Thats exactly how I feel too.
Printable View
Are you trying to make a point here? Because you failed miserably if that was your aim. First off - unlike with nukes - the bad guys already HAVE the weapons. So the REAL comparison here would be more like this: Nukes are bad, so we're going to sign a treaty to ban them. And America, France, Great Britain, Israel, Germany, Russia, and the rest of the world that has managed to be responsible with them so far will give them up, and destroy all their stockpiles to make the world safer!! And taking those nukes away from the responsible nations will make the world a safer place, despite the fact that Iran, Libya, North Korea, and their like will now be the only ones with nukes!! WHAT COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG?Quote:
Originally Posted by just4you
Look, the 2nd Amendment exists for a reason, which is to provide the populace with a means to resist tyranny. That need has not gone away. There is a good reason why the first thing that every newly established dictator does is disarm the populace, a practice which even pre-dates firearms. Anyone who believes that the United States is immune from ever facing this type of problem has a very limited understanding of world history.
As it is, the protections afforded by the 2nd Amendment have been significantly watered down due to the advancements in firearm technology and limitations on what the civilian population is allowed to own. Remember, back when this amendment was passed, muskets and single shot handguns were still in use.
I am devastated by what happened in Newtown, but the only lesson here is that one nutjob did a horrific thing. But let us not forget that legions of people throughout the history of this country who have died in order to procure us the very freedoms that we have today, including those provided by the 2nd Amendment. Using the deaths of these little angels in order to justify further weakening those freedoms both devalues the sacrifices made by our ancestors and is nothing more than disgusting political opportunism.
Rick and AJ in complete agreement on an issue. On December 20th, 2012. Coincidence? I think not. :P
Simple. We can look at the gun murder rate BEFORE the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 and the rate while it was in effect and the rate AFTER it lapsed. It had no discernable effect on the gun murder rate. That being said, I personally do not have a problem with banning certain weapons and high capacity clips.
I do not have a problem with banning sales at gun shows. I have repeatedly said that owning a gun should be like owning a car. Both should require licensing and registration.
Your study looked at ALL murders. We are talking about MASS MURDERS. Are you aware of a single one where the perpetrator was SANE ?
My focus is NOT on the guns. It is on Mental Health. Something that I am very much in favor of and which I think we need more of. Don't you ?
At least we all agree on SOMETHING!
What are you trying to say, exactly? That the founding fathers intended for civilians to have access to all firearms including military-grade weaponry?
Further weakening? Gun control laws in the US are already extremely lax and for the most part gun laws have been loosened in recent years, not tightened. You have an extremely powerful lobbying group in the NRA that pretty much guarantees that no significant gun control legislation will pass. Although it looks like there's enough outrage over Sandy Hook for some changes to finally be enacted.Quote:
Using the deaths of these little angels in order to justify further weakening those freedoms both devalues the sacrifices made by our ancestors and is nothing more than disgusting political opportunism.
Wanting to change a system that allows mentally unstable individuals to easily get their hands on legally purchased assault weapons is not political opportunism, it's trying to find a solution to a problem. You could just as easily say that all this frothing at the mouth over expanding concealed carry laws and insisting that we arm teachers and put armed guards in school, is also political opportunism. And you guys are the ones with a corporate industry worth billions of dollars backing you... one that cares more about its bottom line than it does about dead kids.
In a sense, yes. Civilians DID have access to the same types of weapons that were issued to the military at that time. If that had not been the case, we would very likely still be a British colony.
The gun laws are restrictive enough to put the civilian population at a significant disadvantage should our government ever become a dictatorship. And the reality is that you cannot completely limit access to guns to nutjobs without also taking them out of the hands of everyone. In fact, the wingnut who shot the kids stole his mother's guns in order to do it.
That was an awful lot of hyperbole packed into that last little paragraph. ;) It is easy to act out of grief over the death of these little children as we are far removed from the millions who died so that we could be free in the first place. A freedom given up can seldom be reclaimed and makes us that much more vulnerable to the misdeeds of future governments.
I hear that China has very low crime rates and is very safe, at least if the government doesn't dislike you for any reason. Would you really want to raise your children in that repressed society?
Nobody ever thinks that it can happen to their government, until it does. The founding fathers understood this all too well, which is precisely why the constitution was crafted the way that it was. Even during their time, history was packed full of examples of exactly this. Human beings crave power and control and, in some cases, it happens simply because politicians adopt the false belief that they are in a better position to decide what is best for the people than the people themselves are.
How many of the largest industrialized countries are, even now, heavily controlled by centralized governments? Do you think that the people who lived in these places before these governments came to power ever thought that it could happen to them?
Nazi Germany was actually democratic until Hitler rose to power and nobody could have imagined what was to come. He, too, was so worried about the safety of the people that he disarmed them - and then eventually slaughtered millions of them.
And do you know how Castro won over Cuba? By promising schools, hospitals and free elections. And, of course, he enacted stringent gun control laws - in order to keep the population safe of course. ;) We all know how that went.
The list goes on. Our politicians are human beings like anywhere else and we are no more immune to power grabs than is any other government.
McVeigh made a BOMB. He didn't use a gun. It's good question whether or not he was "sane". Did he have a grip on reality ? Yes. Did he know what he was doing and that it was wrong ? Yes. Was he a psychopath ? Absolutely. Should he have been denied access to guns if at all possible ? Definitely. Many countries require psychological screening to own a firearm. I don't have a big problem with that.
Btw, I looked up the numbers from "Down Under". In 1997 Australia banned certain types of assault weapons. Over 600,000 weapons of various types were turned in. The result ? An exploding black market in illegal firearms and a large increase in violent crime. In one well known incident an armed gang shot up a Sydney police station !
Hey now, Godwin's Law has to happen at some point in this kind of a thread. We've got internet tough guys, calling people hysterical and hyperbolic while being hysterical and hyperbolic, some cool story bros, confusing state and federal laws, tl;drs, now some Red Scare stuff ----- we are greatly overdue for some Nazi analogies.
We're so close
:crosses fingers:
So you honestly think that if the FF could foresee the future, they would've wanted the general public to have access to RPGs, machine guns, basically everything the military uses? What about tanks? I really don't think their vision extended that far.
It sounds to me like you guys don't want to give up the "freedom" to indulge in your hobby, at the expense of everyone else.Quote:
The gun laws are restrictive enough to put the civilian population at a significant disadvantage should our government ever become a dictatorship. And the reality is that you cannot completely limit access to guns to nutjobs without also taking them out of the hands of everyone. In fact, the wingnut who shot the kids stole his mother's guns in order to do it.
That was an awful lot of hyperbole packed into that last little paragraph. ;) It is easy to act out of grief over the death of these little children as we are far removed from the millions who died so that we could be free in the first place. A freedom given up can seldom be reclaimed and makes us that much more vulnerable to the misdeeds of future governments.
Shall I list for you the dozens of peaceful, democratic, safe first world countries with much tighter gun control than the US? Gun control laws up here in Canada are not as tight as in other countries, but there still a lot more regulations compared to the US, and the changes that Joe Biden and others plan to implement would bring US laws closer aligned with those of Canada's. As far as I can tell, no one up here feels like their rights or freedoms have been lost or trampled on, even the those who love guns. Although I suppose you might argue that since the government up here is more socialized, that that in itself is a "loss of freedom".Quote:
I hear that China has very low crime rates and is very safe, at least if the government doesn't dislike you for any reason. Would you really want to raise your children in that repressed society?
Because Obama is an evil, Kenyan-born, socialist Nazi dictator who wants to disarm the populace, tax millionaire's at 99% to fund iPads for welfare queens, send your grandparents to death panels and force everyone to have gay abortions. Duh!
It made sense back in the 1700s. But do you really think so poorly of the US military that they couldn't stand up against a disorganized, untrained civilian uprising? Or do you believe that the righteous soldiers of the military would automatically agree with the citizens, and turn their guns against the politicians?
The government is not some faceless, monolithic entity completely separate from society, like some puppet-master controlling the strings from the shadows. It's a large organization comprised of Americans, led by representatives that the population has elected to represent their own interests.
Technically, the government IS us... and honestly I think the US is so "rah-rah democracy, freedom!" that an attempted grab at an unlimited dictatorship would be shut down pretty quick. Or maybe I'm just optimistic.
I know, in light of what happened in Newtown, it's a serious issue but I'm just not ready to enter the gun control debate right now. My heart is still breaking every day with the stories of fallen children and teachers but even more so I am worried for the survivors.
Small children have seen their friends-classmates and their teachers brutally murdered. Brothers and sisters will have to grow up cheated of the joy that their siblings brought to their lives. Parents have been denied the chance to nurture and guide their child to adulthood or even to hug their child just one more time and tell them that they love them. Teachers have seen their colleagues and the very children that they dedicated their lives to struck down before their eyes. Even the first responders-men and women who face death and destruction every day-have been stopped in their tracks by this horror.
The reasons why this happened are not unimportant. The crime, the cause and the possible solutions will all be discussed by greater minds than mine and, hopefully, positive change will come from this tragedy. But right now I'm honoring the victims and praying for the survivors. They need our help and support. This is not a partisan issue. This is humanitarian issue for all of mankind to deal with. We can all help a little. There are dozens of links on the internet like the one I have posted below. Find one that works for you. Do something. Do anything. The smallest act of kindness is a step in the right direction and honors our fallen children and grieving community left in the wake of this nightmare.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourcommunity...-campaign.html
Dude, I lived in the USSR. Some older folks from that era are still spooked by the possibility of power-grabs and the like. But seriously speaking, the likelihood of that nonsense happening here is seriously soooooooooo remote. Think about it.
No one is proposing to snatch up yo' weapons, yo' gunz, yo' rifles, etc. (shout-out to Antoine Dodson!). C'mon! Even if they are proposing to regulate guns in a more stringent way, the ones you have buried your safe out in the back yard will be just fine.
Government seems to be paying lip service to gun control but really, there are more pressing issues to address. There is an economic crisis to deal with, fiscal cliff diving to be done, and come midnight tonight(!!!), the world is supposed to end (sorry just had to give this post some Mayan flavor).
Even if I agreed to slide down your slippery slope, I still know that there are between 8 and 9 guns for every 10 citizens in the USA. Sources are listed below.*** Those are just the registered guns, mind you. I think we are in no danger of eradicating guns in the USA, regardless of legislation. It. Is. Not. Feasible. Like. At. All.
Smurfette Said It Best....
On the eve of our Mayan Apocalypse... let's put the guns aside and hug it out. :hug::grouphug::hug:
***
http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/...34893820070828
http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/transparency.jpeg
I'm not sure that Canada is really the best example here. After all, don't 18% of Canadian households own guns and wasn't the long gun registration requirement recently repealed?
But putting Canada aside, I will agree that there are certainly many other countries with more stringent gun laws that have not devolved into dictatorships or one party states. However, that doesn't mean that it couldn't happen or that it won't in the future. Many of these people have already given up so many economic freedoms, along with control over educational and health care choices, that they are rather accustomed to a high degree of "benign" government control. Only time will tell if one or more of these governments becomes less benign or tries to exert its influence over other aspects of their citizens lives.
Smug and misplaced overconfidence, apathy, and, in some cases, the need of some people for government to be the answer to every problem or tragedy, all contribute to the erosion of our personal freedoms. As is all too often the case, freedoms are lost over time through a series of actions, each providing the government with a little more power and the citizens with a little less. Thomas Jefferson understood this well when he said: "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."
And I'll address the silly comments about my gun stash, or support of the gun industry, etc., by saying that my issues with this are far broader than gun control. Anything that takes power or control out of the hands of the citizens and places it in the hands of the government is bad IMHO, and that extends to economic issues, privacy, laws restricting free movement and speech, etc. Heck, some of my views even align with those of the ACLU and I would probably donate to them if they didn't devote such a significant amount of their resources to such frivolous things as suing small towns that allow religious-oriented Christmas displays to be placed in public spaces.
Anyway, just my :twocents:
There's plenty that can be done to limit access to guns to nutjobs, without taking them out of the hands of everyone. Requiring a criminal background check on everyone who wants to own a gun, have a medical professional confirm they're mentally stable (Japan does that), limit the amount of guns that can be purchased, so one person can't legally buy hundreds of guns, and then illegally sell them to criminals.
Japan has a very low crime rate and is very safe, and the Japanese probably have as much freedom as Americans, other than the right for anyone to buy as many guns as they want, regardless of their criminal history or mental stability.
Not to keep interrupting the gun control argument going on with a discussion about school shootings...
But for those who are interested and concerned, it seems my daughters school is not the only one with rumours that there will be a shooting tomorrow.
https://www.google.com/search?q=scho...hrome&ie=UTF-8
Lots of them are saying its just a rumour and unfounded, but it still makes me nervous...being the whole thing about its the day the world is supposed to end and all, I actually woudl not be surprised if *something* happened. Just to be on the safe side, a lot of kids are saying they will stay home tomorrow and Im strongly leaning on the side of caution to keep kiddo home too.
Youre very welcome :D Seriously though, I dont mean to get snippy, just that this is still an ongoing issue and concern. I post abt whats going on with kiddos school and its like, whatever thats not as important as arguing about gun control. I seriously felt like I was interjecting a completely different topic that few cared to hear about.
As a mom who sat here today listening to kiddo tell me about the rumours and seeing how freaked out she is...and finding out shes just one of thousands of kids around the country feeling that way about going to school tomorrow...considering the matter of school shootings is still an ongoing and sensitive subject, I do think that deflecting from that and ignoring the issue and topic of the thread in favour of fighting about political views is pretty insensitive.
On that merry note, maybe Chris Rock has the right idea...
http://youtu.be/OuX-nFmL0II?t=1m41s
I have a lot more to say on the political side of this (including comments about the Japan example), but I am going to stop here. DJ has already been gracious enough in letting this continue for as long as it has.
I will just say that my heart aches over the deaths of these children. My profile lists NYC because I work and club a lot in the city (and maybe for a little misdirection - LOL), but I am in CT and my 6 year old daughter's school is not far from where this happened, so this hit very close to home. When I picked her up from school that day, I clutched her to me and cried silently while I carried her to the car. She didn't understand why I was doing that as she had no clue about what happened, but my little angel graciously went with it. ;)
Who I would like to get my hands on, quite irrationally I might add, is this kid's father. How did they turn out such a monster? Didn't they know that he was capable of hurting others? He had behavioral problems all his life and it was not like the dad was without resources - just how did this 20 year old kid end up this fucked up? What, if anything, did these people do to help, or at least contain, this kid until he was 18? And why in the world would you leave guns in a place that was accessible to a kid with his type of issues?
Again with finding it creepy that Rick and I are on precisely the same page here. While MM & I are running around like the proverbial headless chicken getting ready for an impromptu wedding, he has summed up everything I would have added probably more eloquently than I would have anyway.
Eagle - for all our back & forth, I'll say this - if all you're after is stricter requirements before purchase and limits on massive purchases - we're not at odds. I
'll take that one to some extremes, even - require ongoing checks on my gun collection to make sure I still have them all. Take away guns on a case-by-case if someone becomes violent. I would even say semi-annual checks on mental stability and drug screening, but I don't trust the government not to expand these things over time to find reasons to take weapons - but short of that caveat, I'd submit to almost anything within reason - EXCEPT for actual limits on what gun I can have, what capacity, etc - because that's pointless.
Some of you have a very limited view of why people own and collect firearms. I see multiple references to the effect that we're endangering everyone just to keep a hobby. This is short sighted, ill-informed, and just plain wrong. I am screaming from the rooftops about the "assault rifle" ban - and I do not, and don't plan to, own anything that comes even CLOSE to that description. I own 5 guns right now. A 12 gauge for home defense. A .22 pistol and 2 .380 pistols - the .22 matches the .380's perfectly in both form and function, and costs pennies to practice with vs dollars for the bigger ammunition. The .380's are his & hers personal carry weapons. Last but not least, a 1911 .45 - because I got an insanely good deal on it, and considered having it just to have it (any gun aficionado would know why, lol) - but since I own firearms only for enjoying time at the range and for personal protection, i rapidly came to the conclusion that the .45 is too bulky for me to carry frequently, too expensive to shoot regularly at the range, and pointless as a "keep it at home just in case" gun because that's what the shotgun is for. So I'm selling it. I *MIGHT* pick up a hunting rifle at some point just to have a fallback literally for food in the wake of a disaster, but frankly the shotgun can serve in a pinch there, too. Most gun people have a similarly thought-through inventory, with different guns filling different niches. And whether you agree or not, "defending myself nd my property from tyrannical government actions" is a perfectly legitimate slot in that inventory for many, many people, making the so-called "assault weapons" the single best expression of the actual intent of the 2nd amendment.
I am not surprised that there are rumors flying. Without a tin foil hat, that's what happens. Kids got talking for months after Columbine, too - resulting in many other kids being investigated and even arrested, in many cases for no good reason; simple panic and knee-jerk reaction. With your tin foil hat ON, those rumors are going to be spread to keep the panic at a low boil in order to guarantee ongoing support for the suppression of our rights and the removal of our weapons. In either case, the actual odds of another school shooting have not gone up nor down at all in the last week, nothing has changed.
Lastly. To many people - admittedly myself included - saying that our government beginning the move toward those behaviors that the constitution sough to prevent is far flung is patently wrong and not at ALL far fetched. Another discussion for another time, but if you look at legislation and trends over the last 40 years, it's not only not far-flung, it's already happening.
[QUOTE=eagle2;2434324]There's plenty that can be done to limit access to guns to nutjobs, without taking them out of the hands of everyone. Requiring a criminal background check on everyone who wants to own a gun, have a medical professional confirm they're mentally stable (Japan does that), limit the amount of guns that can be purchased, so one person can't legally buy hundreds of guns, and then illegally sell them to criminals.
Japan is a poor example on many levels. They are nothing like the U.S. : They have a homogenous population , a low crime rate , a totally different history and culture etc. Japan has a long history of disarming its citizens. In the 1500's ordinary citizens were prohibited from owning weapons. In fact, a number of Japanese martial art styles teach weapons which are really converted farm tools. While they have a low murder rate, Japan's suicide rate is one of the World's highest. They have a long history of repressing individuality and stressing conformity.