"Gun Control is the Only Answer"

reply to post by Jenna


Agreed there are exceptions as you stated, my point with my reply is at what point does an addict become so immoral that they start to shoot and rob people and how does everyone know or for that matter how does anyone know..

are you suggesting mandatory drug testing for all citizens because that is the only way you are ever going to know 100% some people can hide addiction very well very very well..

at any rate I never suggested that addiction is any excuse for a crime there is after all no excuse for a crime save 1 and that is to feed your family just that you can not lump every one into a pile and say those people over there they are crazy and to your left they are drug addicts, I think we as a society are bigger than this..

Respectfully
GEO

I have another idea ow about we start raising our kids again instead of worrying about having a big screen and a boat or motorcycle, you know like maybe correcting them for stuff like fighting instead of saying boys will be boys or girls will be girls..


Respectfully
GEO

reply to post by bigfoot1212


I can remember many years ago in Maine when there was a manditory "cooling" off period (couple days?) before you could bring your purchase home.

reply to post by geocom


With regard to testing for this or that. Remember one thing

Drugs and guns, are big money makers for the people behind the scenes, so are they really going to stop the gun culture in america?

Persoanlly i think no one in the public should have them, but they do make alot of money doing this stuff, so do they really want america to be druga nd gun free.

reply to post by geocom


I don't think it's an issue of being immoral so much as frying your brain to the point that you think it's ok to shoot someone. While there may be immoral people who are also addicts, I don't believe that every addict is immoral. That would be like saying all Catholics are immoral due to the immoral actions of a few priests.

As for mandatory drug testing, I don't think that would be a good idea. Seems like the start of the slippery slope to me.

Sorry if it sounded like I thought you meant addiction was an excuse for crime. I didn't think you did, but I sometimes don't get my thoughts across completely when I post and have to clarify what I do mean.

The more guns you have, the more gun crime you have. Demented kids are picking up weapons no problem and wiping out their schools. Could they do that with a knife? No.

The constitution was written centuries ago and the USA is no longer a frontier. IMO it's time to change the law.

Of course, sensibly restricting weapons won't stop violence, but it will make it a lot harder. The real solution to reducing violence is reducing poverty. I don't see that happening any time soon as long as special interest groups like the Oil, drug and gun industries control not only the government but also the election process.

Originally posted by rizla
The more guns you have, the more gun crime you have. Demented kids are picking up weapons no problem and wiping out their schools. Could they do that with a knife? No.

The constitution was written centuries ago and the USA is no longer a frontier. IMO it's time to change the law.

Of course, sensibly restricting weapons won't stop violence, but it will make it a lot harder. The real solution to reducing violence is reducing poverty. I don't see that happening any time soon as long as special interest groups like the Oil, drug and gun industries control not only the government but also the election process.

Don't you just have all the answers. Just end poverty and take away guns and everything will be fine.

What you are suggesting is that American's fundamental right to protect themselves, their family, and their property should be taken away. Sadly, several places in the country, this has happened.

What about the 1st amendment...isn't that antiquated too? Afterall, when the constitution was written, there was no internet, radio, or high speed printing press. We weren't such a close knit society where information was so easily transmitted.

You have neither the heart nor the courage of a true patriot.

Just for comparison.

www.breitbart.com...

Hours after the accident on the divided highway in Accokeek, bodies covered in white sheets were scattered along what police were calling a 200-yard crime scene.

Roper

The founders believed being alive gave an individual certain rights. One of those being the act of defending oneself from a mortal threat.

From the Declaration of Inependence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

One of those rights would be defined in the second ammendment. The Constitution has nothing to do with states' rights. It is about individual rights. Humans have a basic right to defend themselves.

If there are no guns people will kill each other in another manner.

The solution to stopping these killings is more people, preferably every able bodied person to carry a gun everywhere. Crime, as the staistics show in states where shall issue carry laws have been passed, would plummet. None of these shootings would have happened if the killers knew they would be dead within seconds of beginning their hostile actions.

What if the Constitution was ammended to destroy the second ammendment? Will the police still have guns? Yes. Have we not seen enough police brutality recently to know where unchecked, unabated militarized law enforcement gets us?

It seriously causes me great distress that in light of all the rights we have already lost since 911 and to see the 1st ammendment reduced to protestors penned in chainlink fenced "free speech" zones surrounded by militarized riot police that they trust the govt with guns and not their fellow citizens.

If we did not have our guns I'd hate to imagine how many more rights we would have lost already or wonder if we'd be sitting in those nice Haliburton camps they built a couple of years ago.

It's simple. People can either persuade or force others to do as they wish. If I have a gun you can only persuade me to do as you wish. You cannot force me.

Again... Individual rights.

Molon Labe!

Originally posted by budski

2nd amendment reads, according to wikipedia:
“ A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. ”

also,
"The tradition of securing a military force through a duty of universal military obligation for all able-bodied males follows from the Elizabethan era militia in England.[1][2]

Militia

Where is the need?

There isn't a need, there's a WANT......

Its not a need, or a WANT. Its a right.

You don't understand this concept because you have become quite comfortable with YOUR rights which have thus far been removed.

The RIGHT of the people to bear arms is the only thing that separates the people from a government that goes rogue. A government that some believe has long since gone rogue already.

Try to wrap your head around this little scenario.

You are a robber and you intend to rob a convenience store. When you enter the store you notice 3 citizens standing in line at the register. All 3 citizens are wearing semi-auto hanguns clearly visible to you. You begin to sweat. One of the citizens looks your way and senses your nervousness. You turn around and leave thinking better of it.

Crime effectively thwarted without a shot being fired. Open carry of firearms creates HARD targets. The more hard targets the less crime, because most cowardly criminals are looking for a SOFT target much the same as terrorism.

You don't want a gun, fine, don't buy one, but do not interfere with my right to own and carry my weapon. And if you can't handle my right to own a firearm then leave. Find one of these countries whose populace has given into its governments tyranny and be happy.



[edit on 16-2-2008 by KMFNWO]

Yeah Dude!,outlaw guns so only outlaws will have guns.....or maybe if everyone actually had the right to arm themselves,as the constitution of the united states says,ppl would be more leary of going on a killing spree,and someone could have stopped it sooner maybe?.
Dumb people everywhere........

It sounds as though gun control is being confused with controlling the mentally unstable. Maybe the root problem here is the sad state of mental health care in our country.

You see it now in every facet of society-- the attempt to legislate common sense. It can't be done. How does it make sense to restrict the rights of every responsible citizen in order to control the few with mental health issues? This is absolutely illogical.

Put simply, it's the same argument used to censor television for all of us, reasoning that children may be watching because their parents are not using common sense and monitoring their own children. Why should my rights be infringed upon because of them?

You can't legislate common sense, like putting warning labels on buckets because some toddlers have drowned in them. What is the core issue there? Buckets or parents not parenting? Deal with the core issue-- mentally unstable people with guns-- the problem is mental health care in this country, not gun ownership by responsible citizens. Cure the problem, don't treat the symptoms-- or use them as an excuse to control everyone.

reply to post by starskipper


yes we had that also. jenna is with you on that one too. but also in stores that sell guns the employees are also supposed to be trained to see if someone is upset or on drugs etc. does this always work? hell no. nothing ever does. even the police are trained for that and don't do a good job 1/2 the time. but if an employee believes that a person has malicious intent he has the right to refuse to sell them a gun and call the police and let them decide. in pa we cannot be declined to buy a gun or a ccw if we have no reason to be denied. that is law. but businesses also have the right to refuse to give their services to anyone they feel like for NO reason (other than the usual discrimination reasons) lol
perfect example- my friend had a few beers- was not drunk- but went to buy ammo before hunting season and the clerk smelled it on him and refused to sell him any. that is responsibility by the clerk. my friend didn't get upset but he paid for it and the clerk said he would hold it and he could pick it up when he hadn't been drinking. then the police pulled him over(after the clerk called the police) and he wasn't over the legal limit- so other than having a big hassle nothing happened. but the CLERK took the responsibility to NOT sell an item he believed would have endangered someone. i commend him for that
and in reply to bumblebee- you need a lesson on just what exactly AUTOMATIC means
it means when you depress the trigger 1 round is let off and another AUTOMATICALLY chambers
there are 4 types i know of -semi (1 round)
tri-burst (3 rounds at once)
5 burst (what the us is going too)
and full (that is what people think of when they hear automatic)
jsut because it is automatic does not mean that you can spray bullets


tri-burst (3 rounds)

"Democracy is two wolves deciding what to eat for dinner. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote. "

Today in Virginia Tech a lone gunman walked into a classroom and brandishing two Glock 9mm's shot one of his fellow students in the chest. It was believed that he intended to go on a shooting spree but it was cut short when a male student in the room produced a S&W 357 and put down the would be attacker. The student who was shot was run to the hospital and is in critical condition.

No instead we get this:

The Virginia Tech massacre was a school shooting comprising two separate attacks about two hours apart on April 16, 2007, on the Virginia Tech campus in Blacksburg, Virginia, United States. The perpetrator, Seung-Hui Cho, killed 32 people and wounded many more,[2] before committing suicide, making it the deadliest school shooting in U.S. history.[3]

Think people!

[edit on 16-2-2008 by KMFNWO]

[edit on 16-2-2008 by KMFNWO]

Originally posted by tac109
reply to post by TheWalkingFox

 

Taking away the guns, will make the criminals have to get out of the car, and go stab the person they wish to harm. They will not say..."well since we dont have guns...I guess ill just forget about this, and go to bed".

No, they don't have to get out of the car. They can just run them down with the car. Oh boy, now we have to control then bar cars.

news.aol.com...

[edit on 2/16/08 by kattraxx]

Originally posted by kattraxx
It sounds as though gun control is being confused with controlling the mentally unstable. Maybe the root problem here is the sad state of mental health care in our country.

Actually, the problem isn't just the lack of mental care, but rather the coerced mental tampering that is happening before our very eyes.

Some kid isn't deemed 'controllable' by a teacher or parent? Give them Ridalin (sp?). Someone is having a bad day? A little pill makes it all go away. This guy who just shot up NIU was reported as being 'erratic' since 'going off his meds'!

So instead of talking about what these LEGAL, PRESCRIPTION DRUGS are doing to us, people start talking about banning the guns? Excuse me while the blood spurts out of my ears...





...OK, that's better. I think I can type again.

Instead of trying to change the Constitution (or simply ignore it), why not try a novel approach? Stop turning the country into a bunch of drug-addicted, popped-up zombies committed for life to paying some pharmaceutical company. At the same time, insist that people actually take responsibility for their actions. It seemed to work 200 years ago. Maybe, just maybe, it would work today.

And for those who still demand an end to all guns, every school shooting since Columbine has occurred in a gun-free zone. Sorry, the verdict is in. Your experiment is a failure. Move on.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by budski

2nd amendment reads, according to wikipedia:
“ A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. ”

also,
"The tradition of securing a military force through a duty of universal military obligation for all able-bodied males follows from the Elizabethan era militia in England.[1][2]

Militia

Where is the need?

There isn't a need, there's a WANT......

It is a right. If living in a free society is too terrifying move to China.

Scenario:

Birdflu outbreak happens. Food supplies are cut off. Out of desperation people turn to looting and violence to eat. Police are non-existent as they are taking care of their own families. The National Guard is in Iraq. You and your neighbors have chosen not to exercise your rights and do not have a means of self defence. You are overrun by looters wielding shovels and axes who kill you, your family and steal everything you had. Another neighborhood organized themselves prior to the event into a militia with a plan. After the looters killed the folks down the street they come to the militia. The looters charge the neighborhood, two are instantly shot dead. The rest run off in panic to look for easier targets.

i believe people have to take responsibility for their actions and not claim "i was temporarily insane at the time' or "i didn't take my medication" etc and use it for an excuse. if you commit a crime you should pay the consequences. unfortunately the sharks(lawyers) will always find an excuse so they can make their $150 an hour.
read many cases of homeowners being sued because they were being robbed and defended their property but the attacker didn't die and sued them. don't want to get shot don't invade someones privacy or attack them. if they had a feeling that person may be armed they might think twice. take a chance. or they can play the lottery might win might not. can they suethe state if they don't win that?

reply to post by kattraxx


Don't forget to ban the hammers, knives, bows & arrows, frying pans, etc etc.


Now..

Owning a gun is a right that is gauranteed in our Constitution. The founders wrote the 2nd amendment in a way they thought could not be misinterpreted. They just did not count on the massive breakdown of education in the US. Also a government program

Beyond the Constitution though is something else. Who gives any man or group of men the power to have absolute control over me or anyone else? The right to bear arms was seen as an undeniable right that all men no matter what country they live in are entitled to. It just only happens to have jurisdiction in the US. The whole premise of our country is that the Constitution was to protect all people from the Government of the United States no matter where they happened to be. To claim that somebody is not entitled to the same freedom as someone else because of the flag they happened to be born under is absurd.

Even if there is an Amendment to the constitution banning guns I will never turn over my firearms willingly. That Amendment would not fly due not only to the fact that the Constitution is only meant to restrain Government not People but because no damn peice of paper is going to tell me I am not allowed to defend myself in the way I see most effective. If there was an Amendment banning crosswalks would you stop using them and risk getting squished by a car just because some group of people in some far away place decided that crosswalks were a bad idea?

The only way to stop gun crime is to have more of the possible victims be armed as well. If you take away guns from the People the criminals and the government will still have guns. If you trust the US gov still you have not been paying attention.

Open carry saves lives and realistically no more people would be carrying guns than there are already. If you are going to carry you do, if not you don't or you are not allowed to because your masters tell you so.

To call for gun control is to do one simple thing. Ask to be made a slave and have everyone else made into a slave just like you. Problem is, just because you want to be no better then an animal on the farm waiting to be fed and taken to the vet, does not mean that all of us want that too.
Do not force me to suffer like you wish to suffer.

Government does not control us. The Majority cannot control us. We are free. All of us. Even you gun control types who wish not to be free are born free.

Gun control is collective punishment. Like murdering a whole village for the crime of one person.

Rant finished.

reply to post by Realtruth


Much agree . . . the whole jump to gun control is predictable on the part of those eager to enslave the rest of us.

There's some who contend that such poor souls are brainwashed into doing such stunts to further the gun control efforts.

How much did violent crime go up--some huge percentage in Australia when they took the guns away.

At least in the Ill U case, when he was reloading, some teacher or carrying student could have dealt with him quite finally sparing some more lives.