Ignorant Liberal Speaks out on Gun Control

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: butcherguy

Proof of what? in Canada most of the recent gun problems here locally are due to handguns coming from the U.S..and that is via an international border..ie what good is gun control in Chicago when they flow freely from surrounding areas with no border.
Just sayin..lol I do not have the answer but the Chicago deal is meaningless unless done nationwide..not saying it would work at this point either.
Cheers.

Here's a question, if guns were the problem why are most of the gun and violent crime occurring in Chicago and not where the guns are suppose to come from? Go look up the top ten cities with the most murder and violent crime and tell me what party are their mayors. Go ahead I'll be waiting.

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: Bennyzilla
So if someone breaks into my house I should hand him my wife and children, just so long as I don't harm him or stand up for myself right? Who am I to shoot the nice man breaking into my home? He probably just wants some help, maybe a job?

Why don't you use a knife? I hear it's just as good at killing people.

Because even if a law were in place that outlawed guns completely, the guy (aka criminal) breaking in would probably have a gun anyway.
If you were the President in the White House and a criminal broke in at night... and he had a gun, would you prefer the Secret Service to be armed with knives?

You bring up good points, I also lean to the left on most issues, but on the right to have guns I'm very conservative, meaning I support that everyone should be allowed to own a gun.

However, I do support longer waiting periods on hand guns, stringent background checks and closing loopholes. If someone buys 50 guns maybe they should be on some kind of watch list or something. Just sensible stuff. Seriously.

When we talk about gun violence though, it's way more complicated. If the government should fund and spend more money on anything, it's mental health. A lot more money. Most people that commit mass shootings are mentally ill, and need help. The signs are always there when we do a post mortem. If these people could have just gotten the medication, evaluations, counseling, therapy or treatment that they needed so many of these shootings would have stopped. Most homeless people are mentally ill or addicts. Mental healthcare people. that's where our money should be going.

Then we need to talk about Chicago...why so much gun violence there? What's the real issue? Why isn't New York City even close to the ammount of violence that Chicago has? That's the key to understanding gun crime, right there.

Of course we'll be seeing lots of "Liberals just want to take my guns!" and "Ask Obama why Chicago has gun crime, stupid Liberals" But those are both stupid statements made by stupid people.

Be reasonable and really think. Most people don't even think about an issue unless it effects them or makes the news. Of course people are going to talk about gun violence after a mass shooting hits the news.

Realistically the US Federal Government could not confiscate all the guns in America. That's an impossibility. So let's talk about the real issues.

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: TsukiLunar

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

-Benjamin Franklin

What are your thoughts on trading liberty for security?

I know that most "liberals" (socialists) are more than willing to trade every other liberty (employment, health care, etc.) for security so, I assume you simply extend the very same logic but, I am curious if this quote holds any value to you.

enough greencmp....don't lump every liberal into the socialist category....the fact that you do, shows that you have a warped sense of their meaning, fed to you by the extreme right. sorry pal, but there are a hell of a lot of us "liberals" that are patriotic Americans, and don't need you, or anyone on the right, to define who we are.

First of all, I don't accept your misuse of the term "liberal", you are not a liberal in the sense that it was coined and is still contextually so in written word.

Show me a big government anti-individualist who is not a socialist.

Your statism is showing.

you are the one that defined "liberal" and right next to it put in parenthesis () socialist, which implies most liberals are socialists....you wrote it, not I....even though Bernie Sanders declares himself to be a socialist....reads the Wikipedia page below under "tenure".....not exactly what a raving socialist would have as a voting record.

en.wikipedia.org...

Actually, I put the word liberal in quotes to indicate that I questioned its correct usage. I put socialist in parentheses to indicate what I think those who misuse the word actually are.

originally posted by: amazing


When we talk about gun violence though, it's way more complicated. If the government should fund and spend more money on anything, it's mental health. A lot more money. Most people that commit mass shootings are mentally ill, and need help. The signs are always there when we do a post mortem. If these people could have just gotten the medication, evaluations, counseling, therapy or treatment that they needed so many of these shootings would have stopped. Most homeless people are mentally ill or addicts. Mental healthcare people. that's where our money should be going.

Quoted as it deserves to be on this thread more than once.

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: butcherguy

Proof of what? in Canada most of the recent gun problems here locally are due to handguns coming from the U.S..and that is via an international border..ie what good is gun control in Chicago when they flow freely from surrounding areas with no border.
Just sayin..lol I do not have the answer but the Chicago deal is meaningless unless done nationwide..not saying it would work at this point either.
Cheers.

So tell me....
How many poppy fields do we have in the US contributing to the heroin trade?

Do you think maybe 100% of the heroin in the US comes from outside our borders???
I DO.

Heroin is not hard to get in the US.

You don't have to fill out a Federal form for a background check either.

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: TsukiLunar

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

-Benjamin Franklin

One of my favourite quotes ever.

Unfortunately, I don't relate liberty to a bunch of people freely walking around me with a "tool" that was designed for the sole purpose of killing... But that's just me.

Other than that, I'm just gonna lurk though this one.

'Backing off slowly, trying hard to not make any sudden movements, which might be interpreted the wrong way.'

Peace

a reply to: TsukiLunar

I definitely think the biggest aspect of the whole gun control debate is cultural. People take the 2nd Amendment totally for granted or completely misunderstand it thinking it is in place to "safeguard against tyranny".

I think people also consider the Constitution to be a sacred document, they have completely forgotten what the word AMENDMENT means. Just because you currently possess a given "right" doesn't make that right sacred or unalterable. At any time if the American people wanted to they could repeal the 2nd Amendment.

I should state that repealing the 2nd Amendment and outlawing guns are not the same thing.

Personally I feel that certain types of guns should be legal to own but I don't feel that it is anyone's RIGHT to own a gun, I simply don't think it makes sense in this age of semi-automatic, hell fully-automatic, weaponry, weaponry that is far beyond the imaginations of the Founders who had just won a war using muskets. And that's the thing, the Constitution is the law of the land but its not some sacred document it was meant to be interpreted and AMENDED, there's no reason to think that an Amendment that created a well regulated militia of minute-men to help defend a young nation from the British and the Native Americans should apply to someone who is buying an AR-15 just because they like to go to the shooting range.

There are viable reasons to own a gun. Many hunters help feed their families and I would not for a moment think to take away their guns. Someone living in a rough neighborhood or any neighborhood at all who wants a handgun for self-defense, I have absolutely 0 problems with this as long as they are responsible with their weapon. But someone who just wants to collect guns or just wants to go to a shooting range, I simply do not understand at all. First off you can collect weapons without having any ammo and can even disable the gun so it never fires live rounds again. In many films they use real guns that have been modified to fire only blanks. For those who just do sport-shooting because it is cathartic or de-stresses them I think there's plenty of non-lethal weapons, paint-ball guns, airsoft guns, etc that can give you a similar rush without ever having to pose a serious threat to the health and lives of those around you.

Think about a chainsaw, a lawnmower, a knife, etc, it should not be anyone's RIGHT to have them even though it is legal to own them. No American has a RIGHT to bear a LAWNMOWER or a knife. In fact there are types of knives that are illegal to carry in many places such as switchblades or any kind of knife with brass knuckles on it. In fact brass knuckles themselves, while not illegal, are illegal to carry. That's right, if you carry brass knuckles even for self-defense you can get in trouble in many places in America.

If people insist that guns MUST remain a right than I think they also must submit to the first part of the Amendment and they should need to be part of a well-regulated militia but of course in America there is no need for a militia. Fantasies of would-be suburban commandos waiting for martial law to kick in so they can fight back against the government are just that, fantasies. These people would be swept under the rug in an age of drone strikes and bunker buster bombs, such a revolution would likely be over before it even began. And, of course, martial law has been held by conspiracy theorists to be coming any day now for decades and decades, the New World Order has failed to start on cue so many times its almost as bad as all the religious apocalypse predictions that have come and gone. At this point the threat of some right-wing militia falsely perceiving the government as tyrannical and becoming a domestic terrorist group is far greater than the government actually doing anything overtly tyrannical.

The biggest threat to sanity is the cultural fetish Americans have over guns, something needs to change on a fundamental level. I think education should be a big part of the change, Americans need to be informed that if it IS going to be your RIGHT to own a gun that you shoulder a BIG BIG responsibility to safeguard innocent lives by using your gun responsibly or not at all.

originally posted by: TsukiLunar

1. My biggest concern is the behavior of the most prominent people in support of basically everyone having a gun. "If someone broke into my house, I would blow them away! " I hear that a lot more than I really thought I ever would. Or talking about rising up against the United States government and going on and on about how there is so much oppression in this country and they just want to blow a dude away.


2. Obviously we are talking about weaponry here and the whole concept pretty much boiling down to the question " should you be able to end my life at any time, just because?" Heh, not sure I feel comfortable with that idea. As a general rule I enjoy existing.

3. I've heard people quoting Einstein a lot lately . And while I haven't checked on the veracity of the quote I appreciate the thought, but it really shouldn't be necessary in this situation. Obviously there is an issue in this country with the shootings and I think gun-control is a reasonable thing to be discussing. The Republicans seem to be wanting to talk about mental health, which is fine, but they don't seem to have any ideas on what to do about it.


4a. There is a good chance many of you have heard argument that is saying " even without guns, people would still kill." And while I think that is true I do not think that is an argument in favor of no gun-control. The logic does not follow.

If guns, knives, spears, swords and halberds were on the same level then we wouldn't have guns to begin with. Guns are obviously very effective at killing people, very little effort and skill on the part of the wielder. Duh, would gun owners even like them if they only stunned?

4b. The following argument is " guns aren't dangerous , it's people that kill people. " There is one big gaping flaw. Just because something is not human does not mean it is not capable of harming you. For instance asbestos has no consciousness, does that mean it not dangerous?

Oh BOY Another one of these threads! And this makes at least 2 from you now!

1. If someone broke into my house I would definitely shoot them. I have 3 kids and a wife and am not taking the chances on guessing whether or not the person breaking in is there to do harm or not. Simply don't break into houses and you will live longer.

2. You have no worry of me ending your life unless you follow similar criteria to the first question, in which case I will shoot you.

3. I don't see the question here and think Einstein should be kept in the science forum. Yes, it is all about mental health issues and related areas. Nobody can suggest anything because the specific issue is not studied as doing so would non-PC and likely violate human rights and protections under healthcare/medical laws. Therefore we must make something the villain.

4a. The logic actually follows perfectly. Any area that has enforced strict gun regulation has seen no significant drop in homicide, some have even gone up. The criminals simply use other means to kill. Australia is a great example of this. If guns are such a massive issue and so many are dying from them, then why was there no massive drop in homicide once regulations were enacted?

4b. Asbestos does not take direct human interaction to kill. Every weapon you mentioned in question 4a require a human to do the deed. Guns do not pull their own triggers nor travel to the places victims reside on their own.

Anywho....I agree with other's sentiments....must be some big anti-gun push going on right now on some underground anti site or something. These threads are popping up like prairie dogs these days!

a reply to: harvestdog

I can avoid your fists. When was the last time you dodge a bullet?

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: TsukiLunar

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

-Benjamin Franklin

One of my favourite quotes ever.

Unfortunately, I don't relate liberty to a bunch of people freely walking around me with a "tool" that was designed for the sole purpose of killing... But that's just me.

Other than that, I'm just gonna lurk though this one.

'Backing off slowly, trying hard to not make any sudden movements, which might be interpreted the wrong way.'

Peace

Would you feel any better if I had a butchers knife or axe in hand walking around?

a reply to: Titen-Sxull

People take the 2nd Amendment totally for granted or completely misunderstand it thinking it is in place to "safeguard against tyranny".

What do you think is the original intent of the 2nd?

And sure Amendments can be repeal there legal ways to do that, but I do not see it happening anytime soon.

look, all of the righties on gun control legislation happening anytime soon, have nothing to worry about because it's a moot point. when 20 elementary school kids were gunned down in sandy hook, and nothing was done....you have nothing to worry about.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: TsukiLunar

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

-Benjamin Franklin

One of my favourite quotes ever.

Unfortunately, I don't relate liberty to a bunch of people freely walking around me with a "tool" that was designed for the sole purpose of killing... But that's just me.

Other than that, I'm just gonna lurk though this one.

'Backing off slowly, trying hard to not make any sudden movements, which might be interpreted the wrong way.'

Peace

Police walk around you all the time and they always have the tools to be able to kill you.

And, sometimes, they do.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: TsukiLunar

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

-Benjamin Franklin

One of my favourite quotes ever.

Unfortunately, I don't relate liberty to a bunch of people freely walking around me with a "tool" that was designed for the sole purpose of killing... But that's just me.

Other than that, I'm just gonna lurk though this one.

'Backing off slowly, trying hard to not make any sudden movements, which might be interpreted the wrong way.'

Peace

Would you feel any better if I had a butchers knife or axe in hand walking around?

Depends on if you are a butcher or a lumberjack.

a reply to: TsukiLunar

Why the sudden concern?

Gun violence is part and parcel of American history, unfortunately. What "laws" do you think will curb violent people from killing other people?

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: TsukiLunar

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

-Benjamin Franklin

One of my favourite quotes ever.

Unfortunately, I don't relate liberty to a bunch of people freely walking around me with a "tool" that was designed for the sole purpose of killing... But that's just me.

Other than that, I'm just gonna lurk though this one.

'Backing off slowly, trying hard to not make any sudden movements, which might be interpreted the wrong way.'

Peace

Would you feel any better if I had a butchers knife or axe in hand walking around?

Depends... How fast can you run?

a reply to: DBCowboy

Laws do nothing the actions that are implemented by them are the things that affect society. I'm tired of hearing this argument this is the last time I will address it.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: TsukiLunar

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

-Benjamin Franklin

One of my favourite quotes ever.

Unfortunately, I don't relate liberty to a bunch of people freely walking around me with a "tool" that was designed for the sole purpose of killing... But that's just me.

Other than that, I'm just gonna lurk though this one.

'Backing off slowly, trying hard to not make any sudden movements, which might be interpreted the wrong way.'

Peace

Would you feel any better if I had a butchers knife or axe in hand walking around?

Depends on if you are a butcher or a lumberjack.

Touche.....and I am neither.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: TsukiLunar

Why the sudden concern?

Gun violence is part and parcel of American history, unfortunately. What "laws" do you think will curb violent people from killing other people?

Can you name a past country/civilization/culture that violence is not a part of? Notice I left "Gun" out simply because violence goes back a lot farther than guns were around. And America is one of the youngest....other areas have shed plenty more blood in the past than us.