Night Strike wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:And YOUR attitude is a big reason why it will be those utterly opposed to guns making the decision. Because, when push comes to shove, the safety of my child supercedes your right to have a gun... period. And when you refuse to accept that there is a threat, when there is, then you are part of the problem, not the solution and you leave the solution to those who see the problem as simplistic, that is those who see guns as the problem.
Excuse me? I don't want to harm your child, so why do you magically get the authority to take away my guns? Same for all the other law-abiding citizens out there. I have a Constitutional right to own a gun and your child has a Constitutional right to be alive (well, since you didn't kill him/her prior to birth). You're just going to have to deal with the fact that both rights can and must live in harmony. You do NOT get to take away my rights just because you think I'm going to try to take away yours.
And isn't it telling that not only do I have to work to pay for your health care and birth control, buy only the more expensive products and energy sources that you mandate, I then also have to surrender my right to self-protection just because you have some fantastical notion that people want to hurt you?! How full of yourself can you become?
She has a point actually, and this is what I was trying to tell you earlier. Look back on American history at all the political factions who refused to compromise. How many of them are left today? Even the women's leagues who passed a new Constitutional amendment -prohibition - have disappeared, and each time it was because they refused to compromise. Right up to the end the prohibitioners were asked to compromise, and they wouldn't. And now they are dust. You can keep some things, but if you refuse to budge an inch you'll lose everything. Another example of this is the issue of "state's rights." The South refused to compromise, and now everyone is under Federal authority.
I was just trying to warn you.
Phatscotty wrote:FBI data suggests that the average American is more likely to be killed by “hands, fists” or “feet” than a rifle. That includes assault rifles
This is why my target is hand guns. I'm also from northern Illinois though, and I'm sick of reading about people being shot by hand guns.
I also think that military-style rifles and riot guns should also be banned without extra-special permits, but I'd be willing to listen to arguments.
stahrgazer wrote:Simply stated, this appears to be the divisive argument:
a) Pro-gun-ownership: don't tread on me, I'm not one of the people who caused the problem and any gun is innocent in the right hands, in a closet, in a drawer, in a safe, or in the back of a pickup truck.
b) Anti-gun-ownership: eliminating guns eliminates the problem.
I understand the emotion behind thought b) but the people, not the guns, that are the problem; I could have a cannon or a bazooka instead of my .38 or .45 derringer, and I'd still not be tempted to go massacre an elementary school. Nutsoids, on the other hand, could have a bowling ball and be tempted to bash people with it. Because it's the people, not the guns, that are the problem. And the sad fact is, it's mighty difficult to weed out the "emotionally disturbed" or "mentally challenged" or whatever p.c. term you want to give... people who WILL snap to that level, from those who won't, until they do snap. That's why having an emotional disorder has a "stigma" attached. If people KNOW you have something a little different, they cannot know if that difference is dangerous to them or not.
So do we lock up everyone who acts a little abnormal, knowing that there are millions of people who act a little different but still have no urge to massacre an elementary school? At one time, we did, in places called Asylums, where anyone a little abnormal could be locked away just in case they were "that" type.
The ACLU came along and said, "no, you can't do that," and they had a point.
So, you can't lock the people away
Locking away all the guns might "feel" good to some but it doesn't address the base problem of sudden violent acts and so, doesn't fix the problem.
But who want's to see our government "do nothing" about things like this?
Me.
I want them to "do nothing" if they can't fix the base problem - and we're not scientifically advanced enough yet to see from a brain scan who will and who won't snap to lock only those away.
I disagree completely. Doing nothing is intellectually lazy. John Adams, were he here, would not just look away from a national problem. Now I'm certain that most people with psychological disorders of the violent kind are label as such at an early age by the time they get to high school. It wouldn't be hard to put their names into the national database as non-felons who can't own guns. I know it's not their fault that they were born that way, but I'm sure that someone with violent tendancys would also understand why. But that doesn't solve a lot, since it seems like most of these mass-killers just "snap" at some point, so I would also propose-
2) Ban dealer sales of new handguns. Very very few people hunt with them, and so in private hands they pretty much only exist for killing other people. And! If you can't protect your property with a shotgun or rifle, then you shouldn't have a gun anyway. Anyone who owns a handgun can still sell, trade, gift/inherit theirs. Pretty much just like the '86 ban.
3) Ban large clips, and armor-piercing jackets. Let's not have any repeats of the LA shooting. Why would we even tolerate an arms race between civilians and the police?
4) Eliminate gun shows entirely or allow citizens to directly sue gun manufacturer's who knowingly sell their guns to criminals through gun shows.
5) License guns owners the same way you license cars. With instructor-present tests! How many hours do we make our soldiers spend training with their assault rifles and reverse engineering before they even fire their first bullet?
6) Nationalize our "no sale" list and create penalties for any dealers who sell extraordinary amounts of guns or ammunition without notifying the FBI and screening the purchaser first. Nobody is going to care if a shooting range buys 6000 rounds of "type A " ammo, or even if a civilian does. Just make a little note somewhere that Davie in Illinois is trigger happy sometimes and we're good.
I just think there should be a screening process so that we can check this stuff out before another Batman shooting happens. Nobody should just walk in to a shop, but two pistols and 6000 rounds of ammo without a couple questions being asked.
This is a pretty good compromise I think. You can still buy all the guns and ammo you like, just no new handguns or extended magazines.
stahrgazer wrote:But the reason the assault ban got lifted is because anti-gun folks were trying to push really hard for "more more more" bans, so the pro-gun folks pushed back harder to ensure the 2nd Amendment stays intact.
That's not true. The NRA has infinity lobby dollars, while nobody even knows the name of a single member of the anti-gun lobby. And I would say that this all started in 1959 when 60% of Americans wanted a ban on handguns.
