. Then you just get suspended with pay for awhile while the department or agency throws up a smokescreen and handles the civil suit. No need to worry about criminal charges; that hardly ever happens.
So cherry picking is the answer, you are just looking at only the parts that fit you argument. How many of the 31,076 deaths in 2010 were from people entering crowed places and opening fire? Compare that to the unintentional shootings or even those 5 years old and under that died from unintentional gunshots. I am pretty sure we can also say a kid 5 year old and under is not responsible for a accidental shooting. Well considering this thread maybe I should not assume that.
I have no problem with responsible gun stowage at all. To me, that's just common sense. I'm just not sure how that can be effectively enforced without infringing even more on the freedom and privacy of law-abiding citizens.
I did notice something, however. First you say something like this:
I have never written anything in this thread that people should not have the right and ability to defend their-self.
And then you go and say this:
So no, I don't want the person, that would leave a gun out so a small child could get hold of it, to open up on a crazy in a crowed place. If they are so irresponsible with their weapon, what makes you think they will not add to the body count rather than limiting it? People have just watched too many Rambo, John Wayne, Dirty Harry movies...John Wayne is dead, unless you have real training or are willing to die to protect others run away not towards. In that situation you must pick your target and be absolutely sure that is your target and you have a shot, if not you are just a wanna-be hero that accidentally killed a innocent.
Either you're confused, or I am, but you seem to be hopping from one foot to the other a lot on this subject.
Either you're confused, or I am, You're the one confused, because saying someone has the right to do something and saying someone shouldn't do something because they don't have the ability are two different things.
K.
So, what you're saying is that, worn-out cliches of dumb rednecks who've seen one too many action films aside (because, you know, it's common knowledge that everyone with a CCW is a dumb redneck who's seen one too many action films :p), the scenario where no one takes action against an armed assailant in a crowded area, and thereby guaranteeing that he will inflict the maximum number of casualties before the police magically teleport in is somehow preferable to someone who carries a pistol and knows how to use it shooting the crazy ****er because he might accidentally hit an innocent person?
K.
So, what you're saying is that, worn-out cliches of dumb rednecks who've seen one too many action films aside (because, you know, it's common knowledge that everyone with a CCW is a dumb redneck who's seen one too many action films :p), the scenario where no one takes action against an armed assailant in a crowded area, and thereby guaranteeing that he will inflict the maximum number of casualties before the police magically teleport in is somehow preferable to someone who carries a pistol and knows how to use it shooting the crazy ****er because he might accidentally hit an innocent person?
No I am not...I will write what I am mean; you do not have to wrongly add to it.
Besides I have a CCW. If you have ever had training then you should know what I am saying is the same thing that any instructor would teach you. It is also the same thing that police and soldiers are taught.
Read again what I wrote, I did not WRITE NO ONE SHOULD TAKE ACTION…. Never mind typical non-reading and people adding their own definition to words. This place is a cesspool when it comes to debate, I write something clear as day So no, I don't want the person, that would leave a gun out so a small child could get hold of it, to open up on a crazy in a crowed place. What is so hard to understand there? If someone is so irresponsible and has such disregard for the safety of a child, I would not want them running in to shot the target. They are just as likely to shoot the responsible gun owner that was about to take out the crazy.
I’m done, if you guys are not going to actually discuss and read, I don’t see the point.
Sorry for the confusion, but why did you think that I was saying that people without a CCW and training should shoot back in a situation like that? They shouldn't even be carrying in the first place.
That's doesn't fit with the term "law-abiding".
And, no offense, but my "non-reading" is likely due to your non-writing. Sorry, but sometimes your posts are about as clear as mud. :xp:
(Please don't get angry; the last thing I'd want to do is offend you.)
Sorry I have the ability to look at both side of every argument and see the pros and cons of both sides and I have the ability to change my opinion something that escapes the majority of those that post in Kavars.
the usa is no different to any other western world country, except that is one of the youngest and feel like they have something to prove. We over here in the uk don't get pushed around any more or less than the americans do... this was true even back in the "founding father" days, just didn't want to pay the kings taxes, but they ended up paying their own tax, amusing.
i'll never be convinced of being pro-gun owner ship, especially arming people to the teeth, that is just immature and ignorant. if there is a problem with massacres, handing out more guns will not resolve the issue, it would just make it easier for the suspect to do what they will do.
i went to Vegas a few years ago, even the car valet people have pistols, how ridiculous, et they will be arming MacDonald's employees next. That is one of the most off putting things about the USA, their fetish for guns.
but as i said before, ban and make automatic and some semi automatic weapons, anyone who has an arsenal of weapons has intent, if you only wanted to own a weapon for protection, you would only need a small pistol or something to that extent. Anything bigger or more powerful and it goes beyond defence and into the realm of intent.
After Obama made that ridiculous speech, I felt a need to check here to see if we had a current thread on this subjuect. I chose your comment because of the inconsistencies in your facts.
First, we did not rebel because we had to pay taxes, it was the idea that we were not allowed representation in even the Commons to protest the fact. It was like the South before the War Between the States being told they could not protest punitive tariffs on Cotton sold outside the US itself.
As for intent; Guns are a good investment. There are a couple of places here in Vegas where if I had the money, I could go in, rent a weapon, anything from a German machine gun from WWII up to a Ma Deuce fifty caliber or even 'old painless' from Predator, and fire it. Of course they aren't going to let me off the range with it, but if you've ever wanted to see an MG42 'Hitler's Zipper' and actually fire it, you get the chance.
As recently as the Shrub's administration, the Justice department was ordered to get together with Constitutional law scholars to examine the wording of the constitution, and they reported (2006 if I am correct) that while the term militia is used, it states that the average American has the right to own a gun, and our government does not have the right to restrict that.
The reason they keep pushing these laws is because we can muzzle ourselves if they get enough sheep to baa in chorus.
As for polarization, back in the late 60s, the pro gun lobby tried to get a bill passed to ban Saturday Night Specials, cheap guns sometimes more dangerous to those who use them. The NRA actually came out at the time and stated they would support it if it were properly written. The basics of the law was the gun had to be cheap (At the time, the price was set at less than a hundred dollar) poorly constructed, small enough to conceal, and of an inefficient caliber (The NRA would have accepted anything smaller than 7.62 short, the old .32).
Where this alliance fell apart was in deciding how many of these had to apply. The NRA wanted at least two. But the Pro control mob wanted it to be any one criteria.
Using that measure, a Ruger Olympic Match in 22 short is one, even if it would cost you 1500 dollars to buy. The Beretta .380 a finely machined weapon which back then cost about 75 dollars would have been banned because of the price, and the Colt Chief's Special with a 2 and a half inch barrel (63mm) would have been banned because it was designed to be concealed.
In my lifetime they have tried to ban [ammunition[/i] on the grounds that it is like dynamite, meaning you need a special permit to buy it. They tried to say the National Guard was the Militia the 2nd Amendment spoke of, so we don't need guns. Since I was alive when the National Guard opened fire at Kent State I can't call them 'well organized'. The minor fact that since 1903 the National Guard is defined as a secondary Army reserve unit, and the Feds used this when they first nationalized, then ordered the National Guard to Stand down when Governor Wallace used them to block College integration in Alabama is incidental.
The militia spoken of in 1783 was every armed citizen coming out ready to defend their homes, not some guy being paid for 36 days a year to go out and get some remedial training as a soldier, which is what the Guard is.
The problem is every time this comes up, it's an emotional response to a failure to enforce existing laws. And the Advocates, especially in Hollywood come down on their own who disagree. When Tom Selleck made a commercial for the NRA, Rosie O'Donnel, a Gun Control advocate accused him of being paid to make it, even though it has always been NRA policy that only members of the NRA make public announcements for the organization and ask them to do it as members, not as paid spokesmen. O'Donnel can say 'I don't need a gun' because she has a security system that sends armed officers if she hits the panic button. I, with an income of about $720 a month can't afford to even get a price estimate from one. And saying 'the police will protect you' is a joke. We'd need one cop per a hundred people to have anywhere close to that protection.
The reason I came down on Obama's speech is because I've heard something like it before. Back when they had a TV show named Quincy on the air, the producers got on a 'cause of the week' spree. When they got to gun control, Jack Klugman who starred as the title character said, '75% of the American people want a comprehensive ban of guns, but no one listens'.
Sounds a lot like 'Our people want this, and I'm going to give it to them' to me. The problem with that claim is simple.
When 75% of our people want something they get it, even if they have to do a grass roots campaign needed to create a new Constitutional Amendment.
Heh, my problem is that I see this as a bit of a slippery slope. And it seems that it's just going to continue. I remember in 1986 hearing them talk of getting rid of the dangerous machine guns because "Nobody needs an automatic weapon to kill a deer."(ignoring the fact that the only machine guns used in crimes were ILLEGAL machine guns) Yet just recently that exact phrase was used with "automatic weapon" replaced by "30 rounds" by Cuomo. Neglecting the fact that the second amendment does not state "the right to keep and bear HUNTING arms." If you fudds let this go, next it will be "Nobody needs to shoot a deer from 1000 yards away" as they go for your "sniper" scopes. Then "Nobody needs more than a .243" Then as they limit rounds lower and lower... One day maybe these fudds will realize that when they called a .223 a "High Powered Assault Bullet" their .308, or .30-06 wouldn't be long for this world either.
Tommy, you should read the Federalist Papers. Madison (The framer of the 2nd) Amendment, commented that in the event of the Federal govrnment (Who had less than 50,000 troops in 1783) using them to force Pennsylvania to accept a Federal decision, they would face several times their number (and this is only a paraphrase) 'armed with equal weapons ready to stop them'.
There is a term called the law of unconsidered consequences at work here. Until 1903, Militias (Such as the different Regiment on both sides of the War Between the States, and later the Rough Riders in the Spanish American war) were armed with whatever their state could buy them, or wanted to buy them. During the first war, this meant that the US government was supplying ammunition in over 60 different calibers and bullet weights instead of just a few. In both of those wars, the commanding officers on the Regimental level were originally elected]/i] to lead, which if you think about it, explains a lot of the problems both sides in the WBS and later had.
The wording of the Militia act only allowed the US to pick the officers and equipment, with a 'when war occurs they come under Federal command' codicil instead of the blanket 'we control them, not the states' accepted by our government since.
The one nation where guns are allowed for whoever wants to buy them, yet has the least violent crimes of any type is Switzerland. That is because [i]every man between the ages of 18 and 45 serves in the military and reserves. Would you break into a home to rob it knowing the man inside or his neighbor has anything from a pistol and rifle right up to a Carl Gustav anti tank launcher to hit you with?
As for using an illegal firearm, To quote Dirty Harry, 'go ahead, make my day'.
Part of the reason it works is because the Swiss regulate the weapons and ammunition sold. A soldier going into reserve, or home on leave carries his issue weapons and sealed packs of his full ammunition issue for those guns. If he wants to practice with them, he leaves the ammo at home in the locked room required, carries the weapon down to a military of police range where he is issued ammunition for his practice.
Civilians have to follow the same rules; if I had an urge to buy a Barrett .50 caliber just for the fun of, as Sean Connery said in The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen of 'pipping the ace' at 1500 meters, I could do so. But the same rules for the military applies. I have to go to a military range (Police ones don't have the range), show them the ammunition I brought, fire them off, show them the expended brass, then take it home. Every round fired, even for a civilian has to be accounted for.
If you defend your home or neighbor by loading that weapon, as soon as the danger is gone, you report immediately that you have done so. The local police arrive, verify this is true, verify the amount of ammunition loaded (It is issued in magazines,) how many rounds if any, were fired, and actually unload and count every round in every magazine.
If someone is killed with a gun in that nation, even as the street cops and Homicide are blocking off the scene, other cops are going to every residence with a gun and verifying that they have not used the issue or legally purchased ammunition. If they do not find someone has done so, as soon as they know what caliber was used, they extend that search nationwide to anyone who has that caliber of weapon. With modern forensics, they can even tell you what make and model was used.
Their laws for illegal use of a fire arm, or using ammunition smuggled in is draconian. If you want to spend the next twenty odd years in jail, just get caught smuggling ammunition, let's not even consider what the penalty is for an illegal weapon.
I hadn't noticed that the laws regarding automatic weapons of the 80s had included the stopping of the Tax Stamps for them. That is bothersome because of the internal problems it would create. You see, I did know they had to be purchased from the government every time an automatic weapon was sold in the states that allowed ownership. The problem with them back then when I first heard about them was they were (1970s) were 150 dollars per gun, and the new owner had to buy one before he could buy the gun if you had to sell it.
Back in the decade right before the War Between the States the US government made the importation of new slaves illegal.That meant the only slaves still allowed were those already owned. In the South, a number of states made manumission illegal. You could no longer free slaves. There had been punitive taxes already in place since the Revolution on freeing slaves; the way our founding fathers got around it (Washinton and Jefferson) was by freeing them upon their deaths in their will. But a slave owner of say 1852 was not allowed to do this. The slaves of the dead man automatically became the property of their children, who, at need, were required to sell them on to other slave owners.
As a simple example of applied economic, let's say I was living in Texas in '75; chosen because in the 70s, I could legally own a machine gun (Hell, under Texas law, the only things I could not own were bazookas, modern artillery pieces, and modern tanks). I decide to buy a cheap sub machine gun just because I am the type of nut that wants to say I have it. The John Wayne Movie M'Q had Wayne using an Ingram M11 in .380 caliber, and I decide if the Duke used it, it's all good. So I go down to the local gun shop, and ask. The gun is cheap straight from the manufacturer; try $125. But then he tells it will cost me $275 because of that blasted tax stamp. But hey, if I want to sell it, I just find someone willing to pay me that amount, and leave the next tax stamp to him.
Jump to today, assuming I had bought that weapon way back whenm and still had it. Nevada is one of those states that still allows me to own it, I just get a 10 round clip and turn in the 32 round ones I used to have. The ban didn't stop me from owning the weapon itself, it's grandfathered in because it was bought before the ban, which only banned new purchases.
I'm skirting on the edge of the poverty level (As I am in actuality), and I can use what a collector would pay for the gun (try about a thousand now). But then I find that I can't sell the gun unless I am willing to find a foerign buyer, and even then, I have to get permission to sell it overseas. Why? Because if it were sold to some nice guy from Columbia say, and he uses it anywhere and the weapon is recovered by law enforcement, take a wild guess who ends up in jail linked to not only illegal weapons, but maybe drug charges as well.
Worse yet, if I were to die, my daughter could not even own the gun, let alone sell it because she can't buy a new tax stamp.
Worse yet, if I were to die, my daughter could not even own the gun, let alone sell it because she can't buy a new tax stamp.
Tax stamps can still be transferred. Just no NEW tax stamps are issued. You still have to get approval from your highest LEO(Sheriff). But you can get them transferred. There are web pages which currently assist in the selling of these pre-ban firearms.
The bodies were still warm from the shots fired and talk radio was already talking about Obama taking our guns. They said the Libs pray for this kind of thing just so they can take away our rights. Just as likely idiots on the radio pray for this type of thing so they can work everyone into a frenzy about Obama taking our guns. Then they can set back in rake in the cash as we see a run on the flavor or the week weapons and ammo.
Almost as funny a Rush saying science isn't science. He must have went to a Texas school where science isn't science but bible study 2.0.
The bodies were still warm from the shots fired and talk radio was already talking about Obama taking our guns. They said the Libs pray for this kind of thing just so they can take away our rights. Just as likely idiots on the radio pray for this type of thing so they can work everyone into a frenzy about Obama taking our guns. Then they can set back in rake in the cash as we see a run on the flavor or the week weapons and ammo.
Almost as funny a Rush saying science isn't science. He must have went to a Texas school where science isn't science but bible study 2.0.
To be fair, Feinstein was already talking about her assault weapon ban before the shooting was over. Obama has not stopped talking about gun control, and every time there is a news story about guns, he blathers on about how "We're not done yet" about gun control. He and Bloomberg have spent so much time on gun control how can you blame the pro-2nd groups believing they're out to get them. The Right is justified in believing he's after guns, because hours after the shooting began he said,
So we are confronting yet another mass shooting, and today it happened on a military installation in our nation’s capital. Obviously, we’re going to be investigating thoroughly what happened, as we do so many of these shootings, sadly, that have happened, and do everything that we can to prevent them
Then add in Kerry signing the UN arms treaty which is opposed by BOTH parties...
And honestly the media in general DO pray for this kind of thing(regardless of political affiliation) so they can get the public all tuned in to get the latest information on what underwear the shooter preferred.
Yeah that does sound better, way to deflect, they didn't say people in the media, they said Libs. Sure some in the media are Libs, but not all Libs are in the media.
also bad Obama for wanting to prevent mass shootings, that is so un-American.
Yeah that does sound better, way to deflect, they didn't say people in the media, they said Libs. Sure some in the media are Libs, but not all Libs are in the media.
also bad Obama for wanting to prevent mass shootings, that is so un-American.
When you combine that with all of his other statements on gun control, Yeah the way he goes about it is bad. His conclusion has almost always been more gun control.
I wasn't deflecting ANYTHING. I'm saying that BOTH progressive AND conservative media outlets enjoy this kind of thing. It gives them both something they enjoy talking about that their viewers and listeners tune in for. But for some reason you want to focus on the conservative media. Meanwhile the progressive media were talking about him roaming the halls with an AR-15... OOPS he had a shotgun... Well he was going to buy an AR-15 in another state, but was stopped by gun control. Oops that was ALSO a lie as buying a rifle OR shotgun goes through the same process. Only pistols are different. Gee, I wonder why pro-2a people think there's some agenda to remove their firearms.
Whatever, Rush and Michael Berry and others were saying all libs were praying for it not the media, but that is okay since it is about libs. Got it. :thmbup1:
And yes, there should be some gun control, since nuts getting guns are out of control, even if it is just keeping guns out of nuts hands, that is still gun control.
Whatever, Rush and Michael Berry and others were saying all libs were praying for it not the media, but that is okay since it is about libs. Got it. :thmbup1:
And yes, there should be some gun control, since nuts getting guns are out of control, even if it is just keeping guns out of nuts hands, that is still gun control.
Since I rarely(if ever) listen to Rush, and actually have no idea who the heck Michael Berry is I couldn't care less what they claim. I was stating that all media outlets love this kind of thing. Conservatives use it to bash liberals, Liberals use it to bash conservatives(as you're apparently doing). The remainder of the media are throwing it out there to 1) promote some anti-gun message or 2) drum up some viewers to find out every aspect of this person's pathetic life.
You're the one who claimed it was the Conservatives saying Obama was using it to push for removing our guns. I pointed out that they have a valid reason to believe that. I was agreeing partially with you, in that BOTH sides were loving this. The anti-gunners and the conservative talking heads are more than happy to use a tragedy to push their agenda.
Gun control is not the answer. If you make it so that any mental instability is grounds for having guns removed, you will find fewer people getting treatment for things that would otherwise be easily controlled. Make it easier to get treatment rather than controlling the millions because of a few bad apples.
You're the one who claimed it was the Conservatives saying Obama was using it to push for removing our guns.No I wasn't, I stated a fact. I claimed nothing about that.
Just give everyone guns and the last one standing wins. Got it. Always great debating with such logic.
Liberals use it to bash conservatives(as you're apparently doing).Where? I bashed Rush and radio taking heads, I did not put all conservatives into that, I was bitching about taking heads putting all libs in one big pile, so wouldn't it be a bit hypocritical of me to do the thing I am bitching about?
No I wasn't, I stated a fact. I claimed nothing about that.
Just give everyone guns and the last one standing wins. Got it. Always great debating with such logic.
Where? I bashed Rush and radio taking heads, I did not put all conservatives into that, I was bitching about taking heads putting all libs in one big pile, so wouldn't it be a bit hypocritical of me to do the thing I am bitching about?
Right, okay so Rush isn't a conservative. The other talking heads you're talking about are liberal right? You're being specifically critical of the right, while ignoring the leftists who did the same if not worse.
And knowing that one of the talking heads was Rush, he has ALWAYS pushed the boundaries of decency. His business model is based on calling the other side a bunch of monsters.
And where the eff do you get me saying give everyone a gun?
Where is the rule that states I have to give equal time to both parties?
I attacked radio talking heads that were attacking all libs, saying they prayed for mass murder. I did not attack everyone on the right. As you like to over look I'm fairly right on this issue, just not stupid to the far right like the NRA, but I guess that is the new left now.
"If you make it so that any mental instability is grounds for having guns removed" ~ no I don't want to make it, since it is already the law. I want to enforce those laws. No it will not stop it, nothing will, but it will save lives and that is all we should really be striving to do.
Where is the rule that states I have to give equal time to both parties?
I attacked radio talking heads that were attacking all libs, saying they prayed for mass murder. I did not attack everyone on the right. As you like to over look I'm fairly right on this issue, just not stupid to the far right like the NRA, but I guess that is the new left now.
I guess expecting any level of objectivity is too much. My bad.
Right, because I haven't been in any way objective? I have criticized my own side as well. Where as you have? NOPE you can call me the pot calling the kettle black all you want, but in this case, I have been rather objective. I'm pretty well equally disgusted with both the conservatives AND the liberal/progressive/whatever the heck the "bad guys" are called nowadays.
Well if I am to the right on this issue, wouldn't me going after the right be objective?
I made a comment on what I heard on the radio, I did not listen to anyone from the left that stated anything so stupid, so I did not comment on something I did not hear. I live in Texas, not a lot of left radio talk shows around here. Guess they didn't get the memo about being objective.
On guns you may be center right, but on the issue you are talking about, you're left. You supported Obama, so technically attacking those who attack him are NOT your side. This portion of the conversation isn't really on the guns, but the left/right media. Which you were more than happy to "catch" that big headed buffoon saying something stupid.
"Rush said something stupid and insensitive."
*yawn* AND?
"Rush said something stupid and insensitive."
*yawn* AND?Yet you defend him at all cost.
And no on the issue I am talking about I am right, you do not have the right nor do you know me enough to define me. Yes, I gave money to Obama, me and Achilles played a game and we donated money, you actually helped because I gave Obama money based on something you did, so you could say you supported Obama too. That does not mean I agree with him on every issue or support his stance on every issue. I also voted for George Bush in his first election and you can pretty much guess I did not support him on every issue.