January 15, 200917 yr I'm quoting your post as an example of what I feel is a real paranoia prevelant among a somewhat significant sector of our society. To me, one of the most glaring indications is the use of the pronoun "they". It's as if there's an "us against them" mentality. As to the comment about thought control/political correctness, do you really feel that people who are for supportive of increased gun control measures are sheep being led to slaughter? If we are, then I sincerely hope I don't have to count on the NRA members of this country to save me. There is no collective concern for the collective right to bear arms in case the government runs roughshod over our collective rights. In post after post after post over the last year or so, there's a concern for the "me" in the post. There's no concern about protecting one's neighbor, only one's own property. There are far many more fragile and subjective rights that are controlled. And the unarmed citizens of the country have the right to feel that they can leave their child in the care of an adult gun owner, and that that child will be alive and unharmed when they come to pick him/her up. There is the right of the unarmed citizenry to drive down the road and know that should an irate driver be upset at their driving, he doesn't pull out a gun and shoot them at the next stop sign. There is a duty to protect citizens from irresponsible citizens. I don't care if people have guns. I don't think guns are bad. I grew up around guns, I can shoot a gun, and I'm good at it. I don't own a gun by my own choice. I have no need for one. If a person wants to own a gun, more power to them. But, where am I wrong in believing that increased measures to ensure that mentally unstable people & people who may forge documentation, should be restricted? Submitting finger prints and photo ID's would help eliminate forged documentation. A national database is wise, especially in this day and age, where domestic hate group participation is growing. I favor increased penalties for careless ownership of guns. We live in a paranoid age. You're darn right. If I'm making a decision on anything, I'm making one that benefits me and my family before I even consider others. Why would anyone in their right mind make a decision that they know is going to be unbeneficial to them?
January 15, 200917 yr It will severely impact the individual. You would have no way to protect your family or your home. So it's okay then for such a law to impact only law-abiding citizens and not the very people that the law is (allegedly) intended to protect us from? I wasn't commenting on the law itself. I was commenting on the fact that it will have very little impact one way or the other on actual crime.
January 15, 200917 yr What do you mean "how"? Ever hear of this? "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Your answer is immaterial to the question I asked. I asked specifically how would registration lead to confiscation.
January 15, 200917 yr Your answer is immaterial to the question I asked. I asked specifically how would registration lead to confiscation. I think what he was getting at is that it starts here. Then 3-4 years down the road they tighten gun laws a little bit more, then a couple years later they do it again, and again, until it eventually leads to confiscation.
January 15, 200917 yr I think what he was getting at is that it starts here. Then 3-4 years down the road they tighten gun laws a little bit more, then a couple years later they do it again, and again, until it eventually leads to confiscation. Who would tighten these laws?
January 15, 200917 yr Who would tighten these laws? The same morons that are trying to get this bill passed....
January 15, 200917 yr I wasn't commenting on the law itself. I was commenting on the fact that it will have very little impact one way or the other on actual crime. So you are agreeing that this new law will have little, if any, effect on crime. Since we already have the Brady Law, which has been shown to be effective in regulating who may now purchase/possess a firearm, I'm wondering why this increasingly restrictive law is necessary. Sure, they threw in the part about ensuring the "safe handling and storage of firearms" and signing some form agreeing that you will keep it out of reach of anyone 18 years and under, but that is nothing more than window dressing. So what is the overall purpose? I am the LAST person who submits to any conspiracy theory crap, but I truly do beleive if a law like this passes, it starts of process of incremental and increasing restrictions and conditions on personal ownership of firearms that could well one day result in confiscation. Improbable maybe, but not impossilbe. Edited January 15, 200917 yr by cooperstown
January 15, 200917 yr The same morons that are trying to get this bill passed.... Which means, unlike Nazi Germany, that we can do what?
January 15, 200917 yr So you are agreeing that this new law will have little, if any, on crime. Since we already have the Brady Law, which has been shown to be effective in regulating who may now purchase/possess a firearm, I'm wondering why this increasingly restrictive law is necessary. Sure, they threw in the part about ensuring the "safe handling and storage of firearms" and signing some form agreeing that you will keep it out of reach of anyone 18 years and under, but that is nothing more than window dressing. So what is the overall purpose? I am the LAST person who submits to any conspiracy theory crap, but I truly do beleive if a law like this passes, it starts of process of incremental and increasing restrictions and conditions on personal ownership of firearms that could well one day result in confiscation. Improbable maybe, but not impossilbe. My whole point is to point out the fallacy that the reason we should have guns is to stop criminals from doing their thing. Its not a deterrent to crime.
January 15, 200917 yr My whole point is to point out the fallacy that the reason we should have guns is to stop criminals from doing their thing. Its not a deterrent to crime. It may be a fallacy, it may not. But ultimately it doesn't matter. We can own them for whatever reason we want - to protect our person, or familes, or home; to hunt; as a hobby to shoot trap/skeet/targets; as part of a gun/weapon collection; or to use a table weight or to just bury in a hole in the ground and see if anything grows, for that matter. None of those reasons is wrong. That's the beauty of the 2nd amendment. It didn't put such stipulations on what can or cannot be done with the gun, only that we had a right to bear them.
January 15, 200917 yr It may be a fallacy, it may not. But ultimately it doesn't matter. We can own them for whatever reason we want - to protect our person, or familes, or home; to hunt; as a hobby to shoot trap/skeet/targets; as part of a gun/weapon collection; or to use a table weight or to just bury in a hole in the ground and see if anything grows, for that matter. None of those reasons is wrong. That's the beauty of the 2nd amendment. It didn't put such stipulations on what can or cannot be done with the gun, only that we had a right to bear them. Agreed. No problem with gun ownership. Again, it doesn't stop the criminal from attempting to commit a crime. It could stop that criminal once he gets to you but it didn't stop him from the commission of the crime.
January 15, 200917 yr Some misuse of guns and results because of them are truly tragic. It is true that guns are deadly and should be handled by responsible people but I just thought I'd clarify something..... Guns don't kill people, PEOPLE kill people. A gun doesn't have the power to fire by itself, it takes a PERSON to pull the trigger. Our constitution says we have the right to bear arms and that the people have the power to overthrow the government when it is deemed to no longer have the people's best interests at hear (tyranny, etc.). I'm not suggesting that the government is going to start ruling us with an iron fist here soon but this type of legislation will only hurt the people's chances freedom and survival if some situation like this were to arrive.
January 15, 200917 yr How do the homicide rates in those countries compare with the U.S.? Just curious... Not sure if this helps... Firearm homicide rate > per 100,000 pop. (most recent) by country % homicides with firearms (most recent) by country Overall homicide rate > per 100,000 pop. (most recent) by country Murders (per capita) (most recent) by country
January 15, 200917 yr Another interesting fact I found on the Bureau of Justice and Statistics website: Homicides are most often committed with guns, especially handguns. LINK
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.