America is not banning guns and that is that.

Originally posted by nidstav
I believe some things can be done about high-capacity weapons. That is, semi-automatic things that can fire many bullets without reloading. There can also be laws against the number of guns as well as regulations regarding mental illness. And laws about weapon-lockers. There's many things that can be done without touching the second amendment. Because touching that one is impossible. Congress haven't done much the last year, and I doubt they would cater Obama well if he asked about changing the constitution.

The problem is that mental illness can come in many forms, and unless you're going to subject the entire populus to psychiatric testing (which still wouldn't pick up everyone), then you can't tell who's got problems until they snap, and by then, as in this case, it may well be too late.

Originally posted by Helious
Greetings,

I have read more idiotic posts, blogs and articles than I can stomach the last couple days regarding the very tragic shooting in Connecticut

edit on 15-12-2012 by Helious because: (no reason given)

What the #!

I think banning guns is not such idiotc subject if such events like the connecticut shootings happen.
Your first line makes me sick.

Originally posted by Power_Semi
Since you are all determined to keep your guns, and it's in your constitution, I have a FAR BETTER plan that is 100% guaranteed to work and is a plan where Obama doesn't need to ban guns at all...

It won't work, as its obviously being used as a de-facto ban and is therefore unconstitutional. Civilians have the right to own firearms for traditionally lawful purposes. If you ban ammunition, you circumvent that right. I believe this has actually been decided in federal court in the past. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

But we're putting the cart before the horse. You're going to need Congress to pass a law to that effect. Good luck. The anti-gun crowd has an uphill fight as it is just to get an 'assault' weapons bill passed, much less a de-facto gun ban.

reply to post by Helious


So you're answer is to make guns more readily available.

Wow America is in deep # with people like you about. Let the police do the policing and you just do your job.

Originally posted by newcovenant
reply to post by Helious

 

Who said America is banning guns? I haven't heard it anywhere. I HAVE heard many people calling for gun control and that will come to pass but no one wants to ban guns. People want to make it just a little bit more difficult for crazy people to get their hands on them, which I am sure everyone will agree needs to be done.

That is, however, the disingenuous part of the arguement. Sure they won't "ban" all guns, but the laws they do want will make the practical use of a firearm (and the intent of the second amendment) pretty much null. "See" they will say, "we did not ban guns, you can still have your single shot shotgun to kill the ducks" even though that is pretty much what they will do.

Originally posted by TripleDoubleSingle

Originally posted by Helious
Greetings,

I have read more idiotic posts, blogs and articles than I can stomach the last couple days regarding the very tragic shooting in Connecticut

edit on 15-12-2012 by Helious because: (no reason given)

What the #!

I think banning guns is not such idiotc subject if such events like the connecticut shootings happen.
Your first line makes me sick.

CT already has an assault weapons ban. It has had one since 1994. GUns were banned from the school grounds for all except law enforcement. It is illegal for someone uner 21 to purchase a handgun.

All those laws sure did help, didn't they?

Originally posted by vor78

Originally posted by Power_Semi
Since you are all determined to keep your guns, and it's in your constitution, I have a FAR BETTER plan that is 100% guaranteed to work and is a plan where Obama doesn't need to ban guns at all...

It won't work, as its obviously being used as a de-facto ban and is therefore unconstitutional. Civilians have the right to own firearms for traditionally lawful purposes. If you ban ammunition, you circumvent that right. I believe this has actually been decided in federal court in the past. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

But we're putting the cart before the horse. You're going to need Congress to pass a law to that effect. Good luck. The anti-gun crowd has an uphill fight as it is just to get an 'assault' weapons bill passed, much less a de-facto gun ban.

edit on 17-12-2012 by vor78 because: (no reason given)

Actually it's not unconstitutional at all.

The second amendment says you have the right to bear arms.

Nowhere does it say the right to bear guns. A bow and arrow can be defined as arms, as can a big stick - no one is talking about stopping you from bearing those.

In addition it's been discussed in your courts before what the definition of bearing arms means - it doesn't necessarily mean the right to discharge or use them, to bear arms means literally to carry them.

You could of course also hit someone with your gun/s or throw your gun/s at them - you're still bearing arms in the sense that they're being used as a weapon, but it'll limit the damage a nutter can do with them if they have no bullets.

Which is about how effective they'd be if you tried to take on an unfair government, since they'd have tanks & Apache gunships, your guns would be as effective as peashooters.

Your guns are therefore as redundant as your arguments.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


Appreciate the honest response - the vicious circle you describe was not one I wanted to debate. That's one of the rather bigger "issues".

For me want and need in the context I stated "want" is the same.

Starred your post.

Cheers,
T

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by TripleDoubleSingle

Originally posted by Helious
Greetings,

I have read more idiotic posts, blogs and articles than I can stomach the last couple days regarding the very tragic shooting in Connecticut

edit on 15-12-2012 by Helious because: (no reason given)

What the #!

I think banning guns is not such idiotc subject if such events like the connecticut shootings happen.
Your first line makes me sick.

CT already has an assault weapons ban. It has had one since 1994. GUns were banned from the school grounds for all except law enforcement. It is illegal for someone uner 21 to purchase a handgun.

All those laws sure did help, didn't they?

D'Uh, yah.

Like, if there were NO guns it wouldn't have happened at all Bubba.

You wouldn't need bans on guns on school grounds, because like, no one would have any guns anyway.

But I can see your point Bubba, more guns is the answer, everyone should have at least 3 guns on their person at all times, then the "bad guys" would surely run and hide away.

Originally posted by CaptainBeno
Here is some stats for those who refuse to understand the gravity that is "Shame".

Paranoid nation armed to the teeth.

Interesting to note......Australia Vs America

I see that Switzerland is noticeably absent from that list. I wonder why? An attempt to remove data that does not reflect the underlying agenda?

I notice how all of these stats refer to "gun murder" as if murder by other means was acceptable. A more honest approach is toral murder rates.
Let's look here:
en.wikipedia.org... e_rate

Notice that the US has a murder rate of 4.2, whereas Mexico, with some of the strictest gun control laws in the Americas, has a murder rate of 16.9.
Greenland has strict gun control with a murder rate of 19.
UK has one of 1.2, less than ours, but not that much. Ours have been coming down inthe last decade, the UK's has been going up.
Switzerland, with full auto machine guns in every closet has a murder rate of 0.7.

Originally posted by Power_Semi

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by TripleDoubleSingle

Originally posted by Helious
Greetings,

I have read more idiotic posts, blogs and articles than I can stomach the last couple days regarding the very tragic shooting in Connecticut

edit on 15-12-2012 by Helious because: (no reason given)

What the #!

I think banning guns is not such idiotc subject if such events like the connecticut shootings happen.
Your first line makes me sick.

CT already has an assault weapons ban. It has had one since 1994. GUns were banned from the school grounds for all except law enforcement. It is illegal for someone uner 21 to purchase a handgun.

All those laws sure did help, didn't they?

D'Uh, yah.

Like, if there were NO guns it wouldn't have happened at all Bubba.

You wouldn't need bans on guns on school grounds, because like, no one would have any guns anyway.

But I can see your point Bubba, more guns is the answer, everyone should have at least 3 guns on their person at all times, then the "bad guys" would surely run and hide away.

"Bubba?" Is this what intelligent discourse looks like where you are from?

Originally posted by thePharaoh

Originally posted by ConspiraCity


No, I am not a drunk moron. Yes I carry, a man is just as weak as a woman when you take a round to the chest

edit on 16-12-2012 by ConspiraCity because: (no reason given)

??

ok,,i`ll follow this train (wreck) line of thought

so what do you think will happen if everyone carries

surely they would cancel each other out!....

BTW the more you talk...the more i back gun control...because im not carrying...that fact that you are..is already wrong

peace

edit on 16-12-2012 by thePharaoh because: (no reason given)

That is incorrect. In the US, the areas with the strictest gun control, have the largest homocide rate. Liscensed CCW holders rarely commit unjustified shootings (think about logically for a moment--someone responsible enough to go through the process of getting a liscense and passing the background check is not likely to be the type of person to do an irresponsible or criminal act).

That you choose not to carry is your choice and you should be free to make that choice. It may make you more vulnerable to an assailant, with a knife or club or simply larger than you are, but if you are content with that risk, then you should have every right to do so.

Conversely, if I choose to carry for the protection of myself and my family (trust me, an M.D. who refuses narcotics to junkies in the "oxy-belt" gets many a threat) then it should be my choice and you should not try to take that choice away from me.

Originally posted by vor78
reply to post by newcovenant

 

I wish I could agree, but as soon as it was proven that those weapons are just as dangerous as a semi-auto, they'd be clamoring for a ban on those as well. Don't kid yourself...many of these people have an agenda past a semi-auto ban. That's reason I'm against it; once the precedent is set, they won't ever stop pushing for more and 50 years after a semi-auto ban, people will be lucky if they can own a musket.

And BTW, concerning a point you made to another poster about guns being for lonely open country. I don't necessarily disagree with that. I think it should be a states' rights issue. The problem is the DC wants to cram it down everyone's throat when its not necessary or even wanted throughout much of the country. If they'd leave us the F alone this issue wouldn't be so divisive. I'd be more than happy to support a full gun ban in DC or Massachusetts or California, assuming that's what the people there want, if they weren't trying to extend it to those of us in flyover country that they otherwise barely acknowledge exist except when they're trying to bend us over.

edit on 16-12-2012 by vor78 because: (no reason given)

Very, very, good response.
These are the kinds of discussions we need to be having.

Originally posted by TripleDoubleSingle

Originally posted by Helious
Greetings,

I have read more idiotic posts, blogs and articles than I can stomach the last couple days regarding the very tragic shooting in Connecticut

edit on 15-12-2012 by Helious because: (no reason given)

What the #!

I think banning guns is not such idiotc subject if such events like the connecticut shootings happen.
Your first line makes me sick.

I'm surprised you had time to post, aren't you missing the start of CNN?

reply to post by sprtpilot


To do nothing is not an answer anymore. The only way to put criminals away is to form the law, arrest, prosecute. The babies at Sandy Hook had 10 to 11 bullets in their tiny bodies. Someone, as a grandmother, please explain that to me. What gun right is worth that. NO ONE wants to take away your gun rights. But like any other right, it has to make sense and does not cause harm to others.

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by TripleDoubleSingle

Originally posted by Helious
Greetings,

I have read more idiotic posts, blogs and articles than I can stomach the last couple days regarding the very tragic shooting in Connecticut

edit on 15-12-2012 by Helious because: (no reason given)

What the #!

I think banning guns is not such idiotc subject if such events like the connecticut shootings happen.
Your first line makes me sick.

CT already has an assault weapons ban. It has had one since 1994. GUns were banned from the school grounds for all except law enforcement. It is illegal for someone uner 21 to purchase a handgun.

All those laws sure did help, didn't they?

They sure did.
Mass murders have increased, practically doubled, every year since that ban was lifted.

Originally posted by newcovenant

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by TripleDoubleSingle

Originally posted by Helious
Greetings,

I have read more idiotic posts, blogs and articles than I can stomach the last couple days regarding the very tragic shooting in Connecticut

edit on 15-12-2012 by Helious because: (no reason given)

What the #!

I think banning guns is not such idiotc subject if such events like the connecticut shootings happen.
Your first line makes me sick.

CT already has an assault weapons ban. It has had one since 1994. GUns were banned from the school grounds for all except law enforcement. It is illegal for someone uner 21 to purchase a handgun.

All those laws sure did help, didn't they?

They sure did.
Mass murders have increased, practically doubled, every year since that ban was lifted.

CT did not lift their ban. Still in place. You do realize that during the national AWB, you could still buy full capacity magazines and "assault weapons" just that you couldn't buy any newly manufactured ones with a flash hider and a bayonet lug. You could buy the exact same rifles with the exact same functionality as long as a few cosmetic features were removed and you could buy all the pre-ban rifles you wanted as long as you were willing to pay a little more. Most people do not realize that the 1994 AWB really didn't ban anything, but people buy this falsehood for some reason--most likely due to a lack of understanding and knowlege of the subject matter.

Oh, and for your last bit, you are incorrect,

There is no pattern, there is no increase," says criminologist James Allen Fox of Boston's Northeastern University, who has been studying the subject since the 1980s, spurred by a rash of mass shootings in post offices.

The random mass shootings that get the most media attention are the rarest, Fox says. Most people who die of bullet wounds knew the identity of their killer.

Society moves on, he says, because of our ability to distance ourselves from the horror of the day, and because people believe that these tragedies are "one of the unfortunate prices we pay for our freedoms."

Grant Duwe, a criminologist with the Minnesota Department of Corrections who has written a history of mass murders in America, said that while mass shootings rose between the 1960s and the 1990s, they actually dropped in the 2000s. And mass killings actually reached their peak in 1929, according to his data. He estimates that there were 32 in the 1980s, 42 in the 1990s and 26 in the first decade of the century.

[url=http://news.yahoo.com/no-rise-mass-killings-impact-huge-185700637.html]http://news.yahoo.com/no-rise-mass-killings-impact-huge-185700637.html[/ur l]

reply to post by NavyDoc



Mass Murders Are On The Rise

According to the 2010 FBI crime data, since 1980, single victim killings have dropped by more than 40 percent. While that's very good news, there's a new sobering trend: Mass murders are on the rise. This New York Times article researched the frequency of mass murders. It found during the 20th century there were about one to two mass murders per decade until 1980. Then for no apparent reason they spiked, with nine during the 1980s and 11 in the 1990s. Since the year 2000 there have been at least 26, including the massacre in Aurora, Colorado.

reply to post by Helious


great post. More stars and flags if I could.

Originally posted by newcovenant
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

Mass Murders Are On The Rise

According to the 2010 FBI crime data, since 1980, single victim killings have dropped by more than 40 percent. While that's very good news, there's a new sobering trend: Mass murders are on the rise. This New York Times article researched the frequency of mass murders. It found during the 20th century there were about one to two mass murders per decade until 1980. Then for no apparent reason they spiked, with nine during the 1980s and 11 in the 1990s. Since the year 2000 there have been at least 26, including the massacre in Aurora, Colorado.

Since 1980, which is a bit disingenuous. ALso the definition: (4 or more) considering that the majority of those cited are associated with the illegal drug trade, it does not hold the fact that the mass spree killings are on the rise. Broaden the dedinition and of course you'll expand the numbers.