Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

[stahrgazer]

If you think I am incorrect make the opposite case,I don't cram anything down your throat,you are an adult and should be able to handle robust discussion..it's not as if you hold back your own opinions which I might call bullshit.
Your country has a lot of power globally which it exercises regularly just like all superpowers have historically..that is the reality.It's the hypocrisy that sticks in my throat more than anything.The BS about promoting democracy,freedom and liberty,etc.It's all so vomit inducingly phoney.

Yes, it's reality that the United States has exercised its power globally since WWII.

It's inaccurate, however, to say that it's "hypocrisy" or "vomit inducingly phoney."

We may have backed the wrong leaders from time to time, but when we back a leader, it is to promote democracy, freedom, and liberty - starting with our own, of course.

[chang50]

If you think I am incorrect make the opposite case,I don't cram anything down your throat,you are an adult and should be able to handle robust discussion..it's not as if you hold back your own opinions which I might call bullshit.
Your country has a lot of power globally which it exercises regularly just like all superpowers have historically..that is the reality.It's the hypocrisy that sticks in my throat more than anything.The BS about promoting democracy,freedom and liberty,etc.It's all so vomit inducingly phoney.

Yes, it's reality that the United States has exercised its power globally since WWII.

It's inaccurate, however, to say that it's "hypocrisy" or "vomit inducingly phoney."

We may have backed the wrong leaders from time to time, but when we back a leader, it is to promote democracy, freedom, and liberty - starting with our own, of course.

I'm sorry but that's simply untrue.Have you looked into any of the examples listed by Juan earlier?Greneda,Guatemala,etc.etc...the US has regularly backed vile dictators like Pinochet in Chile when it suited them.That is how superpowers behave,just please don't pretend there is something noble motivating it..

[stahrgazer]

If you think I am incorrect make the opposite case,I don't cram anything down your throat,you are an adult and should be able to handle robust discussion..it's not as if you hold back your own opinions which I might call bullshit.
Your country has a lot of power globally which it exercises regularly just like all superpowers have historically..that is the reality.It's the hypocrisy that sticks in my throat more than anything.The BS about promoting democracy,freedom and liberty,etc.It's all so vomit inducingly phoney.

Yes, it's reality that the United States has exercised its power globally since WWII.

It's inaccurate, however, to say that it's "hypocrisy" or "vomit inducingly phoney."

We may have backed the wrong leaders from time to time, but when we back a leader, it is to promote democracy, freedom, and liberty - starting with our own, of course.

I'm sorry but that's simply untrue.Have you looked into any of the examples listed by Juan earlier?Greneda,Guatemala,etc.etc...the US has regularly backed vile dictators like Pinochet in Chile when it suited them.That is how superpowers behave,just please don't pretend there is something noble motivating it..

We may have backed the wrong leaders from time to time, but when we back a leader, it is to promote democracy, freedom, and liberty - starting with our own, of course.

[chang50]

If you think I am incorrect make the opposite case,I don't cram anything down your throat,you are an adult and should be able to handle robust discussion..it's not as if you hold back your own opinions which I might call bullshit.
Your country has a lot of power globally which it exercises regularly just like all superpowers have historically..that is the reality.It's the hypocrisy that sticks in my throat more than anything.The BS about promoting democracy,freedom and liberty,etc.It's all so vomit inducingly phoney.

Yes, it's reality that the United States has exercised its power globally since WWII.

It's inaccurate, however, to say that it's "hypocrisy" or "vomit inducingly phoney."

We may have backed the wrong leaders from time to time, but when we back a leader, it is to promote democracy, freedom, and liberty - starting with our own, of course.

I'm sorry but that's simply untrue.Have you looked into any of the examples listed by Juan earlier?Greneda,Guatemala,etc.etc...the US has regularly backed vile dictators like Pinochet in Chile when it suited them.That is how superpowers behave,just please don't pretend there is something noble motivating it..

We may have backed the wrong leaders from time to time, but when we back a leader, it is to promote democracy, freedom, and liberty - starting with our own, of course.

Even that is debatable,Americans IMHO often overstate how much freedom and liberty they have at home.It might be more accurate to say when you back a leader it is to promote the strategic economic interests of the industrial military complex and corporate America generally.

[stahrgazer]

Even that is debatable,Americans IMHO often overstate how much freedom and liberty they have at home.It might be more accurate to say when you back a leader it is to promote the strategic economic interests of the industrial military complex and corporate America generally.

The "industrial military complex" has no particular strategic economic interest, although it can affect the economics of corporate America.

And? So? Again, the United States used to be Isolationist. Hitler, the rest of the world, and Japan changed our perspective in WWII and now that we no longer have an Isolationist perspective, we try to gain allies in every region by backing someone in hopes we won't have to repeat WWII or, worse, fail to act in time and let the next Hitler truly take over the world. Mistakes made, surely, but that's still the reason we do it.

[chang50]

Even that is debatable,Americans IMHO often overstate how much freedom and liberty they have at home.It might be more accurate to say when you back a leader it is to promote the strategic economic interests of the industrial military complex and corporate America generally.

The "industrial military complex" has no particular strategic economic interest, although it can affect the economics of corporate America.

And? So? Again, the United States used to be Isolationist. Hitler, the rest of the world, and Japan changed our perspective in WWII and now that we no longer have an Isolationist perspective, we try to gain allies in every region by backing someone in hopes we won't have to repeat WWII or, worse, fail to act in time and let the next Hitler truly take over the world. Mistakes made, surely, but that's still the reason we do it.

Without American military involvement in other countries the complex would be less powerful surely?You talk of 'mistakes'made but cannot see a more sinister pattern.If you are correct this reveals incompetence on a gargantuan scale that is not credible for a superpower,and should give all Americans real cause for concern.

[stahrgazer]

Even that is debatable,Americans IMHO often overstate how much freedom and liberty they have at home.It might be more accurate to say when you back a leader it is to promote the strategic economic interests of the industrial military complex and corporate America generally.

The "industrial military complex" has no particular strategic economic interest, although it can affect the economics of corporate America.

And? So? Again, the United States used to be Isolationist. Hitler, the rest of the world, and Japan changed our perspective in WWII and now that we no longer have an Isolationist perspective, we try to gain allies in every region by backing someone in hopes we won't have to repeat WWII or, worse, fail to act in time and let the next Hitler truly take over the world. Mistakes made, surely, but that's still the reason we do it.

Without American military involvement in other countries the complex would be less powerful surely?You talk of 'mistakes'made but cannot see a more sinister pattern.If you are correct this reveals incompetence on a gargantuan scale that is not credible for a superpower,and should give all Americans real cause for concern.

Well, since on most of our actions, other countries agreed with us, I guess that can give the entire world cause for concern.

What "sinister" pattern... promoting US interests? I don't view that as "sinister." Nor do I see it as that much different than any other country would do, or have done, when they have the means to do it.

But I'll grant you this: "power" as in "economic power" has combined a little too much with "political power" and not just in America; but the two combined do invite some "sinister" plotting, some of which may already be being carried out.

And to me, that's just one more reason why stiffer gun control/bannings are NOT in order.

[chang50]

Even that is debatable,Americans IMHO often overstate how much freedom and liberty they have at home.It might be more accurate to say when you back a leader it is to promote the strategic economic interests of the industrial military complex and corporate America generally.

The "industrial military complex" has no particular strategic economic interest, although it can affect the economics of corporate America.

And? So? Again, the United States used to be Isolationist. Hitler, the rest of the world, and Japan changed our perspective in WWII and now that we no longer have an Isolationist perspective, we try to gain allies in every region by backing someone in hopes we won't have to repeat WWII or, worse, fail to act in time and let the next Hitler truly take over the world. Mistakes made, surely, but that's still the reason we do it.

Without American military involvement in other countries the complex would be less powerful surely?You talk of 'mistakes'made but cannot see a more sinister pattern.If you are correct this reveals incompetence on a gargantuan scale that is not credible for a superpower,and should give all Americans real cause for concern.

Well, since on most of our actions, other countries agreed with us, I guess that can give the entire world cause for concern.

Only if you are naive enough to regard them as mistakes in the first place....


What "sinister" pattern... promoting US interests? I don't view that as "sinister." Nor do I see it as that much different than any other country would do, or have done, when they have the means to do it.

I've been saying that all along,there is only a more sinister pattern if you believe the US is particularly interested in promoting democracy freedom or liberty..


But I'll grant you this: "power" as in "economic power" has combined a little too much with "political power" and not just in America; but the two combined do invite some "sinister" plotting, some of which may already be being carried out.

Agreed..but the two cannot be seperated...


And to me, that's just one more reason why stiffer gun control/bannings are NOT in order.

So carry on,how's that working out for you guys?...

[patches70]

but cannot see a more sinister pattern.

There you go again with this sinister stuff about the US government.

Answer this, if the US government is so sinister, then why would it be wise for the citizens to turn over our guns to this sinister government? If the government is so sinister, why would anyone trust their reasons for gun control in any event?

You endorse this sinister government to control everyone's guns?

Now, I happen to agree somewhat that the government is up to some pretty sinister stuff, not so much out of intentional evil, more like gross incompetence. But that's neither here nor there. Why should anyone trust these idiots control anything?

[chang50]

but cannot see a more sinister pattern.

There you go again with this sinister stuff about the US government.

Answer this, if the US government is so sinister, then why would it be wise for the citizens to turn over our guns to this sinister government? If the government is so sinister, why would anyone trust their reasons for gun control in any event?

You endorse this sinister government to control everyone's guns?

Now, I happen to agree somewhat that the government is up to some pretty sinister stuff, not so much out of intentional evil, more like gross incompetence. But that's neither here nor there. Why should anyone trust these idiots control anything?

Way to go taking quotes out of context,I used that word as a response to SG claiming that the US backing the wrong leaders was nothing more than a mistake.I don't think the US govt. is more sinister than most others,we just see the effects more as it is a superpower.
Whether you keep your guns or hand them over will not make a noticeable difference to what the govt. can or cannot do.I know some Americans believe otherwise but it is a silly and potentially dangerous fantasy.
If you cannot see the value in sensible gun regulation aimed at restricting easy access by criminals ok carry on,the present set up must be working so well..

[patches70]

Way to go taking quotes out of context,I used that word as a response to SG claiming that the US backing the wrong leaders was nothing more than a mistake.I don't think the US govt. is more sinister than most others,

Really?

proclaiming to love freedom and liberty so much yet helping the vilest of dictators who dance to your tune and protect your global economic interests.

Here you seem to be saying that the Us talks out of two mouths. Yes?
So why should the citizens trust the government that, in your words, "helping the vilest of dictators"? Dictatorial regimes don't like their citizens to have guns, generally speaking.
Why is that?


You are Thailand, right? Thailand has one of the highest murder rates with firearms, far out doing the US actually. Thailand crime in other areas are far better, but in murder (with guns), a nice high number.



So how is reasonable gun control measures working for ya? Maybe you should take your pro gun control message to your own country and not worry about the US so much.

LOL.

Jeez, you Thais really love shooting each other.....

*Overall, Thais seem like a decent people, IMO. The thing is, there are scum bags in every society. Disarming law abiding citizens is stupid, because there are evil people in the world. Governments are certainly included in that. There are already tons of laws to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, but guess what? Criminals don't care about laws. Make all you want, it only hampers those who are willing to obey the laws.

You've railed on about how terrible, immoral and unethical the US government is through her actions and yet you advocate turning over even more gun control to those same people. It makes absolutely no sense.

Just look at what government debate about gun control has done just in recent weeks. It's caused massive sales in guns. Because the government threatens more gun control facilitates ever greater dissemination of guns. The exact opposite effect of what they are trying (and you seem to wish) to achieve. Again, just a case of gross incompetence. The government can't find their ass with both hands, flashlight and a map to their butthole. And you want to trust these idiots?

You are a funny, funny person.

[chang50]

Way to go taking quotes out of context,I used that word as a response to SG claiming that the US backing the wrong leaders was nothing more than a mistake.I don't think the US govt. is more sinister than most others,[/quotYes really.......

proclaiming to love freedom and liberty so much yet helping the vilest of dictators who dance to your tune and protect your global economic interests.

Here you seem to be saying that the Us talks out of two mouths. Yes?
So why should the citizens trust the government that, in your words, "helping the vilest of dictators"? Dictatorial regimes don't like their citizens to have guns, generally speaking.
Why is that?

Most certainly your govt. talks out of two mouths as you put it,don't they all?It's not a matter of trust, how does private citizens owning guns make a difference to how your govt. operates?...


You are Thailand, right? Thailand has one of the highest murder rates with firearms, far out doing the US actually. Thailand crime in other areas are far better, but in murder (with guns), a nice high number.

Agreed so?




So how is reasonable gun control measures working for ya? Maybe you should take your pro gun control message to your own country and not worry about the US so much.

My country has strict gun control laws already,thank you.............and it's hardly my fault if nearly all the topics here revolve around one country

LOL.

Jeez, you Thais really love shooting each other.....

Is this directed at me,because you seem under a misapprehension that I am Thai?

*Overall, Thais seem like a decent people, IMO. The thing is, there are scum bags in every society. Disarming law abiding citizens is stupid, because there are evil people in the world. Governments are certainly included in that. There are already tons of laws to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, but guess what? Criminals don't care about laws. Make all you want, it only hampers those who are willing to obey the laws.

You've railed on about how terrible, immoral and unethical the US government is through her actions and yet you advocate turning over even more gun control to those same people. It makes absolutely no sense.

To you which means the argument probably has a lot of merit..........

Just look at what government debate about gun control has d
one just in recent weeks. It's caused massive sales in guns. Because the government threatens more gun control facilitates ever greater dissemination of guns. The exact opposite effect of what they are trying (and you seem to wish) to achieve. Again, just a case of gross incompetence. The government can't find their ass with both hands, flashlight and a map to their butthole. And you want to trust these idiots?

You are a funny, funny person.

Can't return the compliment,people who think like you are way past satire........

[patches70]

Can't return the compliment,people who think like you are way past satire........

I'm just asking why anyone should trust the government, especially in light of your very own criticisms of the US government's actions in the past?

How do you rectify your two viewpoints, the first being that the government acts only in it's own self interests with no regard to the harm they cause and on the other hand more power should be given to them over individual's lives on whether or not a law abiding person should be, is able to, purchase a firearm for whatever reason that individual deems?

I mean, I'm with ya on the shady aspect of government actions. Hell yeah, the US government has engaged in some less than wise and downright immoral activities. Such as over throwing foreign governments with little regard to blowback. You lose me when you seem to want government to tell everyone what they can and can't own. Your justification is that it's better for people, (as it is the government's), but how can you know what is best for anyone other than yourself?
Does the government know what's best for me better than I know for myself?
Do you know what's best for my own protection than I do myself?

I just don't see how you can make that leap. Or how you can think that government can be trusted. We are talking about the US government here, the same guys who can't even balance a checkbook.
We are also talking about local governments so strapped for cash that they are cutting back on things like police. Cutbacks that are releasing prisoners because there isn't enough money to house the criminals. And you think it's a good idea to let these same incompetent idiots to tell law abiding citizens if, how many and what kinds of firearms that law abiding citizens can have?

It makes no sense. Can you somehow clarify?

[spurgistan]

Can't return the compliment,people who think like you are way past satire........

We are also talking about local governments so strapped for cash that they are cutting back on things like police. Cutbacks that are releasing prisoners because there isn't enough money to house the criminals. And you think it's a good idea to let these same incompetent idiots to tell law abiding citizens if, how many and what kinds of firearms that law abiding citizens can have?

It makes no sense. Can you somehow clarify?

I've never heard of this happening, prisons are usually the best recession-proof industry to be in. Also, yes, I think the government, for all it's faults, does a better job of determining who is capable of responsibly operating a firearm than the "free" market. Saying that the government is incapable of winning land wars in Asia (inconceivable!) is entirely different than saying that our government is incapable of granting gun licenses, which, given how many guns there are in the US, you have to wonder if this isn't, oh, I don't know, right-wing hysteria.

[Night Strike]

I guess this woman should have just pled with the crowbar-wielding ex-con to go away and leave her and her kids unharmed?

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

The Loganville mother of two assumed the knocks on her front door Friday afternoon were from a solicitor.

“Don’t answer,” she yelled to her 9-year-old twins playing downstairs.

When the visitor began repeatedly ringing the doorbell, she called her husband at work.

“Get the kids and hide,” he told his wife.

As he dialed 911, his 37-year-old spouse, who works from home, collected the children and hid with them in a crawlspace adjoining her office. By that time, the intruder had forced his way into the three-story residence on Henderson Ridge Drive with a crowbar, authorities said. He allegedly rummaged through the home, eventually working his way up to the attic office.

“He opens the closet door and finds himself staring down the barrel of a .38 revolver,” said Walton County Sheriff Joe Chapman, who relayed the woman’s narrative to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. He asked that her name be withheld.

The woman fired six bullets, five of which hit Paul Ali Slater in the face and neck area, Chapman said. But Slater was still conscious.

“The guy’s face down, crying,” the sheriff said. The woman told him to stay down or she’d shoot again.

Slater, unaware that she had emptied her chamber, obliged as the mother and her children ran to a neighbor’s house.

The injured burglar eventually made it out of the home and into his car, driving away before deputies arrived on the scene. He didn’t get far.

“When you got five bullets in you, it makes you kind of disoriented,” Chapman told the AJC.

Deputies found Slater bleeding profusely in a neighbor’s driveway.

“I’m dying. Help me,” he told them, according to Chapman.

Slater was transported to Gwinnett Medical Center and is expected to survive, the sheriff said.

The Long Island native, who now lives in Gwinnett County, was released from the Gwinnett jail in late August after serving six months for simple battery and three counts of probation violation. Slater has six other arrests in Gwinnett dating back to 2008, according to jail records.

“My wife’s a hero,” the woman’s husband, Donnie Herman, told Channel 2 Action News in a brief statement. He did not respond to a request for comment from the AJC. “She protected her kids. She did what she was supposed to do.”

Chapman remarked that one of his deputies, impressed with the woman’s resolve, told the sheriff she had handled her first shooting better than he had.

“That mother’s instinct kicked in,” Chapman said. “You go after a mother’s kids and she’ll find herself capable of doing things she never thought she was capable of.”

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/mother-of-two-surprises-burglar-with-five-gunshots/nTnGR/

[patches70]

I've never heard of this happening, prisons are usually the best recession-proof industry to be in.

You should probably pay more attention then-

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... 4169,d.b2I

Every State is different, California has it bad, but they aren't the only one's being forced to release prisoners because they don't have enough money to hold them. Murderers even are being let free.

Also, yes, I think the government, for all it's faults, does a better job of determining who is capable of responsibly operating a firearm than the "free" market. Saying that the government is incapable of winning land wars in Asia (inconceivable!) is entirely different than saying that our government is incapable of granting gun licenses, which, given how many guns there are in the US, you have to wonder if this isn't, oh, I don't know, right-wing hysteria.

Now, to be fair, your quotes in this thread in relation to the US hasn't been "land wars in Asia" but rather the horrible double talk of supposedly standing for freedom and Liberty on the one hand while on the other hand supporting dictators around the world and deposing legitimate governments around the world. How did you put it? "For their own self interests"?

I don't know but that's a serious issue of trust there, don't you think?
But hey, if you want to have contradictory views of the world then by all means. But you can't escape the fact that the government discourse since this last gun shooting hasn't led to an increased desire to rid ourselves of firearms. It's had the exact opposite effect with record gun sales in many States.

The politicians in the US are for the most part ideologues, liars, sycophants, degenerates, power hungry, greedy, instigating fools. Congress has an approval rating of around 18%. LMAO. People don't trust the government. How you can is a mystery since you seem to be forgetting everything you supposedly believe about the government when faced with this one issue.

But hey, keep bowing at the alter of the supremacy of government. Don't forget, our government put 1000's of weapons into the hands of Mexican drug cartels over the objections of the gun dealers who were told by the DEA to allow said gun sales. 100's of people were then subsequently murdered with those weapons including at least one US border agent. And did all this without informing the Mexican government.
Yeah, the US government is capable of doing a great job with gun control........

[patches70]

I guess this woman should have just pled with the crowbar-wielding ex-con to go away and leave her and her kids unharmed?

show

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/mother-of-two-surprises-burglar-with-five-gunshots/nTnGR/

ha! That guy is lucky to be alive. Shot in the face, damn. I wonder what kind of ammunition she was using? Probably wadcutters. Low velocity, but effective in this case, certainly. LOL. Dumb bastard. Probably shouldn't have gone breaking into people's homes. He should have consulted his local newspaper first, make sure it wasn't a house that had a gun......

Well, good for her, I say. Now lets hope she doesn't get sued by the home invader.

[Ray Rider]

I've never heard of this happening, prisons are usually the best recession-proof industry to be in.

You should probably pay more attention then-

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... 4169,d.b2I

Every State is different, California has it bad, but they aren't the only one's being forced to release prisoners because they don't have enough money to hold them. Murderers even are being let free.

Also, yes, I think the government, for all it's faults, does a better job of determining who is capable of responsibly operating a firearm than the "free" market. Saying that the government is incapable of winning land wars in Asia (inconceivable!) is entirely different than saying that our government is incapable of granting gun licenses, which, given how many guns there are in the US, you have to wonder if this isn't, oh, I don't know, right-wing hysteria.

Now, to be fair, your quotes in this thread in relation to the US hasn't been "land wars in Asia" but rather the horrible double talk of supposedly standing for freedom and Liberty on the one hand while on the other hand supporting dictators around the world and deposing legitimate governments around the world. How did you put it? "For their own self interests"?

I don't know but that's a serious issue of trust there, don't you think?
But hey, if you want to have contradictory views of the world then by all means. But you can't escape the fact that the government discourse since this last gun shooting hasn't led to an increased desire to rid ourselves of firearms. It's had the exact opposite effect with record gun sales in many States.

The politicians in the US are for the most part ideologues, liars, sycophants, degenerates, power hungry, greedy, instigating fools. Congress has an approval rating of around 18%. LMAO. People don't trust the government. How you can is a mystery since you seem to be forgetting everything you supposedly believe about the government when faced with this one issue.

But hey, keep bowing at the alter of the supremacy of government. Don't forget, our government put 1000's of weapons into the hands of Mexican drug cartels over the objections of the gun dealers who were told by the DEA to allow said gun sales. 100's of people were then subsequently murdered with those weapons including at least one US border agent. And did all this without informing the Mexican government.
Yeah, the US government is capable of doing a great job with gun control........

/end of discussion.

Btw, according to Rassmussen, Congress' approval rating is at 5%.

[stahrgazer]

but cannot see a more sinister pattern.

There you go again with this sinister stuff about the US government.

Answer this, if the US government is so sinister, then why would it be wise for the citizens to turn over our guns to this sinister government? If the government is so sinister, why would anyone trust their reasons for gun control in any event?

You endorse this sinister government to control everyone's guns?

Now, I happen to agree somewhat that the government is up to some pretty sinister stuff, not so much out of intentional evil, more like gross incompetence. But that's neither here nor there. Why should anyone trust these idiots control anything?

Way to go taking quotes out of context,I used that word as a response to SG claiming that the US backing the wrong leaders was nothing more than a mistake.I don't think the US govt. is more sinister than most others,we just see the effects more as it is a superpower.
Whether you keep your guns or hand them over will not make a noticeable difference to what the govt. can or cannot do.I know some Americans believe otherwise but it is a silly and potentially dangerous fantasy.
If you cannot see the value in sensible gun regulation aimed at restricting easy access by criminals ok carry on,the present set up must be working so well..

He didn't take the quote "out of context." You believe the US Government indulges in "sinister" activities.

Criminals are already not supposed to have guns; all more gun control would do is make otherwise law-abiding citizens fall into the ranks of criminals, me for instance, because I am NOT giving up my arms because of some maniac who'd find other means to kill because he's on some sort of maniacal power trip and thinks killing near-babies shows off "powah."

SENSIBLE gun restriction already exists in the United States.
1) Any known felons are not supposed to have guns.
2) Guns used, even in lesser crimes cause a stiffer penalty, and result in all guns by the perpetrator being confiscated.
3) Most states require a permit to carry concealed weapons.
4) Weapons cannot legally be transported across state lines without extreme restrictions.

But "sensible" and "maniac" do not go together. If the maniac at Sandy Hook had been "sensible" about things, he wouldn't have stolen guns, wouldn't have killed his momma, wouldn't have broken a glass door to get in, wouldn't have killed teachers and administrators at a little kids' school, and most certainly, wouldn't have shot holes in about 20 nearly-babies.

The answer is NOT "nonsensical gun restrictions," either - which is what you propose when you would like to demand the government to restrict arms from law-abiding citizens. The ultimate answer is for medical science to progress to the point that they can detect and stop these maniacs before they get started.

[Phatscotty]

The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun

IN! before the executive vice president of the National Rifle Association

[chang50]

Can't return the compliment,people who think like you are way past satire........

I'm just asking why anyone should trust the government, especially in light of your very own criticisms of the US government's actions in the past?

How do you rectify your two viewpoints, the first being that the government acts only in it's own self interests with no regard to the harm they cause and on the other hand more power should be given to them over individual's lives on whether or not a law abiding person should be, is able to, purchase a firearm for whatever reason that individual deems?

I mean, I'm with ya on the shady aspect of government actions. Hell yeah, the US government has engaged in some less than wise and downright immoral activities. Such as over throwing foreign governments with little regard to blowback. You lose me when you seem to want government to tell everyone what they can and can't own. Your justification is that it's better for people, (as it is the government's), but how can you know what is best for anyone other than yourself?
Does the government know what's best for me better than I know for myself?
Do you know what's best for my own protection than I do myself?

just don't see how you can make that leap. Or how you can think that government can be trusted. We are talking about the US government here, the same guys who can't even balance a checkbook.
We are also talking about local governments so strapped for cash that they are cutting back on things like police. Cutbacks that are releasing prisoners because there isn't enough money to house the criminals. And you think it's a good idea to let these same incompetent idiots to tell law abiding citizens if, how many and what kinds of firearms that law abiding citizens can have?

It makes no sense. Can you somehow clarify?

Surely we can agree some govt. is needed,the alternative would be total anarchy,the question is how much and what form?It's not a problem of trust,in a democracy the electorate gets what it deserves,what it voted for.Your views seem right of centre for the US,which by European standards is far far right,and you lost recently so you have to suck it up.Unless you harbour some fantasy about overthrowing that result in which case you would need some serious military equipment and trained personnel to use it.Meanwhile in the real world there is no alternative to the messy business of compromise and pragmatic politics.
So don't look for solutions through gun regulation aimed at preventing easy access by criminals,come up with an alternative,argue the case..be aware that most likely this will involve more govt. inevitably.We live in 2013 not the late 1700's..

[chang50]

but cannot see a more sinister pattern.

There you go again with this sinister stuff about the US government.

Answer this, if the US government is so sinister, then why would it be wise for the citizens to turn over our guns to this sinister government? If the government is so sinister, why would anyone trust their reasons for gun control in any event?

You endorse this sinister government to control everyone's guns?

Now, I happen to agree somewhat that the government is up to some pretty sinister stuff, not so much out of intentional evil, more like gross incompetence. But that's neither here nor there. Why should anyone trust these idiots control anything?

Way to go taking quotes out of context,I used that word as a response to SG claiming that the US backing the wrong leaders was nothing more than a mistake.I don't think the US govt. is more sinister than most others,we just see the effects more as it is a superpower.
Whether you keep your guns or hand them over will not make a noticeable difference to what the govt. can or cannot do.I know some Americans believe otherwise but it is a silly and potentially dangerous fantasy.
If you cannot see the value in sensible gun regulation aimed at restricting easy access by criminals ok carry on,the present set up must be working so well..

He didn't take the quote "out of context." You believe the US Government indulges in "sinister" activities.

My words were,'you talk about 'mistakes' made but don't see a more sinister pattern'.As if overthrowing democratically elected governments and replacing them with dictators was just an innocent mistake that anyone could make.Obviously something MORE SINISTER
THAN THAT,has been going on.Sorry but I won't allow anyone to twist my carefully chosen words..

[patches70]

Surely we can agree some govt. is needed,the alternative would be total anarchy,the question is how much and what form?

What do you mean "how much"? It's laid out right there in the Constitution. There is no question at all.

The government should deliver the mail, set tariffs, deal with treaties and national agreements with other States and protect the borders. Much more after that and we get ourselves into all kinds of messes.

As to the guns, it's laid out pretty well in the Constitution as well, right in the 2nd amendment- "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Shall not be infringed. How hard is that to figure out?

We got plenty of laws already and I find it disgusting that people turn these tragedies into political games to circumvent and undermine the supreme law of the land.

Look dude, if you don't want a gun, don't get a gun. But you got no right or idea on whether or not your neighbor should get a gun. You don't know their situation. You don't know what's best for them and neither does the government.
You stay in your property and leave your neighbor alone.
If someone intrudes upon your property and is willing to use violence against you or your family, shoot 'em. If you don't have a gun then you best hope the (under funded) cops get there in time to save you.
If you choose to get a gun then it's up to you, as a responsible citizen, to understand and learn how to use the gun safely.
But quit turning to government to solve all the problems, they can't solve crap.
That's why our government is supposed to be severely limited in power. Because government is a necessary evil, but when it grows too big it becomes an intolerable evil.

But, I'm done with you. You refuse to explain how one the one hand you can bitch about how underhanded and "sinister" the US government is and then on the other hand fully endorse the idea that government can protect you better than you can protect yourself. You refuse to explain your disdain for the use of force the US government uses on peoples all over the world but would gladly allow this same government to expand the power of it's use of force on it's own citizens. There is no way you can honestly rectify those two distinctions.
All you can do is try and convince yourself I stand at some mythical political right/left false paradigm when the issue is clearly laid out right there in the 2nd amendment. I am dead center on the side of Law. You on the other hand, are willing to break the law because for some insane reason you think the people who will be breaking this supreme law of the land are somehow trustworthy enough.

One of our Founding Fathers said it best- "If all men were Angels we wouldn't need Government and if Angels ruled we wouldn't need the Constitution."

That pretty much sums it up. Sorry, but it's a pretty clear cut case. If one is a law abiding citizen then their right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Try and learn what that means. In your country if it's not the US, do what ever the hell you want to. It's none of our business.

[patches70]

My words were,'you talk about 'mistakes' made but don't see a more sinister pattern'.As if overthrowing democratically elected governments and replacing them with dictators was just an innocent mistake that anyone could make.Obviously something MORE SINISTER
THAN THAT,has been going on.

So, please do, and consider your words carefully, if what you are saying is true, then what does that say about the people doing this?

Please, for the love of God, elaborate.

[chang50]

My words were,'you talk about 'mistakes' made but don't see a more sinister pattern'.As if overthrowing democratically elected governments and replacing them with dictators was just an innocent mistake that anyone could make.Obviously something MORE SINISTER
THAN THAT,has been going on.

So, please do, and consider your words carefully, if what you are saying is true, then what does that say about the people doing this?

Please, for the love of God, elaborate.

It says they behave like a superpower..