General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhy anti-gun laws will never work in US
If there was a way to confiscate every firearm in the country and melt them all down,
I would be for it, 100%. That would make us all much safer from gun violence.
But as you know we have had firearms for sale on the open market in this country for over 200 years. I do not know of any country in the developed world and the most populous countries of China, India, Indonesia etc where that has been the case. They all always had strict gun laws. There is no proliferation of guns there.
So the result is there are perhaps 300,000,000 firearms in the hands of civilians in US.
Every bank robber, store hold up bandit, mugger, drug dealer etc have firearms.
So, please explain how passing stringent anti-firearm laws will persuade the law breakers to
turn in their weapons. By definition these criminals don't give a rat's ass what the law is.
By abolishing the 2nd amendment or passing more anti-gun laws, we will disarm the law abiding people, but not the law breaking criminals. We are too far gone with guns. Now we need more "good" guys with guns to counter the "bad" guys with guns. Anything else is pipe dream and wishful thinking.
In localities where strict gun laws exist (Wash DC, Chicago) there is more deaths by guns.
OTOH where concealed carry is easily allowed, there is less deaths by guns.
Moral of the story is, face reality, not dream wishful thinking.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Turbineguy
(37,372 posts)But if we all just shoot each other the problem goes away too. Of course some may not want to participate in shooting others, preferring to just get shot themselves. But we seem to have plenty who are just itching to shoot a bunch of people to make up for it.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)If the war on guns is anything like the war on drugs....we might as well not even bother.
aardvark401
(11 posts)to point to a single regulation or law that has succeeded in getting rid of the product or behavior that was the target of the regulation.
sellitman
(11,607 posts)I say your NRA talking Points have been seen here before. Go back to your own message board where they might be taken seriously.
Derp
wilt the stilt
(4,528 posts)is one. it was phased out.
EOTE
(13,409 posts)Now I have to be beholden to all the hoodlums in my neighborhood spraying tanks of freon with no recourse. Back in my day, I'd spray that freon back at them, but no more 
99Forever
(14,524 posts)... we can't stop all drunk drivers either, so fuck it, why have any laws at all?
Derp.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Oh yeah...when the Kentucky Long Rifle was sold, it was not sold to anybody. There is more, guns were sold in the open market to the same aristocratic class across Europe. The rabble in neither country (well colonies) was allowed to own guns.
After independence it was a hanging offense to have a rifle if you were from certain grous, see slaves. Oh yes, slaves did hunt, with a paper of leave from their master.
Of course gun ownership was very limited for most of the national history. And in the early years, all the way to the civil war, militias still met.
The first spike in gun ownership was at the end of the civil war. The army let troops keep their muskets as they were phasing in the Henry.
Not even that led to wide spread ownership.
In fact, the west had gun control laws that would make the NRA blush.
For the record, Australia, Canada and Europe saw wide spread ownership, or as wide spread as the US.
After WW I we saw a spike in autos used in crime. That led to the 1934 laws. Europe, Canada and Australia saw some limited things we might call gun control.
They were as wide spread as they were in the US.
What changed all this were mass shootings, for example in Australia and Canada...they did the rational thing, and had buy back programs and controls. This is recent.
We are not that special or different and the Second is about militias.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)But wonderful to have a trained historian like yourself, give these posters some history!
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)
golfguru
(4,987 posts)from Virginia and he told me he still has a musket inherited from one of his
forefathers...from many years ago, and they were not aristocrats.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Land owners. Slaves and indentured servants and those who did not own land were not allowed to have guns. (The big exception, and it was, when indentured servants went to drill instead of their masters and this was rare as hell, especially after the 1676 revolt, Bacon's revolt)
Sorry, this is history.
And land owners were well to do, middle class yeomen, at the very least. Notice I did not say women...as women had no rights either, including rights to guns.
golfguru
(4,987 posts)After all I am a naturalized US citizen who arrived here on a student visa at age 20.
But setting the history older than WWII aside, I am sure you will concede millions of guns
have been sold since WWII. Many are sold without any official record of sale. I am for
protecting our most vulnerable citizens...school kids...IMMEDIATELY from mass shootings.
Not decades from now when stringent gun laws MAY have an effect.
Why not learn from actual history of what works? Why not emulate what they are doing
in terror ridden Israel where there have been no mass shootings of children since laws
were enacted to arm teachers?
I am sure with your splendid knowledge of history, you are familiar with the quote..
those who ignore history....
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Alas I am a naturalized citizen and I know us history, well. There are these things called books...I am sure you have heard of them
As to the epidemic, and it is an epidemic, it's not the post WW II period...
It is since Reagan.
And you gave the example of Israel, which is not the case either...try to find what the case is, on this thread even. Israel has gun control laws that put even the most progressive countries to shame except Japan.
Do we need combat weapons for hunting? No, we don't.
You want a gun for home self defense, go for it.
But don't assume that people agree with this NRA fringe view that the solution is more guns.
Nor are people are going to come and take your gun away.
For the record, get a shotgun, if you are serious for home defense. Realize that if you need to pull the trigger, you'd better kill your home invader.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)Some would think this is nasty, rude, and downright condescending.
But I know you are smarter than anyone here so I don't see it as such.
I see it as just educating us rubes and for that, I salute you!
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)The memo went out.
We legislate lots of things criminals ignore, it doesn't stop us from trying.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)Just pass something, right?
Lex
(34,108 posts)and we can't do anything anyway?
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)Should we ban cars and trucks too?
zappaman
(20,606 posts)I think I'll just sit back and watch how your "logic" goes here...
Lex
(34,108 posts)and that is to KILL PEOPLE.
You answered your own question.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)Are guns any different than archery? A bow an arrow is a weapon designed to kill. It was a weapon of war for thousands of years. But archery and shooting are Olympic sports. So they could be viewed as sports, right?
People could also view a gun as protection and self-defense.
If someone takes a car and decided to start mowing down a bunch of people, should all drivers in the country then be considered a potential killer? In the hands of a responsible gun owner, the gun is not dangerous. Why should that responsible gun owner be punished because of what some wacko did?
There are people in this world that want to do harm. And they will find ways to do it no matter what laws you try to pass to stop them. What we need to do is not make knee-jerk reactions that in the end only hurt people who are following the law.
What you are suggesting by banning guns to stop school shootings would be like saying we need to ban the internet in order to stop child porn. You punish everyone that follows the law, yet the people who are searching for that stuff will still find a way to get it anyway. ...but at least "we tried to stop it"...right? 
Lex
(34,108 posts)in passing sensible gun laws and it's worked.
People who think it's useless to try are wrong.
EnviroBat
(5,290 posts)You are a rare breed here. You actually make sense...
JohnnyRingo
(18,650 posts)...but your sentence that "Guns are designed for one goal, and that is to KILL PEOPLE", is a fundamentally incorrect blanket statement. Ask any animal from a lowly raccoon to a black bear (don't get too close). Hunting different animals require different calibers, and there's a vague line between sportsman and criminal that no politician dares cross.
While an "assault rifle" rightfully takes on a sinister context when seen in The Bronx, it's seen as more of a tool at a Montana ranch. No one would panic and call the police if they saw an AR-15 on the rifle rack of a pickup truck in Alaska.
On edit:
I shun the NRA as an arm of the Republican Party, and seek common sense regulations like waiting periods, background checks, and dealer-only registered sales. Solutions like "throwing all the guns in the ocean" is as much an idealistic fantasy as a global ban on nuclear weapons. It feels good to say it, but implementation is unrealistic.
XRubicon
(2,212 posts)Man- you are so smart! I can't believe I didn't think of this before... How many people have you told about this, you may want to keep it quiet until you can secure a patent.
Think of the lives that will be saved!
OneTenthofOnePercent
(6,268 posts)well, you could fly it to work anyways.
XRubicon
(2,212 posts)Are you an engineer too?
OneTenthofOnePercent
(6,268 posts)XRubicon
(2,212 posts)You and the golf guru are engineers. You know, I'm an engineer too (mechanical). What is your field?
OneTenthofOnePercent
(6,268 posts)I'm currently deployed overseas with a defense contractor. Used to design & test this stuff, and then they actually let me go and actually USE the stuff. Beats the hell out of the office. In the end, having the experience of field repair and modification in addition to being the end-user, I think should improve my skills as a deign engineer. Tent-life takes some adjustment though.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Interesting, I haven't seen one person here totally against additional, toothier gun regulations that has anything but selfish reasons.
OneTenthofOnePercent
(6,268 posts)I have to buy my own guns like every tom dick and harry back in the states.
I'm also not against all other firearms restrictions. There are certainly some I would support.
MightyMopar
(735 posts)http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/gun-deaths-set-outstrip-car-fatalities-first-time-152632492.html
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2012/12/18/gun_deaths_in_america_gun_deaths_outpace_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_at_least.html
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/05/25/490441/report-in-10-states-guns-kill-more-people-than-cars-do/?mobile=nc
golfguru
(4,987 posts)they require by law that every teacher be trained in use of firearms and carry one
in the class room........the place is Israel! Before that law, the terrorists found schools
to be a easy target to attack. Now that is the last place they attack.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)golfguru
(4,987 posts)May be I am just to practical a person who is willing to adopt anything that works
regardless of which end of political spectrum it originates from. May be it comes
from a lifetime of practicing engineering where results count more than anything else.
Like I said on another post, I do not even own a gun/firearm. But as I get older
in my 70's, I feel increasingly vulnerable if someone breaks into my home and
a gun might just be the equalizer. So I am seriously considering buying one.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)It's not based on reality.
Israel does not have these mythical teachers, guards toting Galil riffles.
neverforget
(9,437 posts)Please read the whole thing. There have been 2 attacks on schools, both by terrorists.
http://www.wtsp.com/news/article/288828/81/Israel-rejects-NRAs-guns-in-schools-claim
--Snip--Gun lobbyists who might think Israel hands out guns freely to keep its citizens safe might be less enamored of Israel's actual gun laws, which are much stricter than those in the U.S. For one thing, notes Yakov Amit, head of the firearms licensing department at the Ministry of Public Security, Israeli law does not guarantee the right to bear arms as the U.S. Constitution does.
"The policy in Israel is restrictive," he said.
Gun licensing to private citizens is limited largely to people who are deemed to need a firearm because they work or live in dangerous areas, Amit said. West Bank settlers, for instance, can apply for weapons licenses, as can residents of communities on the borders with Lebanon and the Gaza Strip. Licensing requires multiple levels of screening, and permits must be renewed every three years. Renewal is not automatic.
The policy is designed "to strike a balance between needs and risks," Amit said. "We know that weapons are a dangerous thing, and in the hands of someone who isn't trained or isn't reliable, it causes problems."
The gap between Israeli gun ownership and U.S. gun ownership is consequently staggering. A total of 170,000 guns are licensed for private use in Israel, or about one gun for every 30 adults.
--Snip--
golfguru
(4,987 posts)but the same armed guards/armed teachers can also take down a crazed mass shooter
such as recent horrible incident. We need IMMEDIATE solution for the children, not wait
decades to take stringent gun laws take their effect.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Nor are they teachers. On the rare occasion they might need that, the ARMY provides that security, and it is rare as hell...what part of a non daily occurrence are you purposely missing?
golfguru
(4,987 posts)a mentally disturbed mass shooter. How many years will it take for stringent gun control
to take effect in protecting schools?
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Could be enacted right now, would reduce the number of untegistered guns by 40%
Also making sure people who should not have guns, don't.
But both of these are resisted by the NRA.
Hell, the NRA is trying to restore gun rights to convicted felons, but you knew this, I suspect.
beevul
(12,194 posts)"Hell, the NRA is trying to restore gun rights to convicted felons, but you knew this, I suspect."
Do you have one?
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)You can use the google.
Oh and it took a less than 10 seconds.
The New York Times conducted an extensive investigation into this issue last year. The story reports that in 11 states, nonviolent felons have automatic restoration of their gun rights while a handful of other states allow felons convicted of violent crimes to regain their gun rights.
In Minnesota, for instance, violent felons can petition a court to regain their gun rights by showing “good cause.” There is no waiting period. In Ohio, a violent felon need only demonstrate to a judge that he or she has “led a law-abiding life” since they’ve left prison. In Washington State, felons can get their gun rights restored as long as they haven’t been convicted of any new crimes in five years. Under Washington State’s Hard Times for Armed Crimes Act, judges actually have no discretion to deny restoration based on a felon’s character or mental health.
Felons in other states have other ways to get their guns back: Georgia and Nebraska have granted a high number of pardons to restore felons’ right to bear arms even for those convicted of crimes like voluntary manslaughter or armed robbery.
And Montana makes it possible for felons to get their gun rights restored as long as they didn’t use a dangerous weapon in the commission of their crime.
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/culture/easing-gun-laws/15771/
ALEC is a close ally of the NRA.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Uh yeah, except you said "the NRA is trying to restore gun rights to convicted felons", not "a close ally of the NRA is trying to restore gun rights to convicted felons".
A close ally of the nra obviously is not the nra, because if it were, you'd just call them the nra, instead of "a close ally".
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Laws across the nation. Good for the people they work for, and not their members.
Look, you are a gunny, we know this.
Have a good life.
beevul
(12,194 posts)"Look, you are a gunny, we know this."
"Well, I guess that excuses you from backing up what you said...
"the nra is..."
Rather than moving the goalposts when called on it.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)in their coverage last week, including Ed Shultz and Rachel Maddow.
Okie dokie
I wish the President of the US took on the NRA and read their actual goals to the nation in the State of the Nation, but they won't... political leaders fear them
zappaman
(20,606 posts)You have to give her props for the remarkable evasion when confronted with her mistake!
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Expect you to dismiss the source
http://www.vpc.org/studies/felons.htm
beevul
(12,194 posts)Past tense, and present tense, are two different things.
At least to people that value accuracy.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)The people behind this is the NRA. You might not want to believe it, but facts are facts.
Have an excellent life.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Last edited Fri Dec 28, 2012, 02:10 AM - Edit history (1)
You made a specific claim.
I asked you to cite it.
You provided cites that do not support the claim you DID make, then tried to move the goalposts, and came up with some mumbo-jumbo from the VPC, dating back to the early to mid 90s, rather than anything current.
I could have just as easily said that the VPC isn't a reliable source anymore than the nra is, but I didn't even have to do that, since they don't back up your claim in the first place.
That says about all that needs saying, on that specific topic.
As far as "gun laws are being loosened", IF you want to name them specifically, and discuss them specifically, we can do that, provided you're talking about the present, rather than ressurecting recriminations from the past.
But, somehow, I don't think you have that in mind.
billh58
(6,635 posts)"Or Spengler may have gotten his gun thanks to an NRA-supported overhaul of federal gun laws. Through "restoration," thousands of felons (including people convicted of violent crimes) across the country get their gun rights reinstated, often with little or no review, reports the New York Times"
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/crime/how-did-convicted-felon-william-spengler-who-killed-two-volunteer-fiefighters-get
"Sherman Dale Williams pleaded guilty to two counts of illegally selling two full-auto machine guns to undercover agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. Under federal law Williams, now a felon convicted of a gun crime, should never have been able to ever again possess a gun. But he can — thanks to the National Rifle Association."
http://www.texnews.com/guns.texnews/opin/con0327.html
Now I know that you, as an experienced NRA/Gungeon spokesperson, will soundly denounce these news articles as being biased, untrue, and un-American, but there are many more quotes and citations where these come from.
Just for the sake of argument, could you please provide us with some evidence that the NRA is NOT in favor of the "restoration" of gun rights for felons who meet certain arbitrary NRA-defined "standards?"
beevul
(12,194 posts)I need not even point out that one of your links quotes the same article as your predecessor linked to, and the other is was written by kristen rand, of the vpc - which is as reliable of a source as the nra...All I DO need to point out, is that it is a decade plus old, and this:
Since roughly October of 1992, annual appropriation has prohibited the expending of any funds to investigate or act upon applications for relief from Federal firearms disabilities submitted by individuals. As long as this provision is included in current treasury appropriations, which to my knowledge it is to this very day, applications for relief from Federal firearms disabilities submitted by individuals can not be acted on.
Your predecessor said "is trying", not "has tried", and as such, you fail to support that assertion, exactly as they did.
"Just for the sake of argument, could you please provide us with some evidence that the NRA is NOT in favor of the "restoration" of gun rights for felons who meet certain arbitrary NRA-defined "standards?"
Thats not how debate works, friend. If you believe they ARE trying to restore gun rights to felons, its up to you to prove it.
If you do not believe they are, then you're just here "for sake of argument".
billh58
(6,635 posts)NRA talking points spoken by an expert Guneoneer. The NYT quote was from the shooting of two firemen just a few days ago, so please take up your "arguments" with the editors of the NYT.
The point is, the NRA has advocated for the "restoration" of gun rights for felons at the state level. The funding you refer to is Federal funding, and does not apply to the various states which also have the power and authority to reinstate a felon's gun rights. You are picking at nits, and yes the NRA started this bullshit, and they still need to be held accountable for their support of the attacks on the rights and lives of innocent people like the children of Sandy Hook. Your unfounded attacks on the VPC, the Brady organization, and MAIG are typical of the hate group that you respresent.
And we all know why the NRA/Gungeon flies are swarming to this thread: you have really run out of arguments, and now you're grasping at straws with your same old NRA talking points. You and your kind are finally on the losing side of this issue, and from your standpoint it's just going to get worse. For the majority of the American people, however, sanity is replacing the easy access to guns, and the NRA's influence in lobbying for asinine gun laws is coming to an end. Deal with it.
And actually, unlike the NRA and its proponents, I'm arguing for the sake of sanity and public safety.
beevul
(12,194 posts)"NRA talking points spoken by an expert Guneoneer."
Anything that anyone says that disagrees with you on the gun issue is an "NRA talking point".
Just admit what everyone else knows and be done with it.
"The point is, the NRA has advocated for the "restoration" of gun rights for felons at the state level. The funding you refer to is Federal funding, and does not apply to the various states which also have the power and authority to reinstate felon's gun rights. You are picking at nits, and yes the NRA started this bullshit, and they still need to be held accountable for their support of the attacks on the rights and lives of innocent people like the children of Sandy Hook. Your unfounded attacks on the VPC, the Brady organization, and MAIG are typical of the hate group that you respresent."
Where to start with that mess...
Ok. First off, what you describe as "picking at nits", in this case, is actually me knowing what I'm talking about.
You saying that federal funding "does not apply to the various states which also have the power and authority to reinstate felon's gun rights" is generally laughable, because generally speaking, felon implies a federal offense (with very few exceptions). What THAT little pick of a nit amounts to in the real world where people know what they're talking about, instead of spouting ten plus year old giberish in support of something they say is current - is this:
IF you have a felony on your record (again with very few exceptions) , you are a prohibited person at the FEDERAL level, and no amount of handwringing, no amount of ignoring it on the part of any given state, no amount of quoting the vpc which apparently knows as little factually about the issue as you do, can change that.
Thats the difference between actually knowing the state of things, and the laws that govern them, versus swallowing whole some bullshit that some org with an axe to grind feeds you.
As to "unfounded attacks on the VPC, the Brady organization, and MAIG"...
Pointing out that the vpc is no way an unbiased org, is not an attack. Its a fact. Is that what you mean by an "nra talking point"?
Do tell.
I've said nothing about maig, or brady in this thread, so now you're attributing to me, an action I did not take in this thread.
Unsurprising, and underwhelming.
billh58
(6,635 posts)You "know what you're talking about?" Horseshit Bubba. Here are just a couple of recent (2011, and not 10 years ago) articles which show that you're lying through your teeth:
"Under federal law, people with felony convictions forfeit their right to bear arms. Yet every year, thousands of felons across the country have those rights reinstated, often with little or no review. In several states, they include people convicted of violent crimes, including first-degree murder and manslaughter, an examination by The New York Times has found."
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/14/us/felons-finding-it-easy-to-regain-gun-rights.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
"A handful of states have had such restoration laws on their books for some time, but with little notice, more than 20 states have passed similar measures since 2008. This surge can be traced to a law passed by Congress after the 2007 massacre at Virginia Tech that was actually meant to make it harder for people with mental illness to get guns.
As a condition of its support for the measure, the National Rifle Association extracted a concession: the inclusion of a mechanism for restoring firearms rights to those who lost them for mental health reasons."
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/03/us/03guns.html?pagewanted=all
And the NRA is squarely behind this travesty of justice, and violation of sanity. The VPC is at the forefront of combating the lies and bullshit spouted by people like you and your Gungeon dweller buddies.
Post all the cites you want. They don't trump federal law either.
Is that an nra talking point too?
"As a condition of its support for the measure, the National Rifle Association extracted a concession: the inclusion of a mechanism for restoring firearms rights to those who lost them for mental health reasons."
Also from your cite:
"But the most prominent gun-control organization, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, ultimately supported the bill."
Is quoting that fact from YOUR source an nra talking point too?
I guess that makes them complicit, right? And just as bad as the nra in this instance, Assuming you apply your...standards...evenly, which I'm oh-so-sure you will.
"A few states have set stricter standards. In New York, decisions are made by mental health officials, and applicants must submit a long list of documents, including five years’ worth of medical records and records of psychiatric and substance abuse treatment going back 20 years. State officials can also require applicants to undergo clinical evaluations and risk assessments."
That quote from YOUR cite, would appear to apply to new york.
Is that too much of an nra talking point for you?
"So far, there has been only a trickle of petitions in states with new restoration laws. The statutes are not yet well known, and federal authorities have yet to certify many of the state programs, making them fully operational under federal law."
Oh, look, a quote from your source that supports what I said. Let me guess, another nra talking point, right?
I'd hand you a shovel so you could keep digging, but it appears you're already using two of them, and couldn't possibly dig any faster than you are.
billh58
(6,635 posts)you lied about States not being able to restore felons' gun rights, and you come back with typical NRA diversionary half-truths and meaningless out of context excerpts in an effort to cover up your undying allegiance to Wayne LePew.
Toodles, and please try to get over yourself...
beevul
(12,194 posts)Unless you really think state law trumps federal law, contrary to your own source, and that my assertion that it does not, is a lie.
Do you?
Good luck with that.
billh58
(6,635 posts)Calling it "your own source" does not change the fact the real source is the NYT. If you want to call bullshit on the editors of the NYT, go for it.
Let's see, should I believe the NRA, or the NYT? NRA or the NYT? Really tough choice because we all know that the NRA never ever lies or distorts the truth don't we? But then again the New York Times IS a "liberal" organization and we know that right-wingers don't like or trust them. Who to believe then? Hard choice.
I think that I'll take my chances and believe that the NYT would not publish anything that they hadn't thoroughly researched and documented before they published. Add the fact that no one, including the government, has disputed that article, and I'm pretty sure that it's safe to bet that many States have indeed restored gun rights to convicted felons.
What's that? There are Federal felony laws, AND State felony laws? Really? So that NRA talking point bullshit about all felonies being "Federal Law" wasn't accurate? Who knew? Actually, most people know that, and that is why States can "restore" their own felons' gun rights. And wasn't it just peachy of the NRA to help the States write those right-wing, Republican laws?
"In certain cases, a convicted felon who has served out their punishment can seek an expungement of their record. If their application is approved by the court, their felony conviction could be expunged which means removed from the public record. Expungement is only applied to state crimes. Federal crimes don't allow for expungement and can only be cleared with a Presidential pardon"
http://statelaws.net/Felonies.php
You're either a liar Bubba, or you really don't know as much as you brag about. Do you brag about your big gun too?
beevul
(12,194 posts)"Calling it "your own source" does not change the fact the real source is the NYT. If you want to call bullshit on the editors of the NYT, go for it."
Its the one you cited, no matter what you call it.
"Let's see, should I believe the NRA, or the NYT? NRA or the NYT? Really tough choice because we all know that the NRA never ever lies or distorts the truth don't we? But then again the New York Times IS a "liberal" organization and we know that right-wingers don't like or trust them. Who to believe then? Hard choice."
Except I'm not the nra. I was a member over 20 years ago for a single year, because the gun safety course I took as a teenager included a single years membership. Beyond that, you're free to believe what you like, even if it is contrary what to the source you linked to actually says.
Or is that too much of an nra talking point for you too?
"So that NRA talking point bullshit about all felonies being "Federal Law" wasn't accurate?"
Quote me where I said "ALL felonies".
Go ahead, i'll wait right here.
Aw shucks.
Yet another example of an anti-gun poster that can't argue without attributing to their opponent, something that person did not in fact say.
Consistent. Unsurprising, but consistent.
If its expungement you want to talk about, thats been around since before you were old enough to know the meaning of the word, so you can't exactly lay that at the feet of the nra. Well, I suppose you could try. Start here:
Congressman Charles B. Rangel proposed the Second Chance Act in 2007, 2009, and 2011, which was intended to "[amend] the federal criminal code to allow an individual to file a petition for expungement of a record of conviction for a nonviolent criminal offense".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expungement#United_States
Go ahead and start an OP telling the woeful tale of how Congressman Rangel is part of the nra conspiracy to arm felons through expungement. Just let me get a bottle of oxygen first so I don't die of laughter.
"Do you brag about your big gun too?"
Yeah, my 17 caliber big gun.
I guess we could talk about it if you really want to, but I'd much rather hear the story of how you denounced the brady campaign for siding with the nra.
billh58
(6,635 posts)"IF you have a felony on your record (again with very few exceptions) , you are a prohibited person at the FEDERAL level, and no amount of hand-wringing, no amount of ignoring it on the part of any given state, no amount of quoting the vpc which apparently knows as little factually about the issue as you do, can change that."
and,
"Unless you really think state law trumps federal law, contrary to your own source, and that my assertion that it does not, is a lie."
I didn't have the time to copy and paste any of your other assertions. And BTW, the "expungement" quote was only to point out that States can indeed use "restoration" in their own right.
Aw hell. Just admit it Bubba, you either didn't know, or conveniently forgot, that felonies come in all flavors -- State and Federal. States have very lax procedures for "restoring" murderers' and rapists' gun rights, and do so with regularity. The NYT documented this shit, and the NRA did in fact buy enough local politicians to get these "restoration" laws passed.
You may not admit it publicly, but we both know that the fucking NRA is up to its eyeballs in the blood of innocent American families, and they need to be stripped of their political influence on our government.
Have a nice day, and try not to hurt yourself with your 17 cal...
beevul
(12,194 posts)"Aw hell. Just admit it Bubba, you either didn't know, or conveniently forgot, that felonies come in all flavors -- State and Federal. States have very lax procedures for "restoring" murderers' and rapists' gun rights, and do so with regularity. The NYT documented this shit, and the NRA did in fact buy enough local politicians to get these "restoration" laws passed."
Oh, I know exactly what that means, and how this simple yet apparently misunderstood by you sentence applies:
"So far, there has been only a trickle of petitions in states with new restoration laws. The statutes are not yet well known, and federal authorities have yet to certify many of the state programs, making them fully operational under federal law."
Get back to me when you actually understand what that sentence means.
"Have a nice day, and try not to hurt yourself with your 17 cal"
I haven't actually touched a gun in about maybe 6-ish weeks. I had a guest from illinois over that wanted to see the rifle, and I haven't been target practicing like I used to - out of primers so I can't reload any rounds to practice with at the moment. Plus, the coyotes have been absent like they usually are in the colder months, so I haven't needed to scare any of them away - our pack has been safe from due to the cold lately - thankfully.
billh58
(6,635 posts)Last edited Sat Dec 29, 2012, 11:56 AM - Edit history (1)
"So far, there has been only a trickle of petitions in states with new restoration laws. The statutes are not yet well known, and federal authorities have yet to certify many of the state programs, making them fully operational under federal law." means.
This quote is from the "mental illness" article about restoration of rights, and has absolutely nothing to do with the restoration of convicted felons' gun rights. These are two separate issues with different rules and procedures. I don't actually have a problem with the restoration of gun rights for non-violent mental patients after a thorough review by a competent medical authority (not a judge) if they can show a need for a gun.
The following quote from the first article I quoted earlier goes to the heart of what we have been discussing: the restoration of gun rights for those convicted under State felony laws.
"Under federal law, people with felony convictions forfeit their right to bear arms. Yet every year, thousands of felons across the country have those rights reinstated, often with little or no review. In several states, they include people convicted of violent crimes, including first-degree murder and manslaughter, an examination by The New York Times has found." (emphasis added)
I'm resting my case, and I can only hope that the DU-ers reading this back-and-forth (if any of them can stay awake that long) will come away with at least a broader view of the issue of restoration of gun rights for those who most likely shouldn't have them restored.
Happy Holidays, and stay warm...
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)So do you have a link to that "a gun for every teacher" info? Thanks to someone on DU, this link has been made available.
"We're fighting terrorism, which comes under very specific geopolitical and military circumstances. This is not something that compares with the situation in the U.S," Palmor said.
--------------------------
In Israel, applicants must undergo police screening and medical exams, in part to determine their mental state, Amit said.
Many Israelis receive weapons training in the military. But to be licensed to receive a weapon outside the military, they must undergo at least two hours of additional training, then repeat the training and medical exams every three years before they can renew their licenses.
Anybody who possesses a legally acquired gun waives the right to confidentiality, and authorities cross-reference for new information about the gunholder every three months.
Because it is aimed at preventing terror attacks, Israel's school security system is part of a multi-layered defense strategy that focuses on prevention and doesn't depend on a guy at a gate with a gun.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/israel-rejects-us-gun-lobby-claims-security-18057515
Lex
(34,108 posts)And lots of other facts here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/aaron-zelinsky/israel-gun-laws_b_2318352.html
golfguru
(4,987 posts)Those kind of weapons should be outlawed immediately. One does not need an
assault rifle to go hunting or protect your family from an intruder.
Lex
(34,108 posts)I was referring to, of course.
XRubicon
(2,212 posts)Just wondering...
golfguru
(4,987 posts)I am retired, in my 70's.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Really?
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)You are arguing against a position I didn't take.
Response to davidn3600 (Reply #7)
davidn3600 This message was self-deleted by its author.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)Many of these guys don't even use firearms in commission of their crimes due to stringent gun-sentencing laws.
Those laws are a direct example of how legislation has changed how criminals operate, and how we use laws to effect change.
Most banks noawadays are held up with a hand-written note, not a gun.
Hard to find a firearm on the person of a corner drug dealer, he'll take the hit for selling drugs, but he won't do a mandatory twenty for doing it with a pistol in his pocket.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)This strikes me of rank desperation.
golfguru
(4,987 posts)We must protect our most vulnerable...the kids in schools.
Learn from actual history...as in Israel where teachers are required to be armed
by law. Guess what, no more mass shootings! Even the terrorists now avoid
attacking schools.
Stringent Gun laws will work eventually....might take several decades. But I do not
wish to have the young kids left vulnerable that long.
Squinch
(51,022 posts)today!
I wonder if they are all wearing matching outfits as they write these posts.
sellitman
(11,607 posts)Most all with low post counts too. So clever those NRA Derps!
Not
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Wait another decade and there will be another 100 million on streets.
Plus, who wants folks like this living in the apartment above:
Standing in line one week after Sandy Hook praying for a chance to buy a new assault weapon.
http://www.ajc.com/news/news/cobb-gun-show-attracts-scores-looking-for-semi-aut/nTdMm/
golfguru
(4,987 posts)I would prefer something be done immediately to protect school children.
May be we should follow example of what has been tried in schools and works!
That is to train & arm every teacher as they do in Israel. There are no mass
shootings in Israel schools anymore in Israel.
on edit added ... "Israel schools"
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Or does their professional opinion mean nothing to you?
I could go with the Israeli solution as long as we get their extremely strict gun control also, you only get 50 cartridges per year there.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Those that do, probably aren't good role models for kids.
Besides, the problem is more than just schools.
Btw - I think I'm replying to post above yours. Sorry.
rl6214
(8,142 posts)If they thought they could save one child's life.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)save a life? Save the effort to post, I know the answer.
rl6214
(8,142 posts)You don't have to answer, we all know you would let them die to further your anti gun zealotry
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)rational.
golfguru
(4,987 posts)billh58
(6,635 posts)are not armed. That is an NRA, right-wing myth based on a picture and taken entirely out of context.
"You’ve probably seen it at least once on Facebook. Or in a chain e-mail like the one above.
So, is it true that Israeli teachers are armed? It would be half of Gunnutistan‘s wet dream – don’t pay the teachers, but give them each a nice, shiny weapon. Because derp.
Well, the answer is no. Israeli teachers are not armed. In fact, it’s unlikely that the person shown above is a teacher at all."
http://blogs.artvoice.com/avdaily/2012/12/21/breaking-israel-does-not-arm-its-teachers/
Israel has much stricter gun control laws than the USA, even though they practically live in a war zone.
Some schools in the USA do employ armed guards, but so far the only "test" of the effectiveness of this tactic was at Columbine where it failed miserably.
rl6214
(8,142 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)sales and license stats are released since Sandy Hook. How long will the moratorium last before you are singing the praises of LaPierre's push for more guns everywhere?
rl6214
(8,142 posts)That will suit your purpose.
moondust
(20,006 posts)1. It would take a long, long time to deal with 300 million guns. Decades. Maybe a century. Those with a short attention span need not apply.
2. Gun control would have to be national policy. DC and Chicago are not well-protected remote islands. If you want a gun in those places you simply drive a short distance beyond the city limits and you're swimming in guns.
3. Stiff penalties for being in possession of a gun would tend to encourage turning them in.
4. Some adjustments to law enforcement may be necessary to provide more protection from gun-toting criminals, although I don't think it's such a big deal. As it is now a criminal doesn't really know in advance who does and who does not have a gun so it's not much of a deterrent anyway. And this is largely about property crimes and insurance can cover that even if it's lost.
The alternative is to throw up your hands and do nothing and watch more kids die for nothing.
golfguru
(4,987 posts)Taverner
(55,476 posts)OF course they don't anymore
So they spin yarns about evil people kicking in their doors and threatening to kill everyone to death, but LUCKY they had their gun at that moment....
I'm convinced these stories are made up
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)all guns were confiscated. But that's not possible.
Even then, I would have to be persuaded. A gun is an equalizer for a woman faced with a male home intruder. Unless she happens to ahve a metal bat handy. But it's best to stay far away from him, and only a gun does that.
golfguru
(4,987 posts)who are beaten, raped and killed by males.
thucythucy
(8,087 posts)beaten, murdered and raped by men with handguns?
golfguru
(4,987 posts)a firearm with training.
thucythucy
(8,087 posts)And since most assaults on women are commited by men they know (husbands, fathers, lovers, dates) it's doubtful "the great equalizer" would be of much use.
Guns are used by rapists and batterers to rape and murder far more often than they're used to protect women.
But I'm sure you disagree, and I'm sure there's nothing I can say or do to change your mind.
Best wishes.
Isoldeblue
(1,135 posts)I would hate to have use my gun to kill someone or to even shoot someone. However, having been a victim of childhood abuse and rape, I would NOT hesitate to use it against anyone trying to harm me or my family. There just is no way, I am about to let someone hurt me again.... So any intruder (stupid mother f'er) will regret having picked me to break into my home.
But for humanity and peace, I hate having a gun. But it is even more abhorrent to me that semi-automatics and high capacity clips are legal. There is no need for them and I plan to work on outlawing them and seeing the existing semi-automatic weapons taken out of circulation. First through legislation of laws and then through buy-backs in every state. I believe it can be done. It may take many years, but however long it takes, I will be active til the goal is achieved.
Comatose Sphagetti
(836 posts)Regarding the 2nd amendment of the constitution...
"Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment… laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind… as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, institutions must advance also, to keep pace with the times… We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain forever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
-- Thomas Jefferson
The 2nd amendment can be changed. In any endeavor a beginning must be made.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts) golfguru
(4,987 posts)but am seriously considering getting one as I get older and more feeble.
In my 70's, I can still play excellent golf so should be able to handle a firearm
with adequate training.
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)Gun controls are not all "anti-gun".
Is preventing convicted felons from purchasing a gun "anti-gun"?
Are laws mandating a police report when a firearm is stolen "anti-gun"?
Would licensing laws to prove training and proficiency "anti-gun"?
Are there measures that can be taken to reduce the number of firearms in the hands of criminals without infringing on the individual's right to own a firearm? I believe so.
golfguru
(4,987 posts)about having strict anti-gun laws against felons, mentally disturbed, history of spousal abuse etc.
I just am not convinced disarming gun owners who have never broken any laws is a good
thing while we have no quick solution to confiscating firearms from drug dealers, bank robbers,
muggers, etc. Those people do not care a whit what the law says.
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)30% of all crime guns come from a direct point of sale (ATF). Meaning that either the guns shop or purchaser (straw purchase) were breaking the law.
Those crime guns (30%) are sourced primarily from only 8% of the nation's gun shops. Wouldn't it make sense to focus there?
How many people are arrested each year for straw purchasing?
How many gun shop owners/employees are arrest each year?
There already are laws in place for this. The states do a better job than the federal government at prosecuting straw purchasers and going after gun shop owners. I think there needs to be more funding in this avenue to the ATF and states. However, I cannot justify giving more money to the ATF at the moment. They are leaderless and undirected at the moment. They have not had a director since 2006, and have been all over the place since, mainly going after the low hanging fruit instead of actively trying to stem the flow of guns to the illegal market.
golfguru
(4,987 posts)and that includes my posts! I never have a problem accepting when someone is smarter than me. Just so long as EVERYONE is not smarter than me, I am OK with that lol.
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)This will give you a better idea of my point of view and what I feel could be done to improve on our current system.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021990149
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)The republicans, doing the NRA bidding, refuse to confirm a director and have been going after ATF funding. They want to drown it and eliminate all gun laws.
I mean that.
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)This needs to be addressed.
P.S. How did the lamb come out?
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Two happy humans and two happy parrots.
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)I made a wonderful (according to my wife) beef briscit for Christmas night. Came down with the flu and could not taste it at all.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)In a few hours.
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)The flu that I have hit me really hard and fast. Christmas morning I was fine, had some allergy issues in the AM from my mom's dog. Took an allergy pill and was ok. By the afternoon, I started to feel aches, and by dinner time it was a full bore illness. High fever, packed sinuses, chest congestion, bad cough, chills, etc...
I've never had a fever hit me that fast. Went from normal to over 102 in an hour. 12 hours later, fever was gone, sinuses fine, and here I am at work. Good thing that I decided to pull a midnight shift tonight. By the time I came to work, I was fine. I just have a tight cough at the moment, but nothing bad at all.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts):lol:
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)The one time I did (back in '98), I woke up with the flu the next morning.
This is only the 3rd time I've had the flu since '98. I think I'm fine by skipping the flu shots.
beevul
(12,194 posts)I'm sure it had nothing to do with anti-gun ideologues being nominated for the position.
Traver and Sullivan both fit that description.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Is anti gun!!!!RUN, protect women and children!!!!
beevul
(12,194 posts)Both Traver and Sullivan were, by any objective measure, anti-gun ideologues.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)If you have not noticed we are far less patient with NRA talking points.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Of course if you label anything contrary to what you say as "nra talking points"...
Ever heard of the boy who cried wolf?
golfguru
(4,987 posts)This is exactly why gun laws do not work. Gregory was trying to illustrate a point
about gun clips which can hold 30 rounds. DC police are wasting time investigating
a non-crime by a law abiding individual (David Gregory) while DC regularly breaks
records on number of gun shootings in its jurisdiction.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Read on entertainment licenses.
RW talking points and faux outrages are just lovely.
Here
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2074844
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)Granted, Australia used a mandatory buyback - give people the choice between turning your newly illegal guns in, getting cash for them, no questions asked, or taking your chances and risking a long stretch in PMITA prison...
Dems to Win
(2,161 posts)I heard an Australian woman describing events after the Port Arthur massacre, when the entire country agreed with the Prime Minister, no question, they would do what was required to end the massacres. During the year of discussion about the new laws, there was no opposition.
For Australians, ending the massacres was a goal they all shared, gun owners and non-gun owners alike. They worked together to make it happen. And Australians have a rough and tumble, rural history, much like Americans.
I wish I could see Americans wanting to end the massacres as much as Australians did.
Here's a good article about the 2 countries:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/douglas-anthony-cooper/proven-way-end-slaughter_b_2341815.html
XRubicon
(2,212 posts)billh58
(6,635 posts)Last edited Thu Dec 27, 2012, 12:51 PM - Edit history (1)
is black or white -- all, or nothing. The NRA mantra of "more guns" as a solution is only adding more deaths to the daily total. As Americans, we have never been helpless in the face of a crisis, and we are resourceful enough to find a solution to the gun problem in this country.
I agree that repealing the 2nd Amendment is folly. I agree that confiscating all guns is both impractical, and not warranted. I agree that criminals will always find a way to get a gun whether it is through theft, or the greed of a thoughtless seller. These are the things that we can not change in the foreseeable future.
What I don't agree with is that we must face this reality and enter into an arms race with the "bad guys." I do NOT agree that the ONLY answer is crawling into the sewer with the rats and becoming what we despise. Changing social behavior and improving public health through legislation and education is always difficult, and will always piss off Libertarians and Republicans, but it has been proven to work.
We managed to greatly reduce the instances of drunk driving through tough legislation, public service messages, and stigma by making drunken driving "uncool." We managed to reduce the number of cigarette smokers in the USA by using the same methods. We manage to register and track almost as many automobiles in this country as there are guns without much resistance from the public. None of these things are prohibited by the 2nd Amendment unless you believe the NRA and their highly misleading messages of fear and intimidation.
We must start someplace, and small steps are entirely acceptable. We must begin to educate our children about the responsibilities AND the dangers associated with owning a gun. We must enact legislation which will enable our government to track ALL sales of firearms both commercial and private. We must strictly enforce laws already on the books regarding the public carry of illegal weapons, and enact mandatory and lengthy jail terms for using firearms in the commission of a crime. We must make the illegal use of firearms "uncool" and result in harsh penalties.
Most Americans (around 180 million, or so) do NOT own a gun, and feel no need for self-protection, and will not be affected by registration and tracking laws. Most Americans (around 100 million, or so) who own firearms are NOT members of the NRA, and are responsible gun owners, and will not be affected by stiffer penalties for criminals.
By working together, we can make it very difficult for the "bad guys" to obtain and use firearms. All it takes is a willingness to accept some responsibility for owning a gun, and a healthily respect for its potential to be used to kill and maim our own citizens. We owe at least an attempt to fix this problem to future generations of Americans.
Fresh_Start
(11,330 posts)what, if any kind of changes do you believe are possible for mankind?
Apparently we can't do anything about violence, because people have been violent forever.
We can't do anything about global warming, because people have the right to waste fossil fuels however they want.
We can't do anything about education because parents have the right to decide how the children are educated.
IF we can't expect our citizens to make any sacrifices for the common good, what exactly the heck is the point or being on DU?
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)Anti murder laws do no good, as people have been murdering other people from the beginning of time.
It is just insanely stupid to pass laws that people do not follow.
golfguru
(4,987 posts)I have nothing against stringent gun laws. I am more concerned for the
young children who have zero protection against a crazed shooter in school.
We need immediate solutions...otherwise more children will be defenseless
in schools.
I am talking about a lone female confronted by an intruder in her home.
Why not make it easier for her to own a gun instead of making it more expensive
or more difficult?
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)That is why we need realistic gun control laws, for public safety. Limits to rights are not unconstitutional. You can not scream fire in a theater unless there is a fire. You can not slander people and claim freedom of speech. Our liberties are not absolute. If we can regulate a militia, we can damn well regulate the ownership of guns.
golfguru
(4,987 posts)I am simply against banning all guns by people who have never committed a crime or have
no record of mental instability.
I would even be for banning all guns if someone can convince me it is possible to confiscate
all guns from all law breakers. That is my main point in this thread. Since that is impossible,
banning guns by law abiding is stupid.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)There are people here who call for that, but a far as I can tell none of them are elected officials. The question here is what can we do to protect the public. Limiting classes of weapons defined as "assault weapons" due to related characteristics and limiting the size of magazines are realistic regulations. I would also require all gun owners to maintain liability insurance on their weapons. Doctors, psychologists, and psychiatrists could be required to contact authorities if anyone appears to be a danger to themselves or others. They are already required to do that in many cases anyway. Just as someone can have their license to drive revoked if using some drugs, guns owned by people could impounded.
The argument that the government is going to take everyone's guns are falacies, since no one with power to legislate is suggesting that.
BainsBane
(53,072 posts)they want guns in the hands of criminals and terrorists because it generates more money for the gun companies. That NRA bullshit is offensive and counter factual. Countries like the UK and Britain with bans on handguns have very low murder rates. Corporate gun companies and those who carry their water make sure we have thousands of guns deaths every year. It turns a profit, and that is all that matters to the morally bankrupt.
golfguru
(4,987 posts)I am against high powered assault weapons, against huge cartridges, ability to purchase
guns illegally, ability to purchase unlimited ammunition, etc etc.
My main point in this thread is that there are millions of guns out there. Many are in the
hands of criminals and mentally disturbed people. These are facts, irrefutable!
First we need IMMEDIATE protection of school children. Whatever will work IMMEDIATELY
is ok by me. It could include armed guards, or armed teachers. It won't be 100%, nothing
is. But it could save innocent lives.
Second, LAW ABIDING people should have easy access to a simple shotgun or handgun
without having to pay lot of money for licenses etc. The firearm must be sold by a
registered seller. After half a dozen years have passed without any illegal activity with
the registered firearm, he/she should be allowed concealed carry.
That's basically it.
BainsBane
(53,072 posts)Which is an NRA talking point. We have never had universal registration let alone effective gun control, so your point is empty.
BainsBane
(53,072 posts)in this country because that is a complete lie. The NRA does everything in their power to make sure criminals maintain a steady supply of weapons. That is why they refuse to allow background checks on private sales.
The gun lobby refuses to allow universal background checks and they work assiduously against a database on guns. The ONLY reason to do that is to protect criminals, who are regular customers of the gun industry. They don't give a fuck about human life. If dead children create profits, that's a win for them. Quit carrying the water for the most evil element in American society--the NRA and the gun lobby. 70% of the NRA's own membership wants background checks on all weapons. There is NO reason for a law abiding American to oppose such a measure. It's time for responsible gun owners to stop protecting criminals, terrorists and their NRA champions.
golfguru
(4,987 posts)before you are allowed to purchase a firearm. I also want the act of owning a
"defensive" weapon not burdened with excessive cost of licensing or registration.
BainsBane
(53,072 posts)The federal govt has every right to tax and require licensing for your guns. Case law makes that clear. I frankly could care less if gun owners don't want to pay taxes. Right wingers never do, but we live in a community and everyone has to pay taxes in a civilized nation.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Governments, our federal government included, do not have rights.
They have powers.
golfguru
(4,987 posts)crime infested neighborhoods. Then there are millions of seniors with very modest fixed incomes not living in the best of neighborhoods who are easy pickings for a robber. What is the point in making it more difficult for those folks to be forced to pay high licensing/registration fees? For heaven's sake let every low income person have at least a chance to defend themselves against criminals.
OneMoreDemocrat
(913 posts)Jesus.
Rex
(65,616 posts)You crack me up! 
jmg257
(11,996 posts)Make the penalties severe enough-and mandatory-and the number of guns will be reduced substantially. The proper laws, stepped up law enforcement, and attrition will have the desired affect.
RC
(25,592 posts)
golfguru
(4,987 posts)Why are Chicago and DC gun violence capitals in spite of some of the most stringent gun laws? Is it possible the criminals are well aware that the good guys do not have a gun on them and therefore there is no fear of a response?
However, in the very long run, stringent gun laws (nation wide) will have it's good effect.
In the meanwhile there is no point in not taking immediate action to protect the children in schools. Why do we have armed protection for high government officials but not for children in schools?
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Let's stop annually increasing the number, that is a worthy goal.
I am sick of this shit.
Comrade_McKenzie
(2,526 posts)If it saves lives: added bonus!
gulliver
(13,197 posts)You seem to have heard someone make an argument that "passing stringent anti-firearm laws will persuade the law breakers to turn in their weapons" and that there are serious (non-fringe) calls for "abolishing the 2nd amendment." By itself this says that your bullshit and reality detectors are miscalibrated...or you think ours are.
You confuse yourself by not separating normal gun owners from the flakes who have assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. You seem to believe these J. Random Numbskulls, law-abiding though they may be, actually counterbalance violent criminals in some meaningful way. But be serious. How can anyone possibly believe that? I'll need links to your fact base I'm afraid, because I can't remember a single case where any of these weapon flake bozos ever did anything but harm. School me though. Show me a weapon flake hero law enforcement benefit statistic.
Then where do you get the notion that the responsible citizens (gun owners and not) who don't own nut-level flake weapons are somehow "disarmed?" Far from it. Some of us have normal gun owner type guns. Some of us have dogs. But nearly all of us are protected by trained, well-armed professional police, and the country itself is protected by invincible levels of trained military forces. Your flake "good guys with guns" just get in the way. Your flakes make things worse. Your flakes actually create threats.
Say my house gets burglarized. I come home and find the door kicked in. Do you think I want my wide-eyed, sweaty neighbor from across the street to come running over with his AR-15 to shoot my cat (and probably himself and me)? Nope. I don't need your good guy. I'll take a cop, thanks.
Law-abiding flakes with ultra-powerful weapons and/or stockpiles of ammo are not "good guys." Law-abiding, permit-packing flakes who carry concealed weapons but face no realistic threats are not "good guys." They are just sad flakes ranging from eccentric to sick, and their hobby rates no protection whatsoever. The country is sick of them and, laws or not, it won't be long before these types can't get jobs or keep friends any more. Justifiably so and high time. It's just not funny any more.
I have no doubt that most are generally good people with a touch of eccentricity who don't see the connection between a burgeoning super-gun industry and a society choking on gun pollution. They don't see themselves as pathetic, knot-headed, or touched, but that is what they really are in real reality. And other people do know.
Your baseless assertion that gun flakes are good guys holds no water. They actually range from annoying nobodies to monsters and (intentional or through incompetence) monster weapon-suppliers. That being the case, and since you admit that these "good guys" are law-abiding, why not pass laws? Strangle the "soldier-of-fortune" assault weapon industry with laws. Industry obeys laws. Gun stores obey laws. Even gun shows obey laws. Pass the laws.
Then, for good measure, ostracize, expose, divorce, abandon, fire, and expel the people who continue to hold these weapons, regardless of their legality. You like assault weapons; we don't like you. Get a job somewhere else. That is the way it is heading, and that is a good thing. The last thing we need is for these poor weirdos to think the government is the only one "oppressing" them. They need to know that people no longer like or respect them. They aren't cool. They can shove their assault weapons.
Hunters, target shooters, and those who have legitimate self-defense concerns would actually gain respect if they didn't have soldier/cop wannabes, macho poseurs, fad-boys, and fetishists screwing things up for everyone. Wayne LaPierre can get a new job representing just the weirdos. He's a perfect fit.
Any grandfathered or hidden banned weapons that remain will be harder and harder for criminals to get as time goes by. And the warped monsters won't be able to get them from Walmart or on-line with a few mouse-clicks any more. While we can't make all of those weapons disappear overnight, I'll bet we can quickly make them much harder to get, much riskier, far less cool, and through scarcity, much, much more expensive.
billh58
(6,635 posts)Thanks for taking the time to state what needs to be said so eloquently.
quaker bill
(8,224 posts)right after a tragedy.
It is too late to talk about gun laws because there are millions of them out there everywhere and you can never collect them all.
Mass shootings are really quite rare so there is no need to talk about gun laws.
The bad guys will never give up their guns and you don't want to disarm the good guys, so let's not talk about gun laws.
There are a million rationalizations for not "talking about gun laws".
There are 26 far better reasons to begin (at Sandy Hook Elementary alone), and thousands more everywhere, every damn year.
Standing on street corners to protest the impending invasion of Iraq at some level made no sense. 9/11 was sitll fresh in the memory, the troops and equipment were mostly already there, George W Bush* occupied the Whitehouse, it was really clear that nothing we could do on the street corners was going to stop it.
Still it seemed both necessary and right to stand and speak the truth. It seems the time to stand and say enough has come again.
golfguru
(4,987 posts)First thanks to all posters who took time to write thoughtful responses.
Other jerky responses are from....just that, jerks.
1. We protect our high government officials with armed guards. Why not our
children in schools.....until someday stringent gun laws take their intended effect.
2. Pass laws to ban or restrict all guns which are not defensive weapons or hunting weapons.
A non-automatic 10 round hand gun should be easily available if you can pass a criminal
and mental background check using a national data base.
3. Poor people living in crime infested neighborhoods are the most vulnerable to gun violence.
Make it easier for them to have a chance to defend themselves with a defensive weapon.
This implies that it should not require costly registration or licensing fees for owning a defensive weapon.
quaker bill
(8,224 posts)Are adults on their own? (get a gun and defend yourself?) - (no thanks)
Who gets to say what is "defensive" (and against what level of threat?) (anti-tank missles are defensive - if you are being attacked by someone with a tank)
How about the police show up in poor neighborhoods for something other than drug busts and hooker roundups? (Oh and the occasional "papers please" traffic blockade)
golfguru
(4,987 posts)why wait with wishful thinking that will happen? I have been against police
wasting time on drug busts. The war on drug has been a dismal failure. Just
like the prohibition on booze of the 1920's.
Police can't be everywhere at all the time. That is the crux of the problem.
In the Connecticut blood bath, the police responded pretty fast, but the damage
was already done.
We can't AFFORD to protect all adults. You want to run bigger deficits?
So we should at least protect the most vulnerable and innocent...the children.
I will soon acquire a firearm and take the responsibility to try to defend me and
my wife from an intruder. I am too old to fight the intruder physically. A gun will
give me 50-50 chance to defend successfully and frighten off the intruder before
the police arrive 5-7 minutes after a 911 call.
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)If it's reality you speak of, well,...(covers ears and recites la,la,la,la,la...)
dutchroll
(6 posts)(Aussie here)
You're missing the point entirely. The NRA is missing the point (no surprises there). Those whining about their "freedoms" are missing the point.
It is not, generally speaking, the hardened criminals who are causing the senseless massacres. Full time criminals and guns is a law enforcement problem, and for the most part they either shoot each other (eg the drug/biker world) or armed guards (bank robberies, etc), and even cops, who already have a gun by their side! A couple of dozen kids getting shot at school is a product of two things:
1) The intent
2) The means
The intent has proven virtually impossible to predict. Yeah sure, it's mental health. But no amount of changes to mental healthcare will prevent these massacres because most of the time the perpetrator has no mental health record and gives no clues that an ordinary person would recognise that they're about to do it.
You simply must look at taking away the means.
This is what we did in Australia (and it was a conservative government at the time, btw). We just had to restrict the means. You can still own a non semi-automatic gun with a small (5 shot) magazine capacity kept secured in a gun safe if you have a genuine reason to do so. But like I've said in a previous posting in this forum, "I might need to overthrow the Gubmint some day" or "I wanna go on a yippee-shoot" or "that gun is just so cool I have to have it" are not considered genuine reasons.
XRubicon
(2,212 posts)billh58
(6,635 posts)bringing some much needed objectivity to this discussion. The gun control measures taken by Australia have been proven to work, are not oppressive, and a model for the USA to emulate.
Unfortunately, we will need to work much harder in order to implement sane gun laws because of the insanity which the NRA and its followers have introduced to this country. The NRA has bought and intimidated politicians (mostly right-wing "conservatives"
and has managed to have harmful legislation passed which allows for extremely lax oversight and little or no regulation of guns.
Recent polls show, however, that the American people have reached their limit of tolerance for this dangerous slide toward outrageous gun violence and outright vigilantism. There is definite hope on the horizon that the USA can reach the level of maturity shown by our Aussie friends down under...
spanone
(135,887 posts)But gun control is hard!! 
jade3000
(238 posts)the idea that there are good guys and bad guys out there, and we can try to arm one group more is ridiculous. people aren't that simple. we all have good sides and bad sides. we change over time and based on situations. one day he's policeman, and the next he's a murderer. sound familiar?
golfguru
(4,987 posts)I would agree no one is perfectly good or totally bad for all times. However when a person shows up in a crowd intent on shooting many people, at that instant he/she must be defined as "bad". If other persons present in the crowd take him/her out with a gun and save many other lives, at that moment they must be considered the "good" person.
jade3000
(238 posts)a year later that "good guy" could get horribly drunk and shoot up a block party with the same gun that she/he used to protect people in the earlier event.
and the "bad guy" might have saved somebody from harm a year earlier.
the gun stays with the person as their life circumstances, mood, and situations change.
golfguru
(4,987 posts)Good guys who have lived within the law into middle age, seldom turn "bad"
statistically. However since there is a small possibility they could, as you describe
a scenario where they get drunk and start shooting their concealed carry pistol,
what is the best possible IMMEDIATE defense?
a. call 911
b. shoot the drunk
Option "a" would entail a delay of 7-15 minutes before armed cops arrive.
Option "b" would need a person in the crowd with concealed carry pistol.
Take your pick. If I was in that crowd, I am going for option "b".
As my OP stated, we have too many guns in our society. Passing laws will take
years to work if at all. Laws exist in some cities. They have bigger gun violence than
areas where guns are allowed. Again, I am all for strict anti-assault weapons laws to
be passed. But we can't disarm the "good" guys until the laws have an effect.
billh58
(6,635 posts)"Why anti-gun laws will never work in the US, until the NRA is stripped of its political influence"
There, now that works much better as a realistic goal.
Disgraceland
(24 posts)JohnnyRingo
(18,650 posts)..would be a frustrating and dangerous job. Plus, with three hundred million guns in the country, the logistics are staggering.
Imagine the scene at a gun owner's home when the ATF agents arrive:
"I'm here to collect your now banned firearms."
"How much are you paying for them?"
"Uhhh.. nothing sir, you forfeit that money you paid for them"
"I sold them a few years ago at a gun show to settle a gambling debt"
"OK, thank you sir, have a nice day."
And that's how someone stable, someone who respects the government, would respond. Imagine how twitchy an agent would be when the owner walks up to the door with his Beretta in hand. That's a job that would void a life insurance policy.
Of course the ATF could get a search warrant, but imagine the court backlog with so many cases. The agents would have to tell the owner: "We'll be back next year to look for ourselves".
If the govt decides search warrants take too long, it's too dangerous to collect them, and people think they should just be able to push past the resident and search the home immediately, then maybe there's a point to those who think we need guns to protect themselves from a future dictatorship.
I believe common sense regulations like dealers-only sales, waiting periods to prevent spur of the moment crimes, and federal background checks, are positive steps in the right direction.
Those who think we should ban all guns immediately should start with something "easy", like nuclear weapons. At least they'd only have to talk to seven people, and we know how many they have. Plus, they can't say they sold them at a flea market. Idealism feels good, but it's not interchangeable with realism.
billh58
(6,635 posts)"I believe common sense regulations like dealers-only sales, waiting periods to prevent spur of the moment crimes, and federal background checks, are positive steps in the right direction."
Those are the same goals most of us are working toward, with maybe a little more emphasis on the registration, tracking, and regulation of all guns including restrictions on where guns can be carried. Admittedly, it will take a while before every gun owner comes into compliance, and I don't believe that a door-to-door tactic will ever be necessary.
The NRA, however, has developed talking points similar to the ones you cite in the first part of your post as a method of planting fear throughout the country, and drumming up support for absolutely no regulation whatsoever. The 2nd Amendment does not call for a well-regulated shooting range, or a well-regulated hunting party, or even a well-regulated fully armed populace for the purpose of "instant justice" vigilantism.
The banning of all guns "immediately" is not feasible. The banning of some guns immediately is both feasible and desirable. The regulation of all guns immediately is definitely feasible and according to recent public opinion polls, desired by a majority of Americans.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)Shit - low-value buy backs they get 1000s, and with them there is no fear/risk of legal ramifications.
Those hold-out criminals left could be taken care of eventually, like any other criminal w/contraband.
JohnnyRingo
(18,650 posts)Then we can just throw them all in the ocean, and there will never be another gun in the USA, just like heroin.
Just try to get that bill through any congress, and I guess it would make hunting illegal. Con-Agra might send some lobbyists to help the effort, but it won't be nearly enough. Indeed, if you can imagine 50 representitives from either party that would ever support an outright ban, you have a very vivid imagination.
I'm all for voluntary buy backs. They get a lot of the so called "Saturday Night Specials" off the streets-the cheap imported throw away guns used in the majority of crimes-but most honest people buy quality firearms and would be absolutely unwilling to give it up for a pizza coupon.
Your plan would lead to a proliferation of federal prison building and a likely a mass revolt, so add that to the cost. It's possible you think you're in the vast majority of Americans, but you'd best check those polls again.
Even Canada isn't anywhere near that forward on gun restrictions, and I can't think of a free country that is. People don't call a 100% gun-free population a utopia for nothing.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)And not especially at the current retail values.
JohnnyRingo
(18,650 posts)I don't see how that could go badly, especially with nearly 100% of law enforcement officers owning guns privately. It's estimated that 85 million Americans own at least one gun, though no one knows for sure, but they don't have them because they want to get rid of them.
I see you feel you can wait until all the guns not turned in voluntarily will turn up eventually. You have much more patience than I can imagine. Your great grandchildren will still live in a country that has guns.
I still can't get past how you can ban hunting rifles. Hunting deer for example, thins the herds so I don't have to hit one with my car every year. Personally, I don't hunt because I can't kill in good conscience, but I don't mind that others do.
Robb
(39,665 posts)We've tried doing without meaningful gun control. It doesn't work.
Every four months we kill enough 10-and-under kiddos to make for another Newtown massacre.
Criminals will be criminals, sure. But the inability of "law-abiding gun owners" to take responsibility for their own has led us here.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Whos way was the national firearms act of 1934?
Whos way was the gun control act of 1968?
Whos way is gun free school zones?
Whos way is the brady law?
Whos way was the original assault weapon ban?
Whos way is the Lautenberg amendment?
If those things aren't "meaningful" gun control, why were they passed and touted as such, and why are they continually praised, and why are they still law?
stopbush
(24,396 posts)According to the Bureau of justice Statistics for 2011:
* Adult correctional authorities supervised about 6,977,700 offenders at yearend 2011, a decrease of 1.4% during the year.
*About 2.9% of adults in the U.S. (or 1 in every 34 adults) were under some form of correctional supervision at yearend 2011, a rate comparable to 1998 (1 in every 34).
*At yearend 2011, about 1 in every 50 adults in the U.S. was supervised in the community on probation or parole while about 1 in every 107 adults was incarcerated in prison or jail.
7-million people in prison out of a nation of 300-million - that's 2.9% of Americans in prison.
I would guess that the number of "bad guys" running lose in the country (ie: not in prison) is also around 3%.
So, by disarming the "law-abiding people," you disarm 97% of the country, leaving only 3% (the "bad guys" owning guns.
Except that the "good guys" - the police - also have guns.
It would be up to law enforcement to keep those bad people in check. There are about 800,000 sworn police officers in this country, which means that each officer would be responsible for roughly EIGHT bad guys each over the course of a year.
Considering that the "bad guys" aren't out there actively being bad every minute of every day, I think our law enforcement types could handle it.
golfguru
(4,987 posts)in reality, if I was in a school full of kids, and a bad guy walks in with 4 handguns and a bag full of bullets, I would prefer someone or two in the school with guns instead of waiting for the police to show up. It takes even longer for the armed posse or swat team to show up.
Your theory would work fine in any country which does not have hundreds of millions of guns floating around in the hands of civilians. Not in this country, not at this time.
jambo101
(797 posts)With hundreds of millions of guns out their and many tens of millions feeling the need to own them one has to face reality and admit America is a gun culture and guns and related violence from people with guns is not a problem thats going away any time soon if ever..
billh58
(6,635 posts)America was also once a slave culture, and we went from slavery to "equal but separate" apartheid. Now we are left with only pockets of racists who are being rapidly (but not rapidly enough) marginalized.
America was also once a cigarette culture, but due to education and public pressure that habit is on the decline. We were also once a get drunk and drive culture, but a concerted effort by law enforcement and concerned communities has made that habit "uncool."
The point is, that just because our parents and grandparents had certain customs and habits that were detrimental to society, doesn't mean that newer generations can't overcome them and strive for improvement. America is constantly evolving and improving itself, and although meaningful change may come slowly, it eventually happens.
I understand that the argument against the examples I have used will be, "but those things are not guaranteed by the Constitution." Does it really make a difference? A bad habit, remains a bad habit, and even though five Republican SCOTUS neoconservative Justices chose to overturn 150 years of jurisprudence concerning the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, all it will take is the appointment of just one more impartial Justice to amend that decision.
Slavery and the American brand of apartheid violated several provisions of the Bill of Rights, but we are on the verge of completely wiping that piece of American shame from our plate (but not our history). Of the roughly 35% of Americans who own guns, more than half of them agree that stricter gun regulation is needed in this country. I believe that ALL Americans agree that our children should be free from the fear of being gunned down like combatants in a war zone.
