More Guns Bought after Obama was re-elected (?)

btw the "armed guards" at Columbine were out in the parking lot by their car. Harris and Klebold needed only to get INTO the school and they were safe. They did, and they were. Nobody in the school had a gun. Gun free zone.

Big Dave wrote:

What I actually implied was that you were an "ordinary decent person" working on solutions, but "they" (grammatically meaning not you) are working on the bad stuff. So does this clarification mean I'm not paranoid? :-)

I'm not whining about insult and disparagement. I'm pointing out that in my view I"m doing a better job of arguing than you, because I"m not doing ad hominem and you are. It's a sign of weakness of argument when you do that.

I don't think we're even. I think I'm winning. But it's been work. You have been forced to ignore a lot of what I've said in order to hold onto your position, so I think I'm winning. I have not ignored being called paranoid. :-)

It's been awhile since I"ve been in one of these wars on the non-golf side. Been interesting. Thanks for the engagement.

As I find with most arguments with right-wingers, they think that just because they say something, then it's so. There's seems to be a complete inability to look outside one's own perspective. You can't explain how a ban of fully automatic guns in 1934 levels with the second amendment but yanking high-capacity magazines in 2012 wouldn't. If the big bad government comes after us, the second amendment protects our right to have high-capacity magazines, but fully automatic machine guns, not-so-much? There's your contradiction. You're either for arms, or you're not. Why are you accepting a 1934 adjustment to the 2nd amendment? Based on what you've written, that law was passed for the betterment of society. And that's all some of us are asking for with these magazines. Yet now you're standing up and saying, "Oh, no. This time is different. The leftists are taking away our rights. They weren't taking away our rights in 1934, but they are this time."

BTW, this was no war. You're a good guy and certainly not worthy of a war. No hard feelings here.

Big Dave wrote:btw the "armed guards" at Columbine were out in the parking lot by their car. Harris and Klebold needed only to get INTO the school and they were safe. They did, and they were. Nobody in the school had a gun. Gun free zone.

Speaking of dismissal, there were armed guards at the school. The kid in CT shot his way into the school. Do you really think these killers are going to check in the office before they go on their rampages? Let's get real here.

http://www.shotgunnews.com/2012/09/11/feinstein-back-in-the-gun-control-battle/

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/21/nyregion/cuomo-says-he-will-outline-gun-measures-next-month.html?_r=0

A senator from California, and the governor of New York, both admitting they are trying to get all guns out of the hands of the public. How many of them want that but have not yet admitted it publicly?

We are not talking about 30 round magazines. Those are just a step. This is what they really want, and always have. Feinstein's admission is from 17 years ago. Clinton's bans would have escalated if not for the fact that most of the congressmen who voted for them had trouble in their next elections. But this IS what they want. Confiscation. Turn 'em all in. Just a matter of time. All the sensible people who are calling for 30 round mag bans, "assault weapon" bans, etc., are being used. These Democrats won't stop at sensible. They're finding the courage to say so, thinking the political wind is at their back. But they've always wanted it.

Big Dave wrote:http://www.shotgunnews.com/2012/09/11/feinstein-back-in-the-gun-control-battle/

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/21/nyregion/cuomo-says-he-will-outline-gun-measures-next-month.html?_r=0

A senator from California, and the governor of New York, both admitting they are trying to get all guns out of the hands of the public. How many of them want that but have not yet admitted it publicly?

We are not talking about 30 round magazines. Those are just a step. This is what they really want, and always have. Feinstein's admission is from 17 years ago. Clinton's bans would have escalated if not for the fact that most of the congressmen who voted for them had trouble in their next elections. But this IS what they want. Confiscation. Turn 'em all in. Just a matter of time. All the sensible people who are calling for 30 round mag bans, "assault weapon" bans, etc., are being used. These Democrats won't stop at sensible. They're finding the courage to say so, thinking the political wind is at their back. But they've always wanted it.

Those whippersnappers! For that I'm not going to do anything sensible. :fistshake: LOL SOS.

Poe4soul wrote:

Big Dave wrote:http://www.shotgunnews.com/2012/09/11/feinstein-back-in-the-gun-control-battle/

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/21/nyregion/cuomo-says-he-will-outline-gun-measures-next-month.html?_r=0

A senator from California, and the governor of New York, both admitting they are trying to get all guns out of the hands of the public. How many of them want that but have not yet admitted it publicly?

We are not talking about 30 round magazines. Those are just a step. This is what they really want, and always have. Feinstein's admission is from 17 years ago. Clinton's bans would have escalated if not for the fact that most of the congressmen who voted for them had trouble in their next elections. But this IS what they want. Confiscation. Turn 'em all in. Just a matter of time. All the sensible people who are calling for 30 round mag bans, "assault weapon" bans, etc., are being used. These Democrats won't stop at sensible. They're finding the courage to say so, thinking the political wind is at their back. But they've always wanted it.

Those whippersnappers! For that I'm not going to do anything sensible. :fistshake: LOL SOS.

I used to stack fukcs like you five feet high in Korea. Get off my lawn.


:-)

Dave you put up a good debate. The masses are more interested in getting guns out of the wrong hands.
A good start would be to take the guns from the gangs on the south side of Chicago.

Making potential permit holders take courses with follow up exams and range work, is a weak area.


Hunter safety should be mandatory, for all ages, and a mandatory course.

As you mentioned proper storage and responsibility of your firearms when stolen.

If people live in your household that have questionable mental faculties, that's a reason to be denied.

I have been nearly shot on more than one occasion due to careless gun owners.

I wouldn't have any problem with large capacity assault weapons, in the proper hands, as too many are not. I have a neighbor who routinely fires off an ak or some kind of assault rifle. I don't like it when he shoots several hundred rounds, with my wooded back yard section as his back drop.
I've never called the county, but many others have. Plus the game warden been there multiple times. I won't let the kids play in my own woods.

I was looking at a stainless mini 14 my buddy has, as I was thinking of a sailboat for retirement, and that and maybe an rpg could be a lifesaver in the Carribean.

12pierogi wrote:Dave you put up a good debate. The masses are more interested in getting guns out of the wrong hands.
A good start would be to take the guns from the gangs on the south side of Chicago.

Making potential permit holders take courses with follow up exams and range work, is a weak area.


Hunter safety should be mandatory, for all ages, and a mandatory course.

As you mentioned proper storage and responsibility of your firearms when stolen.

If people live in your household that have questionable mental faculties, that's a reason to be denied.

I have been nearly shot on more than one occasion due to careless gun owners.

I wouldn't have any problem with large capacity assault weapons, in the proper hands, as too many are not. I have a neighbor who routinely fires off an ak or some kind of assault rifle. I don't like it when he shoots several hundred rounds, with my wooded back yard section as his back drop.
I've never called the county, but many others have. Plus the game warden been there multiple times. I won't let the kids play in my own woods.

I was looking at a stainless mini 14 my buddy has, as I was thinking of a sailboat for retirement, and that and maybe an rpg could be a lifesaver in the Carribean.

Instead of the mini 14 why not get an AA12? You damn sure could repel all boarders with that!

jt1135 wrote:

12pierogi wrote:Dave you put up a good debate. The masses are more interested in getting guns out of the wrong hands.
A good start would be to take the guns from the gangs on the south side of Chicago.

Making potential permit holders take courses with follow up exams and range work, is a weak area.


Hunter safety should be mandatory, for all ages, and a mandatory course.

As you mentioned proper storage and responsibility of your firearms when stolen.

If people live in your household that have questionable mental faculties, that's a reason to be denied.

I have been nearly shot on more than one occasion due to careless gun owners.

I wouldn't have any problem with large capacity assault weapons, in the proper hands, as too many are not. I have a neighbor who routinely fires off an ak or some kind of assault rifle. I don't like it when he shoots several hundred rounds, with my wooded back yard section as his back drop.
I've never called the county, but many others have. Plus the game warden been there multiple times. I won't let the kids play in my own woods.

I was looking at a stainless mini 14 my buddy has, as I was thinking of a sailboat for retirement, and that and maybe an rpg could be a lifesaver in the Carribean.

Instead of the mini 14 why not get an AA12? You damn sure could repel all boarders with that!

I have a 870 supermag 12 shoots 3.5 inch mags or whatever.
You can spray 30 rounds at the waterline from several hundred yards with a mini 14



Just to let everyone know I have no use for a mini 14 at my house, and never have. But in international waters its almost a necessity.

Yeah, all the carelessness does bother me a lot. BUt.. I have not heard of more than one or two people being shot, and nobody killed, because of careless discharge (i.e. property situation where there is insufficient backstop, or not enough distance to next populated area, etc) in as long as I can remember. Everyone wants to react to something that MIGHT happen. It almost never does.

Whereas each year in America, as reported by the National Institute of Justice (a dot gov website btw), there are approximately two MILLION defenses with handguns. shown, pulled, brandished, discharged, all the way up to actual gun battles and shooting of perps. TWO MILLION defenses. To interfere with people's constitutional right to own a gun is to start making a substantial number of those crimes more successful, with more victims and more suffering. The more restrictive gun law becomes, the more criminals will feel unleashed and free, and even crimes that presently are NOT being committed will fall into the other column. Disarm the public and they are victims. It shows in crime stats by area. The heaviest gun bans match up with the most gun crime and violent crime in general, PERIOD. Where people are armed, i.e. Wyoming, Texas, Oklahoma, etc., the violent crime rate is spectacularly lower. People aren't dumb. Criminals don't want to be shot. Widespread gun ownership is a deterrent that results in safer society and fewer violent crimes, including GUN crimes. Anecdotal stories arouse the public, but hardly anyone ever puts it in this statistical broader view. Guns make MILLIONS of people SAFER, bottom line. Violent crime in England, post handgun ban, is four to five times higher than in America. It's just the truth.

The kneejerk response to an anecdote, to ban some item or increase regulations, does not WORK. Any fair review of stats shows it. Fewer legal guns equals MORE crime, usually including more GUN crime. We have rights, and we have responsibilities. It's a citizen's responsibility to be PREPARED, to protect himself and his fellow men and women and children, and to be safe with his weapons, to secure them and not endanger others when he fires them.. Cops don't get there fast enough. They are not constitutionally required to stop a crime in progress ANYWAY, and it's amazing how often they don't. If we are not allowed to have guns, we are condemned to simply roll over and play victim when a big young strong man wants our money or wants to harm us.

This isn't complicated. And it isn't antiquated.

THere were about a half dozen black rifle makers in America in 1994. The left chose to hang their collective hats on the "saturday night special" instead of black rifles, thinking that was fringe gun stuff. They got their bans, magazines etc. But the politicians who voted for them had trouble getting reelected.

And today, instead of a half dozen, there are 200 companies making black rifles. Many many millions more people have then now than in 1994. Getting them away from people, while the second amendment is still in the constitution, is just a nonstarter. The people who have guns are the people most convinced that their rights do not come from present day Democrat administrations, and that present day Democrats are legally bound to obey the law as it is written.

If you want to "infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms", you really do need to start by repealing the second amendment, so that this right doesn't appear directly under the right to freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of assembly ( peaceful protest against government )... But that requires significant majorities in state legislatures and congress. THAT requires a significant majority of the people be behind the repeal. Not gonna happen. And nobody who defends the first amendment can claim the second does not apply. They are both, sequentially, in the "BILL OF RIGHTS". It ain't the bill of needs. Government doesn't get to tell people what they need. The Amendment is written so as to A) imply that the right to be armed PRECEDED the constitution, and B) ensure that a citizen army can be raised quickly to defend the people against tyranny, i.e. to defend "the security of a free state". Not a free GOVERNMENT. A free state means free PEOPLE.

And since the oath of office of many posts in government requires them to swear to protect and defend the constitution against all enemies, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC, one may safely presume that a militia fighting for the security of a free state may find themselves fighting a domestic enemy, i.e. their own government becoming tyrannical. It is only the ENTIRE STORY OF HUMAN HISTORY, including a crescendo of horrors in the previous century, some continuing to this day.

A free man is a man who can carry a weapon. The sign of an unfree man is that he is made defenseless by government edict. Slaves were disarmed by edicts in the south. Jews were disarmed by the German gun law of 1938. Criminals might rejoice at unarmed victims, but government's purpose is not to expose the citizen to greater risk of crime; it is to reduce THEIR risk that the man might defend himself against GOVERNMENT, or worse still, might organize to overthrow a government which has become tyrannical. Government, disarming people, acts to protect ITSELF from THEM. In all of human history, this is the truth.

And by the way, the word "regulated" in the 18th century meant "smoothly functioning, well rehearsed and dependable in its action". They used it for watches and clocks, among other things. A well regulated clock keeps good time. It did NOT mean "had lots of rules and regulations written about it".

A well regulated militia, among other things, can take the battlefield quickly. They bring their own guns and ammo. If they had to somehow arm before battle, they would be beaten immediately, especially if the government had full control of all weapons and nobody could GET them without government approval. Having guns in your home, in your possession, is essential to being able to revolt against tyranny. And TEN ROUND MAGS WON'T CUT IT for this purpose.

Nidal Hassan succeeded because a damned ARMY BASE was a GUN FREE ZONE!

Insanity. And I'd bet army bases are STILL gun free zones today. POLITICS will get more and more people killed.

Big Dave wrote:And by the way, the word "regulated" in the 18th century meant "smoothly functioning, well rehearsed and dependable in its action". They used it for watches and clocks, among other things. A well regulated clock keeps good time. It did NOT mean "had lots of rules and regulations written about it".

Thanks for interpreting the Constitution based on “your” version of language history. I’m so happy someone with your positions does what frankly, every liberal does, and uses faulty scholarship and “your version of history” to get the result you want from “your” interpretation.

I’d love to hear your interpretation of what “general welfare of the people” is referring to in The Constitution.

Boom wrote:

Big Dave wrote:And by the way, the word "regulated" in the 18th century meant "smoothly functioning, well rehearsed and dependable in its action". They used it for watches and clocks, among other things. A well regulated clock keeps good time. It did NOT mean "had lots of rules and regulations written about it".

Thanks for interpreting the Constitution based on “your” version of language history. I’m so happy someone with your positions does what frankly, every liberal does, and uses faulty scholarship and “your version of history” to get the result you want from “your” interpretation.

I’d love to hear your interpretation of what “general welfare of the people” is referring to in The Constitution.

Pretty sure "general welfare of the people" does not appear in the Constitution. Kind of like "separation of church and state" doesn't appear there.

Here's what the Preamble to the Constitution says--

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Note that right before "promote the general welfare" it says "provide for the common defense". We all know "provide for" means pay for. So why doesn't the general welfare part say "provide for"?

It doesn't. It says "promote". This means create conditions in which people have the best chance of doing well and being well. Which, contextually (since the constitution is a document written to limit government and prevent tyranny), means observing the limits of government. It cannot be for the "general welfare" to take money from some people to give to other people; the people who had their money taken have had their rights violated. To give a benefit to one at the expense of another is clearly not THE GENERAL welfare.

Big Dave wrote:

Pretty sure "general welfare of the people" does not appear in the Constitution. Kind of like "separation of church and state" doesn't appear there.

Here's what the Preamble to the Constitution says--

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Note that right before "promote the general welfare" it says "provide for the common defense". We all know "provide for" means pay for. So why doesn't the general welfare part say "provide for"?

It doesn't. It says "promote". This means create conditions in which people have the best chance of doing well and being well. Which, contextually (since the constitution is a document written to limit government and prevent tyranny), means observing the limits of government. It cannot be for the "general welfare" to take money from some people to give to other people; the people who had their money taken have had their rights violated. To give a benefit to one at the expense of another is clearly not THE GENERAL welfare.

It is not “clear” at all unless you are looking for what you want to see.

The prose about limiting government was mostly directed at the British Crown. If the Founders were truly open to a Republic of limited government then they would not have set up themselves (white land-owning men) as the only voters/rulers.

Just like with this poetic and untrue notion of American “religious freedom” from the churches of Europe… this “freedom” was used only to set up American sects that have no tolerance for any sect other than their own.

If limited government was indeed the intention (I’m not so sure seeing as the founders of the country were as much a ruling class as anything that existed in Europe)… it has failed miserably.

The “freedom” won from the central bank of England wasn’t long lived before the Federal Reserve and their direct ties to the Military Industrial Complex (that gave us a tyranny worse than anything we ever had with England).

And since your precious Constitution does in fact “provide” for the common defense… you are probably a big fan of the Federal Reserve.

Boom wrote:

Big Dave wrote:

Pretty sure "general welfare of the people" does not appear in the Constitution. Kind of like "separation of church and state" doesn't appear there.

Here's what the Preamble to the Constitution says--

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Note that right before "promote the general welfare" it says "provide for the common defense". We all know "provide for" means pay for. So why doesn't the general welfare part say "provide for"?

It doesn't. It says "promote". This means create conditions in which people have the best chance of doing well and being well. Which, contextually (since the constitution is a document written to limit government and prevent tyranny), means observing the limits of government. It cannot be for the "general welfare" to take money from some people to give to other people; the people who had their money taken have had their rights violated. To give a benefit to one at the expense of another is clearly not THE GENERAL welfare.

It is not “clear” at all unless you are looking for what you want to see.

The prose about limiting government was mostly directed at the British Crown. If the Founders were truly open to a Republic of limited government then they would not have set up themselves (white land-owning men) as the only voters/rulers.

Just like with this poetic and untrue notion of American “religious freedom” from the churches of Europe… this “freedom” was used only to set up American sects that have no tolerance for any sect other than their own.

If limited government was indeed the intention (I’m not so sure seeing as the founders of the country were as much a ruling class as anything that existed in Europe)… it has failed miserably.

The “freedom” won from the central bank of England wasn’t long lived before the Federal Reserve and their direct ties to the Military Industrial Complex (that gave us a tyranny worse than anything we ever had with England).

And since your precious Constitution does in fact “provide” for the common defense… you are probably a big fan of the Federal Reserve.

man... change the subject much?

You asked me how I explained "the general welfare of the people" in the constitution. Do you understand the explanation I gave? That's constitutional scholarship, and it isn't difficult, because the constitution isn't written to be misunderstood.

you have the face-forward truculence of an OWS/Paulbot type person. You think you have a point, but when it is completely rebutted, you just move on to a different point and get more belligerent as you go. Once, a paulbot tried to yell into my wife's face about this same stuff you have said. I had to step between them... because if I hadn't, she would have beaten him to death with his own sign.

it's been fun, but I'm bored now.

Big Dave wrote:man... change the subject much?

You asked me how I explained "the general welfare of the people" in the constitution. Do you understand the explanation I gave? That's constitutional scholarship, and it isn't difficult, because the constitution isn't written to be misunderstood.

you have the face-forward truculence of an OWS/Paulbot type person. You think you have a point, but when it is completely rebutted, you just move on to a different point and get more belligerent as you go. Once, a paulbot tried to yell into my wife's face about this same stuff you have said. I had to step between them... because if I hadn't, she would have beaten him to death with his own sign.

it's been fun, but I'm bored now.

How am I changing the subject when you brought up both limitation of government and separation of church and state... oh, you also brought up the Constitution which, as you say, is so clearly written, we have around 4,000 Federal judges (not including state and local judges) trying not to "misunderstand" it every day.

I don't know what an OWS or Paulbot is so you'll have to explain that to me and I will not get belligerent because I have no idea what you are talking about.

Big Dave wrote:man... change the subject much?

You asked me how I explained "the general welfare of the people" in the constitution. Do you understand the explanation I gave? That's constitutional scholarship, and it isn't difficult, because the constitution isn't written to be misunderstood.

you have the face-forward truculence of an OWS/Paulbot type person. You think you have a point, but when it is completely rebutted, you just move on to a different point and get more belligerent as you go. Once, a paulbot tried to yell into my wife's face about this same stuff you have said. I had to step between them... because if I hadn't, she would have beaten him to death with his own sign.

it's been fun, but I'm bored now.

If you truly are bored as you say, maybe try responding to post #41:

FreakOfNature wrote:

Big Dave wrote:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html

Almost five times the violent crime rate in the UK as in the US. Violent crime is very low in American states where citizens are likely to be armed. The FBI says for every US crime in which a gun is used, almost four times as many crimes are prevented or interrupted by use of legally owned guns. I think the people saved, including children, ought to get counted. It is thousands per year.

Violent crime rate? How about fatalities? People survive stab wounds all the time. Twenty-seven DEAD. 27. Twenty-seven. 27. DEAD. They probably would have chosen to take their chances with a lunatic wielding a knife. Or a baseball bat. Or a crowbar. Or a samurai sword. Or a chainsaw. Or just about anything less effective at killing people than a semi-automatic firearm with a large magazine capacity. I'm pretty sure most people would prefer that the violence they could potentially experience in daily life be more survivable than gunshot wounds.

I read stuff like this and I wonder what motivation people must have to possess such an agenda, and how they can justify it while being able to look at themselves in the mirror every day. You already have it the way you want it. This is your gun-toting utopia. Nobody seems to be fighting for looser gun regulations, it's always "Don't TAKE AWAY my rights." so this happened on YOUR WATCH under YOUR RULES. Twenty-seven fatalities - most of them children, it's not hard to see that something is clearly wrong if the rules are lax enough for things like this to happen. The rest of society seems to think it's time to revise the rules - provided that the implemented revisions indeed have the desired effect of reducing the number of casualties when a disturbed individual decides to go on a killing rampage.

You probably have a jar of Bic pens on your desk - and a Bic pen can be a fatal weapon when applied appropriately, yet we never hear of mass murders being committed with Bic pens. Imagine the outrage if Bic pens were banned because of their potential to inflict harm.

I get where you're coming from. I'm a responsible gun owner myself. But there has to be a limit. You can't solve the problem entirely by banning guns with magazine capacities over 5 rounds. You can't solve the problem by banning certain caliber weapons from the public (the 50mm Barrett). But it HELPS. Add some more restrictions on who can own which firearms and for which reasons and it helps some more. Spend a little more gov't money on helping individuals who are mentally unstable. Give them the medical treatment they require w/o bankrupting their family, and maybe they'll get the care they need and a few less of them will shoot up movie theaters and elementary schools. It HELPS. Spend a little more gov't money on education, and maybe they'll learn enough not to buy in to the "prepper" mentality Lanza's mother subscribed to, maybe they'll learn how to be good, rational skeptics and not panic whenever a shadow seems to loom over them. It HELPS.

There is no single-faceted solution to this growing problem. It will require a combination of efforts to really affect any change, and that's what people are asking for in the aftermath of this tragedy. Nobody wants to take away your guns, they just want to implement a system of checks and balances that provides them with the assurance that you can be TRUSTED with your guns. Submitting to such a system would only further the credibility of deserving gun owners - so how is it a bad thing if it serves to weed out the bad apples while strengthening your position? I'm left scratching my head over the fact that so many people don't understand this.

In Canada - being a gun owner doesn't mean "I'm better than you because I'm allowed to have a weapon that could KILL you", it means "I'm better than you because I'm ALLOWED to have a weapon that could kill you". Authority vs Responsibility. I'm firmly in the Responsibility camp. IMO, you *think* you're in the Responsibility camp, but your opinions and actions place you firmly in the Authority camp. You need to come to understand that's not a sound foundation for championing second amendment rights. Once you do, you'll realize that change is necessary, and you'll still have your guns. The only difference is that the psychopaths won't be able to inflict harm to the degree that they are able to now. Unless you're a closet raging psychopath, the hardest this will hit you is a few monetary fees - and the knowledge that your grandchildren have a better chance of not being murdered by semi-automatic weapons solely designed for killing humans while learning math at school.

PLEASE, drop the partisan schtick and think about this rationally Dave - I'm pleading. I know you're a really good guy, a really smart guy, and truly have the best intentions at heart. But you need to open your eyes and your mind on this subject. I have faith in you - that's all I can really say. Coming from me, that statement alone should speak volumes.

How is it unconstitutional to require that citizens be able to demonstrate both proficiency and SAFETY with a firearm before being allowed to possess one (or many)? How is that a BAD thing? How is it a bad thing to require gun owners to submit to criminal background checks? How is it a bad thing to require all firearm sales to be reported to authorities? How is it a bad thing if the police know which weapons to expect in an individual's possession if he/she is using those weapons to commit a crime? How is it a bad thing to require that the owner of firearms knows how to store them safely so that they can't be stolen or appropriated by an unqualified or malicious individual and potentially used to commit crimes?

Do you even know which problem we're trying to address? Which is more important to you - defending your predisposition in regards to your interpretation of your second amendment rights, or saving the lives of your fellow American citizens and their CHILDREN? This isn't about "the left", it's about the INNOCENT. It's about the fact that the so-called "freedom" which you have chosen to defend produces an unacceptable degree of collateral damage - costing far more innocent lives than is acceptable to defend firearm possession as a right when it SHOULD be regarded as a privilege. That simple distinction is the reason America has around 6 times the rate of gun violence than any other 1st world nation in which citizens are lawfully allowed to possess firearms.

I thought conservatives were supposed to be pro-life and all about preserving traditional family values. If that's true, then sir, you're not much of a conservative - if you're to be judged by your statements in this thread. Your agenda on this issue has clearly corrupted your core values.

Whatever argument you thought you were winning - I just destroyed. Of course who am I to be the judge of my own argument? AMIRITE??

OK, now I'm going to go from somewhat prickish to straight up a$$hole.

One of the principal talking points raised in defense of 2nd amendment rights is to potentially overthrow a tyrannical government. Let's examine this further.

The US spent $771 BILLION of 2.47 TRILLION in revenue on the military in 2012. That's 41% of the entire world's military spending.

Makes for a pretty impressive military, right? The US could engage any enemy nation on the planet and they'd be heavy favorites to win ANY conflict. The US is the most dominant military force on the planet. It would require a vast alliance of nations to defeat them at this point in time. That is simply fact and is not in dispute.

Conservatives are extremely pro-military for the mostpart, and approve of this level of spending in the name of security. They are willing to finance it to alleviate their fears of terrorism or invasion, and vote accordingly. They approve when the US exercises its military might in places like Afghanistan and Iraq. They approve of most military interventionist activity and have the utmost confidence in the military superiority of the US. Many seemingly take great pride in the proficiency of the US military and the sacrifice of those who serve.

Yet -

Should your US government become a tyrannical dictatorship deserving of a civil deposition, you expect that if every citizen were armed that you would have the ability to OVERTHROW them? The military you once so willingly financed and equipped to defeat any other nation's military on the planet? Are average Americans really so bad-ass that they could take on the world's mightiest military and emerge victorious? Do you really think that packing a couple semi-auto AR-15's is going to save your ass when Uncle Sam comes knocking? You could give every person in America a Colt Peacemaker (God made men, Colt made 'em equal) and your entire population wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in hell. Times have changed. America built a military machine that they cannot defeat as a civilian militia. These are the circumstances Americans are confronted with today.

These mere firearms will NEVER be enough to free Americans from a tyrannical government. That's how Americans preferred to spend their tax dollars, and now they have to live with that reality. Now that we've gotten the irony and futility of THAT argument out of the way, perhaps we can direct our attention toward REALISTIC solutions which reduce the frequency and severity of gun related crimes.

It's time to put an end to the massacres. The victims of these tragedies no longer have any freedoms to defend, nor a voice with which to participate in a discussion of the solution. They're DEAD. If you speak against positive change then you speak against the victims, essentially condoning the tragedy as a consequence of freedom. Unfortunately, this is one of those issues where the cost of such a freedom is simply too high.

Every country has their own problems.

When the sh!t eventually hits the fan I would be one of those guys who would just make peace with it and go live somewhere on a deserted island.

One of my more recent backup-plans in life would be to just take a backpack and move off to some queit tranquil little place in the middle of nowhere out of corrupt goverments/people's way.

FreakOfNature wrote:OK, now I'm going to go from somewhat prickish to straight up a$$hole.

.

FINALLY, an a$$hole I can TALK to. :-)

gimme a little time to address the density of detail here. I have, actually, covered these points, but as often happens, some aspect of a post gets seized upon and the other stuff in it gets forgotten and ignored, so.. I'll have another run at it here shortly.

"this is your gun toting utopia. You already have it the way you want it."

Um, no.

The way I want it, I have already said. I will sum it up again at the end. This is not my utopia. Nobody has consulted me about any of this, and very few have held with the constitution. I'm not now thinking of the second amendment but the tenth.

Here is gun control, Democrat style.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nckgyfGbdnU&feature=youtu.be

No Guns for Negroes.

In 1968, Thomas Dodd (the father of Christopher Dodd) actually requested for the Library of Congress to translate the 1938 Nazi gun control law so he could use it as a template. That Nazi law banned all Jews from any firearms ownership and gave local law officers complete discretion over whether to approve licensing requests to anyone-- they could deny for any reason or no reason, and therefore denied anyone who had the wrong political affiliation or was of the wrong race, without having to explain why they denied. Nazis armed their followers and disarmed their political opponents through judicious use of this law. Senator Dodd (father of Senator Dodd-- what's wrong with THIS picture) used the translation during the writing of the 1968 gun control act that came after Kennedy and King were shot. He used the Nazi law because it was a law banning a certain race of people from acquiring guns but was written in sneaky fashion so that nobody could look at it and say it was outright racial. Dodd, Democrat senator from Connecticut, was looking for a template like that. Hitler provided it.

And in 2003, the CDC report on the effectiveness of gun control laws at reducing gun violence said there was insufficient evidence to say that the laws reduced shootings. This, mind you, is not just after 1968 but after the 1994 "assault weapons" ban had been in effect for almost a decade. INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE to say any gun control law reduces gun violence.

I think gun control does reduce gun violence-- but only COMPLETE comprehensive gun bans. I think this lack of effectiveness of our gun laws is because our bans have always been partial. We have never had an outright ban on guns.

They DO, however, have such a ban in England. No handguns for anyone for any reason (not even beat police are armed). Only small caliber bolt rifles and breakover shotguns, no magazine fed weapons, and you have to explain "need" to get a license for those long guns. Even the AIRGUNS in Britain are severely restricted in power compared to American air rifles.

This is an outright ban, for all practical purposes. NO MAGAZINE FED WEAPONS, not 30 rounds, not 20, not 10, not 5, NOTHING.

In Britain, people have been prosecuted for defending their homes against break-ins and threats. Shoot an intruder in Britain at 2 am with your registered, licensed .22 or your shotgun, and odds are it's YOU who will go to jail.

And with this comprehensive (and for handguns, COMPLETE) ban, there is much less (but not zero) gun violence in Britain. But there is 4-5 times as much "violent crime", as I linked earlier. This INCLUDES MURDERS. It's so bad that emergency room doctors (I posted link earlier) are asking government to ban LONG KITCHEN KNIVES. They even went to professional chefs and got them to agree that what is done with long knives can probably be done with shorter ones so yes, chefs agree, long knives not needed, BAN THEM. Criminals know their victims are unarmed. It is inevitable that more people BECOME victims of crime in such circumstances. It's the trade off. TWENTY SEVEN DEAD, as you typed it, could perhaps be stopped by trading off the greater risk to millions of potential victims whose pain and suffering and perhaps deaths will never make the news like Newtown does, but they are just as dead, just as traumatized, just as wrecked, by what happens to them when they're not armed. Remember the link I posted here, from a dot gov website on justice statistics, saying there are about 2 million armed defenses against crime every year in America, and you begin to get a picture of what it might be like with an outright ban.

But that's not what we're arguing for, you say. I know, and I think you are reasonable and decent and want a solution.

But partial disarmament is not enough for the hard left. Andrew Cuomo from New York says "confiscation is on the table". Diane Feinstein from California has introduced a new law that is extremely comprehensive, and can be seen in a 1995 video saying "Mr. and Mrs. America, TURN 'EM IN." She has wanted a full ban for decades. How many other legislators and leaders want this and simply do not publicly admit it so as to preserve some strategies (including deceit, of course)? It isn't hard to imagine how many want this, how long they've wanted it, and that they intend to do it gradually rather than immediately because they know the public is still opposed to it. But let's say they get a good ways toward the comprehensive ban they want. Mags down to five rounds, say, and full registration (to simplify confiscation later).

Then they have to deal with the crime wave, as we see in Britain. There is a correlation, clear and unavoidable, between countries (and between American states) with different gun laws, that wherever people are less armed, crime and violent crime is higher. Over 500 shootings in gun-banned Chicago in 2012. In Chicago, the guns come from the drug dealers, as in every American city where crime is like this. It's not guns from legal buyers in private transactions. It's guns smuggled from other countries by the same criminals who bring in the drugs. MILLIONS of these guns are on our streets, and a gun ban would do NOTHING about them except make them more popular and make their price a bit higher. And about "violent crimes"…. MURDERS are violent crimes, and they increase when their victims are disarmed. It's not just in crimes that happen, it's in crimes that are NOT committed because of the possibility of armed victims. An armed public SAVES LIVES, their own and others, and it is well documented and inarguable.

Will the rapid increase in violent crime result in a ban on long knives in America as they are considering in Britain? Al Sharpton (influential Democrat voter and media member) assumes it will, and says that's government's job, to address situations as they come up. Count on him to progressively advocate bans on everything used in murders, never saying the murderer is the guilty one and the problem, always addressing implements, until it is impossible for elites or politicians, or Sharpton, to be attacked by the public with anything other than fists. This impulse among the elite is an effort to PROTECT THEMSELVES, not us. The Nazis didn't just create a national registry and ban Jews from having guns. They also created a "homeland security" force, called the Schutzstaffel. The SS. Obama talks about that too. In his campaign he said we need a civilian security force as strong and as well funded and as well armed as the military. I suppose it would be inconvenient for that force, in trying to do its job (???), to keep running into citizens with guns who don't want to sit idly by and submit to them while constitutional rights are ignored.

Al Sharpton, you may recall, was stabbed in 1991 during the Bensonhurst protests, so maybe the knife thing is personal with him. Anyway, here he is suggesting that, as things change, so government should follow along and ban things. Knee jerk response by authoritarians, and a true threat to freedom, because with each small step, the next step seems small also. That's how you get to totalitarianism. I think his sense of government's role in this is pretty universal among Democrats. Progressively ban things as the things become "dangerous". How can this NOT mean that their proposed restrictions on guns will be progressive? And of course it DOES mean that. Soon as a shooting happens by a guy with two Glocks in his hands and 34 rounds between them, well the 17 round mags bite the dust, and so forth, and so on.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/01/big-al-sharpton-knife-control-comes-next-after-guns-video/

Now to some of your bullet points.

<<How is it unconstitutional to require that citizens be able to demonstrate both proficiency and SAFETY with a firearm before being allowed to possess one (or many)? How is that a BAD thing? How is it a bad thing to require gun owners to submit to criminal background checks? How is it a bad thing to require all firearm sales to be reported to authorities? How is it a bad thing if the police know which weapons to expect in an individual's possession if he/she is using those weapons to commit a crime? How is it a bad thing to require that the owner of firearms knows how to store them safely so that they can't be stolen or appropriated by an unqualified or malicious individual and potentially used to commit crimes?>>

You put a lot of trust in federal government and you don't think of the states at all. I am for proficiency testing. There is a shooting portion of the CHL testing in Texas. It's simple, but it's there. As for "demonstrate safety", what does that mean? In handling and using, or in securing at home? As I have said, I am in favor of legal penalties if your gun is stolen and used in a crime. With the exercise of a right comes the requirement for responsibility. That is how you do it. "all firearms sales reported to authorities" most of them are. I don't for a moment believe the little burst of personal information given to the feds at purchase time is not KEPT by them. Of course it is. They won't admit it but it's there. You can't buy a gun without that check. Unless you do it privately. But I ask you, what is the evidence that private transactions result in higher gun crime? In which famous mass shooting were the weapons acquired in a private deal at a gun show or on Craig's List? Clackamas mall - stolen from an arsehole buddy who was legal owner. Newtown - stolen from mom who was legal owner. Loughner - gun store, purchased legally, legal owner. Virginia Tech - gun store, purchased legally, legal owner. Where is the evidence that private transactions of firearms (legal, mind you, not smuggled Eastern Bloc weapons with serial numbers filed off, I'm talking legal weapons legally purchased from a dealer initially) cause gun crimes to increase? I think there is ZERO evidence of that. And police do have an avenue to investigate such things-- if a gun like that is used in a murder, it is OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE for a seller to lie about who he sold it to. Police, in their work, can find the trail of a gun no matter whether the shooter bought it privately or not. And again, the police have not NEEDED to do this because privately acquired legal weapons are NOT the cause of higher gun crime rates. CHL holders account for less than one fifth of one percent of gun crimes, and many of those are incidents that judges or juries later decide were handled badly, even though the shooter thought he was within his rights. I mean to say that even in some crimes by legal gun owners, they aren't "criminal" in the sense that the man intended to commit a crime. And in any case, the statistical footprint of legal guns used by legal owners in crimes is a zero, for practical purposes. In cases of mass shootings, it seems the guy who decides to do this is NOT, initially, a legal gun owner. He finds a way to get the guns and then goes to commit the crime. The focus of the problem, as I've said, is gun security BY the legal owner, and failure to secure should be punishable when guns are stolen and used in crimes. I do NOT want a federal mandate on the specific procedure. That's just another opportunity for disarmers to create circumstances in which one cannot use one's own firearms for defense. Security should be the responsibility of the owner, but failure of that responsibility HEAVILY punished. Ownership of all dangerous property should include legal responsibility for the safety of others. Common sense.

<<Which is more important to you - defending your predisposition in regards to your interpretation of your second amendment rights, or saving the lives of your fellow American citizens and their CHILDREN? This isn't about "the left", it's about the INNOCENT. It's about the fact that the so-called "freedom" which you have chosen to defend produces an unacceptable degree of collateral damage - costing far more innocent lives than is acceptable to defend firearm possession as a right when it SHOULD be regarded as a privilege. That simple distinction is the reason America has around 6 times the rate of gun violence than any other 1st world nation in which citizens are lawfully allowed to possess firearms.>>

You give me a false choice. It's not "my predisposition" (by which you imply I am not thinking rationally, which is convenient dodge away from my actual arguments), it's what the words of the constitution say. It's not "so called freedom", it actually IS freedom. Slaves were forbidden from having or using weapons here, and free blacks, and then after slavery gun control laws were KKK (a democrat party organization) backed, attempting to keep black people from being armed. All the way up to Dodd in 1968, Democrats trying to keep blacks from having guns. Jews in Germany. I know you're not arguing for full ban. You are arguing for "reasonable", but the ones in charge of CREATING AND ENFORCING NEW LAW are not on your side. They are progressively after a complete ban, as I have shown and linked, and you are helping them. They'll ride your level of ban, wait 'til it feels "normal" to the public, then they'll go for the next bit, and so on.

<<I thought conservatives were supposed to be pro-life and all about preserving traditional family values. If that's true, then sir, you're not much of a conservative - if you're to be judged by your statements in this thread. Your agenda on this issue has clearly corrupted your core values.>>

"If that's true, sir…" you sound like Keith Olbermann. :-) "You, sir, are a mountebank!" I have to call incoherence here. Preserving traditional family values includes preserving my God given right to defend myself and my family, which is a God given right to be armed and be ABLE to protect and defend. I am not corrupted. On the contrary, I am keeping a broader view of what it all means, while the rest of the world is focusing on guns as if it had BLINKERS on. The culture is the problem, not the guns.

I propose a ban on all guns IN MOVIES, ON TV, IN SONGS, IN VIDEO GAMES (freedom of speech blah blah, I know, read on and you'll find scholarly explanation of my position). I propose a ban on the spreading of the CULTURE OF GUN VIOLENCE. If Adam Lanza had grown up on Leave it to Beaver, maybe he wouldn't have had the feeling that the answer to all his problems was a movie scene in which he walks and blasts away and everyone dies and he leaves the world a winner, leaves his stamp on it, does the slow-mo stride away from the flames and corpses while cocking his gun and getting ready for the next triumphal expression of HIS will. It is the culture that gives young men this idea. NOT the availability of guns. We used to teach kids gun responsibility in the BOY SCOUTS. So I say no more murder shows, no more exploding heads or blood splatters, no more wild shootouts with machine guns, no more action movies where the good guy wins in a blaze of gunfire, no more Natural Born Killers or No Country for Old Men or even Fistful of Dollars. Get 'em off TV. Stop teaching our children "non-family values" of violence and existential competition and disrespect for life. Teach them something better, and they'll respond better. Until the guy at UT in the tower, I don't think anyone had ever heard of a mass shooting of innocent students. Perhaps there had been a few, but they are not well known today, not like the tower guy. I don't know if it's coincidence, but that decade was a busy one in the culture, trying to overturn everything and change everything and get rid of all the old traditions and values. A friend said to me the other day, "this isn't the country I grew up in. Beaver Cleaver has left the building".

Bring him back, and get rid of all this mindless bloody antisocial violence. If a kid watches a TV show or movie, it ought to teach him something about being a good person and knowing what's right. Natural Born Killers… eh, not so much.

It's about the culture, not about the guns. But billions of dollars are made in the selling of this culture, by people who donate Democrat. Probably a non starter, but a gun ban on TV and in movies is the right move IMHO.

So ban guns in entertainment. Oh, but.. that violates free speech! And that's guaranteed in the constitution... right above the part where the right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed. :-)

Well, as an amateur constitutional scholar, I'd like to offer an alternative view. The constitution is a document written by survivors of a battle to escape a tyrannical government, and it was written for the purpose of limiting the federal government to prevent the kind of tyranny which the founders had risked life, fortune, sacred honor to reject. They had to fight a war to get rid of it and weren't about to let another government get that way because they were too lazy to focus on getting the document right. The PURPOSE of the first amendment, therefore, was to be specific in a way they had not been in the original Constitution about how to limit the power of government and preserve the power of "the people" to rule themselves. One way governments had always limited the power of the people was to ban public assembly and ban speech against the ruling powers in government (sedition, treason, etc), and ban publishing of such words in newspapers and pamphlets.

The purpose of preserving the right to speak freely, to write freely, and to speak to large numbers of people (back then, assembly-- today, broadcasting), was to prevent government from SILENCING OPPOSITION. Political opposition. Free speech was to be kept free from a ruling power trying to preserve itself by silencing dissent. The kind of speech they kept free was, therefore, POLITICAL SPEECH. "down with republicans, down with democrats", etc. They were not enshrining the right to say "FUKC" on TV. They were not enshrining the right to publish dirty pictures. I am not opposed to either, but they are not CONSTITUTIONAL rights. They are culture. I support flag burning and flag stomping and all that, because clearly that is POLITICAL speech, that is anti government symbolic behavior meant to send a message, and although I don't like it, I believe they have a constitutional right to do it. As has been said, I don't like what you're saying but I'll fight beside you for your right to say it. FREEDOM OF SPEECH. It's not to protect porn from publication restrictions. It's to protect politics from tyranny.

I do NOT think there is an intrinsic constitutional right to show staged scenes of people shooting each other in movies. That is not political speech, and if a genuine link between those shows and psychological harm to children can be discovered (I think it's obvious), I am all for banning shootings in movies. If it hurts children, lets find another way, let's get rid of the thing that hurts them. If it makes children even slightly more likely to become antisocial, to want to do harm, well get it off television. That is CULTURAL STANDARDS, which are not unconstitutional --- and we should have higher standards.

You have spent a lot of words pointing out the obvious in regard to the power of our military. I want to propose that their ability to destroy my block with one bomb is not relevant to the business of the people defending themselves against the government:

If there is one thing dictators need, it's a functioning economy. They know so little about how that happens, it's usually best if they inherit one so it can at least stagger on for awhile just from tradition. The people who want to acquire full power in this country do not intend to go around using laser guided bombs against the people. Destroying the infrastructure would mean destroying the economy. All this political propaganda against gun ownership is at least partially to serve a future purpose, to divide the country, to make people want to turn in other people as they did in the eastern bloc countries, to make gun ownership something that a large part of the public does not LIKE. (They aren't making a lot of progress, but it's enough). It is not their intent to use the awesome unbeatable power of the American military to attack a bunch of deer hunters who decide on noncompliance. It's going to be door kicking, confiscation squads, etc. If they do it the big spectacular way, shock and awe, etc., the entire public is affected, not just the herd they wish to cut out. And if the entire public is flinching, bunkered, afraid, or dealing with broken roads and buildings and freeways, etc, well then the economy comes to a standstill and the dictator suddenly has big problems regarding tax revenue and so forth. Not to mention THAT military is a volunteer force presently composed of mostly rednecks from gun owning states who do not WANT to attack their own homes with bombers and artillery, or any other way either. That's why Obama wants a Schutzstaffel.

If you think it through, you realize that full scale use of the military against "the people" is a nonstarter. It will be squads, doorkicking, confiscation. Unless they fail to accomplish that, somehow.

I am convinced by history that gun restrictions are progressive, and the stated reasons for restrictions (public safety) can be used for each new restriction in its turn until a full ban can be "another small step" for safety, etc.

Ben Franklin said something about the guy trading freedom for safety ending up with neither, and I think he knew what he was talking about. Progressive authoritarianism was not new to him. Human nature is what it is, and when power is put on like a comfy coat, the guy wearing the coat gets serious about not giving it up. an armed public makes crime lower, makes the people more safe, but makes dictators less so. Gun bans are, historically, often a prelude to something terrible that our Constitution was supposed to prevent. It still will, if only it is followed instead of hated and rejected. otherwise we have no protection against creeping authoritarianism and eventual dictatorship. WE are the defense against it, not the military, not "that doesn't' happen in America" wishful thinking. We are the REASON it doesn't happen. And we, by not caring, will be the reason it DOES.

I think the machine gun ban in 1934 (not a full ban, btw, just a tax and license scheme) probably caught some people by surprise. Until then, no serious attempt had been made against the second amendment, and the facts of a postwar glut of Tommies and the enormous increase in shootings with those weapons (gangster on gangster, not school shootings, but it still made the news) made people comfortable that they did not need Tommy guns to defend themselves and it would be better if gangsters didn't have them. Perhaps in light of what progressives today say about confiscation and "turn 'em in", the public view might be different. But it's ancient history now. Nobody wants a clawback on that deal. Mostly it was gangsters who had 'em, whereas mostly it's tens of millions of law abiding people who now have 30 round AR mags. A different proposition, to collect such items. Slightly more like tyranny and less like public safety.

If you want to live in a vacuum and say "preventing another Newtown" is the full sum and total of our goals and responsibilities regarding gun law, well you are not alone. I take the broader view, and I wonder where all the outrage is about south side Chicago, where 500 people have been shot this year alone, in a town where guns are illegal. Where is the outrage? Is it because the victims are pretty much all BLACK!?!?!?! You, sirrrah, are a racist. You concern yourself deeply about white victims but do not have a thought in your head for the black ones. RAAACCCIIIIISSSTTT!!!!!!!

(The preceding is the kind of logic often used by the left when political battles are fought, but for some reason nobody on the right will buck up and use it. The truth about Chicago is, it proves that gun BANS aren't going to stop all gun violence, and even contribute to an increase of it in high crime areas to start with.)

Some of you know that in 1991 my wife was carjacked, raped and murdered by a guy with a smuggled .32 pistol from the eastern bloc, no serial number. That's just an anecdote. Just one story. It does clarify my thinking. The dope dealers working our big cities are gun smugglers too, selling the guns to the same guys who buy and retail their drugs. We have MILLIONS of illegal smuggled guns, no numbers, not accountable to any gun law, not traceable, not controlled even in the strictest of gun control areas. Those are the guns killing the BLACK people in Chicago. Those guns will still be on the streets, even more popular, probably more pricey, after the Schutzstaffel squads have seized every single weapon in America with a legal serialized origin. In fact, when the law abiding public is completely disarmed, those guns will be FAR more numerous and used FAR more often. Nobody will ever get rid of them, and reasons to smuggle them will vastly increase.

There is ZERO evidence that privately sold guns, in unreported transactions, contribute to higher gun crime. If one IS used, the police still have the "obstruction of justice" laws working for them and have that leverage against the last legal owner to find out where the gun went. They can charge him if he refuses to talk. Because such guns don't add to gun crime and because police do have those powers to find the owners, we do NOT need to ban those transactions.

The crime footprint of CHL holders is statistically zero. Law abiding people carrying weapons for self defense are NOT a problem in this country. And do not forget the 2 million armed defenses against crime that our own government says happen every year. That's 2 million crimes, presumably some murders and assaults among them, as well as who knows how many more crimes not committed out of fear of armed victims, that would stain our landscape and leave a heap of bodies and screaming victims and misery from coast to coast, were it not for the fact that people have guns. America is not a gun free zone. The mass killings happen in those.

I linked earlier to the Austrian lady who described the series of events as Hitler came to power in her country. First the national gun registry of 1938, sold to the public as a way of linking guns to owners "to help the police investigate". It seemed logical, so everyone registered their guns. Year or so later, Hitler came along and relieved them of the guns. Nothing they could do. Same law banned all Jews from gun ownership and we all know what happened to them. Disarming the public is NECESSARY for tyrannical behavior. Leftists want to disarm the public, even as millions of good sensible people propose only "infringing" on the right to keep and bear arms.

If you cannot see these things in light of history and fact and truth, well, you can't see them. If you trust the federal government to respect your constitutional rights, you're a dope.

THe problem is the culture, not the guns. The culture will continue, and human nature will continue to be worsened by it. Evil will manifest itself in other minds, and other ways will be found to slaughter people. The left really doesn't care about that. They want the public disarmed, for their own reasons. if you don't believe that, the left is VERY happy that you don't.

Big Dave wrote:

In 1968, Thomas Dodd (the father of Christopher Dodd) actually requested for the Library of Congress to translate the 1938 Nazi gun control law so he could use it as a template. That Nazi law banned all Jews from any firearms ownership and gave local law officers complete discretion over whether to approve licensing requests to anyone-- they could deny for any reason or no reason, and therefore denied anyone who had the wrong political affiliation or was of the wrong race, without having to explain why they denied. Nazis armed their followers and disarmed their political opponents through judicious use of this law. Senator Dodd (father of Senator Dodd-- what's wrong with THIS picture) used the translation during the writing of the 1968 gun control act that came after Kennedy and King were shot. He used the Nazi law because it was a law banning a certain race of people from acquiring guns but was written in sneaky fashion so that nobody could look at it and say it was outright racial. Dodd, Democrat senator from Connecticut, was looking for a template like that. Hitler provided it.

You are obviously well read, and you are obviously a critical thinker, I appreciate how seriously you take civics with just the right amount of ass hole mixed in.

I have one suggestion though… if you want to appear to be a scholar and not just another wingnut… don’t do the “I found a bad guy in the other party thing.” You lead your whole statement with an accusation of a political dynasty (Dodd). That subtle cherry picking marks you for what you are and will instantly shut off any independent that may have considered the rest of the well-thought points you may (or may not) make.

Here’s a liberal bullet that is almost a duality of your “history” on Dodd:

Prescott Bush (father of George HW Bush, grandfather of George W Bush) was a director of the Union Banking Corporation, which held Nazi gold and was seized under the Trading with the Enemy Act during WWII.

There is obviously more to it than that (as there is with the Dodd situation) but I’m throwing up a big yellow flag for Party Fanboy here.

Playa Hata wrote:The topic of banning large magazine assault weapons was the topic of conversation at work today. While the pro-gun camp happily justified the continued access and sale of them to the common citizen because it's our second amendment right, they usually had no answer to whether people should be allowed to own rocket launchers. I mean, we do have the right to bear arms, right? Why stop at the AK-47?

When the public begins to demand the right to keep and bear rocket launchers, come back with this one. :-) I already explained why they won't, and why the military won't attack us with rocket launchers, and probably won't even attack us at all. But the Obama SS probably will, albeit not with rocket launchers, just with doorkicker squads confiscating weapons. SO hey let's ban combat boots so they can't kick in the doors, eh?

Most people haven't thought through this stuff and can't come up with fast answers. That doesn't mean you won the argument, only that it has not yet taken place. A corollary in history might be the fact that the public did not demand large artillery pieces back in the day, even though they were "arms" and the military used them. Same thing. People aren't stupid, and they understand what the founders meant. It's about being able to form a citizen army to take to streets or fields and oppose other people coming to oppress or take away freedom. "enemies foreign or domestic". They've been fighting door to door battles with 5.56 mm carbines over there... it's most of war, even today. CQB. It's what the amendment was written for, and it is still applicable.

If your entire goal in weapons policy is "to prevent another Newtown", you are thinking in a vacuum and something far worse than Newtown will be the result. I'm just sayin'.

Boom wrote:

Big Dave wrote:

In 1968, Thomas Dodd (the father of Christopher Dodd) actually requested for the Library of Congress to translate the 1938 Nazi gun control law so he could use it as a template. That Nazi law banned all Jews from any firearms ownership and gave local law officers complete discretion over whether to approve licensing requests to anyone-- they could deny for any reason or no reason, and therefore denied anyone who had the wrong political affiliation or was of the wrong race, without having to explain why they denied. Nazis armed their followers and disarmed their political opponents through judicious use of this law. Senator Dodd (father of Senator Dodd-- what's wrong with THIS picture) used the translation during the writing of the 1968 gun control act that came after Kennedy and King were shot. He used the Nazi law because it was a law banning a certain race of people from acquiring guns but was written in sneaky fashion so that nobody could look at it and say it was outright racial. Dodd, Democrat senator from Connecticut, was looking for a template like that. Hitler provided it.

You are obviously well read, and you are obviously a critical thinker, I appreciate how seriously you take civics with just the right amount of ass hole mixed in.

I have one suggestion though… if you want to appear to be a scholar and not just another wingnut… don’t do the “I found a bad guy in the other party thing.” You lead your whole statement with an accusation of a political dynasty (Dodd). That subtle cherry picking marks you for what you are and will instantly shut off any independent that may have considered the rest of the well-thought points you may (or may not) make.

Here’s a liberal bullet that is almost a duality of your “history” on Dodd:

Prescott Bush (father of George HW Bush, grandfather of George W Bush) was a director of the Union Banking Corporation, which held Nazi gold and was seized under the Trading with the Enemy Act during WWII.

There is obviously more to it than that (as there is with the Dodd situation) but I’m throwing up a big yellow flag for Party Fanboy here.

Well I am no fan of dynasties, be they Kennedy or Bush or Dodd or Gore (whose father voted, like lots of Democrats, against the civil rights act). And I'm no party fanboy, registered independent and do not donate Republican. Republicans are TERRIBLE about conservatism, they run from it and stiff arm it and insult it almost as often as Democrats. Republicans hate me.

but mainly, if that's all the real criticism you can come up with, then I guess I wrote a pretty good piece. Thanks HauerBoom. :-)