Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

[stahrgazer]

We've had like, 60 mass shootings plus what, like 100,000 Americans shot to death in the past 20 years. This is not a knee-jerk reaction, this is us not ignoring the problem.

We've had a lot more drunk driving accidents, and non-drunk auto accidents and deaths too, for that matter.

So, are you arguing for a return of Prohibition and are you arguing to replace the family automobile with the family horse-drawn carriage?

I mean, my god, Juan, we've had all these deaths, our government should DO something about banning the cause,
right?

Oh. Wait. It's not the inanimate auto... just like it's not the inanimate guns, that is the causes of these deaths.

Well, if we lock up all citizens, we wouldn't have to worry about which ones would mass murder, maybe that's what the government should do?

It's as foolhardy a knee-jerk reaction as banning rifles because of a nut.

[PLAYER57832]

We've had like, 60 mass shootings plus what, like 100,000 Americans shot to death in the past 20 years. This is not a knee-jerk reaction, this is us not ignoring the problem.

We've had a lot more drunk driving accidents, and non-drunk auto accidents and deaths too, for that matter.

So, are you arguing for a return of Prohibition and are you arguing to replace the family automobile with the family horse-drawn carriage?

I mean, my god, Juan, we've had all these deaths, our government should DO something about banning the cause,
right?

Actually, they have... and this is why the number of drunk drivers has decreased, or remained relatively steady when the number of drivers has increased.

Oh. Wait. It's not the inanimate auto... just like it's not the inanimate guns, that is the causes of these deaths.

Well, if we lock up all citizens, we wouldn't have to worry about which ones would mass murder, maybe that's what the government should do?

It's as foolhardy a knee-jerk reaction as banning rifles because of a nut.

NO ONE is suggesting banning rifles. People are talking about banning high capacity clips and certain, perhaps all automatic weapons.

This is akin to requirements that cars have seatbelts, (even airbags now), roads be constructed safely -- w ith specific types of barriers, speed limit postings, etc, etc, etc.

In fact, looking at how we have quite successfully cut back on drunk driving deaths is a reasonable standard for approaching the problem of gun deaths.

HOWEVER.. it also has to be noted that the very rare, but widely reported mass killings such as we just saw are very different than the "day to day" killings that happen constantly. The reasons, the methods.. and therefore means of prevention differ. The point about limiting some specific guns is that those weapons, almost alone, allow these incidents to go from being local tragedies to mass killings. Note.. I am not saying that is necessarily correct, but I am saying it IS a legitimate question to debate.

[AAFitz]

The second amendment is too important. There is no room for tinkering and playing around with these touchy feely knee-jerk reactions and demands. So is our first amendment for that matter.

That's why they are #1 and #2.

There already is tinkering around with it. The amendment says there is a right to bear arms. To suggest that means any and all arms available is utterly ridiculous.

Obviously, a line needs to be drawn somewhere, is drawn, and does not infringe on the right.

You are just avoiding that altogether, because if you have to discuss the fact that a decision of what types of arms need to be regulated, as they obviously do, your precious semi-auto teddy bears will be on the chopping block.

And as you pointed out, it is the second of example of tinkering with the constitution. Suggesting it cant be tinkered with is, laughable at best. It did the tinkering in the first place.

[AAFitz]

Ya know, there have been slaves who did not mind slavery. Now sure, that doesn't fit the images many people flash to when their mind registers slavery. But I'm not talking about the runaway slave getting punished, or the female slave being taken every night by the owner, but I am talking about the older slaves, the slaves that had been trained for too long to think any other way, the slave who is comfortable in the fact he no longer needs to slave to plant and grow and produce the food, he only needs to consume it at this point, the slave who believed in being a good slave, the slave who would narc out other slaves, just to get an extra biscuit for dinner. They didn't have to do as much work as the younger slaves, and after a while they think they are the head slave, and can boss around other slaves in the name of the slave-owner. The old slave thinks he has it is easy and can relax more, and he thinks his job is to run the plantation when the master is not around, and tell the other slaves how to live and what is the wrong way to do something and that his way is the best way.

That's who you remind me of Fitz. The slave that kissed their masters ass and sold out all their brothers for an an extra biscuit.

And you remind me of a murdering, raping slave owner. So what?

But you're the one that's a sellout, and as I even pointed out in the past, a communist sympathizer. I point out your failings in these posts, for no other reason than to protect my brothers, from the slave owners like you.

All that is irrelevant to the fact that your entire argument holds no water, and is just a hopeful, biased shot in the dark and stopping the inevitable.

And given your predictions in the past, (remember that guy Paul, and Romney) Id say your ability to predict the future is right up there with the Mayans right now.

[AAFitz]

And theres a big difference between a semi-automatic weapon, and your right to bear arms.

You would have a point if it read "The right of the people to keep and bear flintlock muskets shall not be infringed." But it doesn't, so you dont, because you're a cunt.
In defense of country, tyranny or self, you don't bring a knife to a gunfight, douche.

Are you suggesting then, that we should not be infringed of the right to hold any kind of arms? Every kind of weapon? Or, is there a reasonable limit to what kinds of weapons people should be able to arm themselves with?

Oh, and you are a meany weanie.

[AAFitz]

And theres a big difference between a semi-automatic weapon, and your right to bear arms.

You would have a point if it read "The right of the people to keep and bear flintlock muskets shall not be infringed." But it doesn't, so you dont, because you're a cunt.
In defense of country, tyranny or self, you don't bring a knife to a gunfight, douche.

So, where are your missile batteries? Your missile defense system? Why aren't you fighting to legalize nuclear submarines for civilian use? Why do we get military-grade defense systems for civilian use sometimes, but not others?

And my point that I stated earlier that everyone conveniently ignored: The government bans citizens from having the same weapons they have, and then they work to ban all guns from citizens under the guise of the guns the citizens have being unable to withstand the guns the government has. It's all designed to eliminate guns from private citizens, not to protect people.

And you're conveniently ignoring the main point that has been reiterated repeatedly: The right to bear arms does not include all arms, and obviously has to be regulated at some level, and therefore, the amendment cant possibly include all types of guns and arms.

As far as the possible guise or possible motivation, one could just as easily say that you like semiautomatics because you secretly like that so many people get killed by them. Sure, its possible, but its also irrelevant to the current discussion.

The point is, weapons do need to be regulated, and its insane to suggest that the second amendment does not allow for that.

[AAFitz]

We've had like, 60 mass shootings plus what, like 100,000 Americans shot to death in the past 20 years. This is not a knee-jerk reaction, this is us not ignoring the problem.

We've had a lot more drunk driving accidents, and non-drunk auto accidents and deaths too, for that matter.

So, are you arguing for a return of Prohibition and are you arguing to replace the family automobile with the family horse-drawn carriage?

I mean, my god, Juan, we've had all these deaths, our government should DO something about banning the cause,
right?

Oh. Wait. It's not the inanimate auto... just like it's not the inanimate guns, that is the causes of these deaths.

Well, if we lock up all citizens, we wouldn't have to worry about which ones would mass murder, maybe that's what the government should do?

It's as foolhardy a knee-jerk reaction as banning rifles because of a nut.

Actually, its a reasonable well thought out movement, that has existed for many years.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

So is protecting your home from an intruder with a handgun. That's a fantasy too. This country isn't full of roving bandits just waiting to enter your home and ruin your life.

Lol. Have you never had somebody try to break in to your house? I can pretty much guarantee that you would reach for a handgun should it ever happen to you.

-TG

[Juan_Bottom]

So is protecting your home from an intruder with a handgun. That's a fantasy too. This country isn't full of roving bandits just waiting to enter your home and ruin your life.

Lol. Have you never had somebody try to break in to your house? I can pretty much guarantee that you would reach for a handgun should it ever happen to you.

-TG

Yeah, that's the fantasy.

But I would re-iterate to you day dreamers that if you can't protect your home with a shotgun or rifle then you shouldn't have any gun.

[crispybits]

Quick question, but why is live ammunition still allowed for civilians?

There's loads of ammo like rubber bullets and beanbag rounds that can incapacitate without as much risk of killing that could be used as effective self-defence while also limiting the lethality of criminal use. Why not just restrict civilian ammo sales to only ammo designed for this non-lethal form of incapacitation? (I know people can still be killed by rubber bullets but it's less likely than with a standard round)

You could even still go hunting with it, shoot the animal, it goes down, move in with a taser to keep the animal down and use a very short range bolt gun to the brain for the kill (and yes criminals could still do this to people but it's a hell of a lot more time consuming and prone to interruption than just shooting someone)

[Phatscotty]

[Phatscotty]

And theres a big difference between a semi-automatic weapon, and your right to bear arms.

You would have a point if it read "The right of the people to keep and bear flintlock muskets shall not be infringed." But it doesn't, so you dont, because you're a cunt.
In defense of country, tyranny or self, you don't bring a knife to a gunfight, douche.

So, where are your missile batteries? Your missile defense system? Why aren't you fighting to legalize nuclear submarines for civilian use? Why do we get military-grade defense systems for civilian use sometimes, but not others?

And my point that I stated earlier that everyone conveniently ignored: The government bans citizens from having the same weapons they have, and then they work to ban all guns from citizens under the guise of the guns the citizens have being unable to withstand the guns the government has. It's all designed to eliminate guns from private citizens, not to protect people.

And you're conveniently ignoring the main point that has been reiterated repeatedly: The right to bear arms does not include all arms, and obviously has to be regulated at some level, and therefore, the amendment cant possibly include all types of guns and arms.

One thing we do know, that you guys ignore, is that rifles are absolutely understood to be the ground zero of the type of arms the amendment states.

You guys keep bringing up fighter jets and nuclear bombs, except nobody is arguing that citizens should be able to purchase nuclear bombs. So it's more of the same BS.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

So is protecting your home from an intruder with a handgun. That's a fantasy too. This country isn't full of roving bandits just waiting to enter your home and ruin your life.

Lol. Have you never had somebody try to break in to your house? I can pretty much guarantee that you would reach for a handgun should it ever happen to you.

-TG

Yeah, that's the fantasy.

But I would re-iterate to you day dreamers that if you can't protect your home with a shotgun or rifle then you shouldn't have any gun.

Okay, dude. Could you tell me what measures your town is taking that it's completely deterred home invasions? Because it's happening every day here in the real world. Handgun vs. rifle is a moot argument; self-defense is self-defense.

-TG

[Juan_Bottom]

My community's last lethal home invasion was 1986, when some dudes from outside of our community pulled up to a farmhouse and killed a kid who was working there and stole $200 worth of frozen meat and some petty cash. Freeport, the local big city, has had a whole bunch of home invasions these last two years, all by people looking to steal something to sell for cash. They aren't breaking into people's homes to kill anyone. That is something that is very rare. To my knowledge, there's never been a home invasion since 1986 where the criminal knew someone was home.

Now, there are shootings all the time in Freeport, and it seems like the local paper is always running the same story about a "handgun found in abandoned lot." These shootings are done with cheap disposable handguns, which is far and away the choice weapon in crime. I wouldn't be surprised if it was the choice weapon for male suicides either.
So if you can just as well defend your house from imaginary murderous home-invading thugs, then why not ban new handgun sales and make crime safer?

[Juan_Bottom]

and of course, my arguments aren't about what's best for my community, because, as I said, we've had no home invasions since '86. My arguments are about what's best for America.

[Night Strike]

Obviously, a line needs to be drawn somewhere, is drawn, and does not infringe on the right.

So why must we always redraw the line to involve more governmental controls and less individual freedom? Why does the line rarely, if ever, move closer to individual freedoms? And this goes for all areas of the government, not just gun control.

[Phatscotty]

How to stop a massacre.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

So if you can just as well defend your house from imaginary murderous home-invading thugs, then why not ban new handgun sales and make crime safer?

Because it won't make a lick of difference, and why should I give up my ability to purchase a firearm? And it's not imaginary. Home invasions happen every day. It happened to me about five years ago.

Deciding to ban handguns is a short-sighted, ultimately ineffectual measure. You're treating the symptom, not the disease.

and of course, my arguments aren't about what's best for my community, because, as I said, we've had no home invasions since '86. My arguments are about what's best for America.

How altruistic of you.

-TG

[Phatscotty]

[HapSmo19]

and of course, my arguments aren't about what's best for my community, because, as I said, we've had no home invasions since '86. My arguments are about what's best for America.

You,...leaving?

[Night Strike]

Click image to enlarge.

http://www.news10.net/news/article/222195/2/1-dead-in-Sacramento-home-invasion

[comic boy]

3 suspicious characters were outside my house last night , I ignored them , they moved on and nobody got hurt or died.

[Night Strike]

3 suspicious characters were outside my house last night , I ignored them , they moved on and nobody got hurt or died.

Good thing they ignored you too and didn't break into your house.

[comic boy]

3 suspicious characters were outside my house last night , I ignored them , they moved on and nobody got hurt or died.

Good thing they ignored you too and didn't break into your house.

Good thing that Im not paranoid you mean

[CreepersWiener]

More Holiday gun killings. More reasons stricter gun control laws are needed!

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/2012/ ... story.html