Here's what always confuses me. And I'm going to generalize, OK? I know not everyone falls in these catergories, I certainly don't. Many so called conservatives are for "Less govt.!" etc. but are far more inclined to be law and order types, join the military and say stuff like "America, love it or leave it!" But are also for less gun control, for whatever reason. Now, many so called "Liberals" are for the govt. in things like welfare, SSI, medical care, etc. but they don't trust the govt. in just about any other arena, don't like (often rightly so) cops, the military etc. BUT, and here's a BIG but, they trust those very same cops and military far more to protect them from other countries, terrorism, burglars, than their own ability to get a gun, train with it and shoot the next SOB that comes thru there door to rape, rob, murder, maim or a combination of the above. Where and why the hell the disconnect on both sides?
Here comes the GUN CONTROL.
by jeeprube 154 Replies latest members politics
-
-
sammielee24
I bet they do, Burn. Unfortunately, too many Americans are mentally complacent and have lost many of their brain cells to drugs and alcohol and the belief that our own government "would NEVER do THAT"! They really do not understand the value
On the flip side that statement is interesting, because we hear the same thing whenever the issue of 9/11 is brought up. People who still question government involvement are 'cracy conspiracy theorists' because our own government 'would never do that!'. sammieswife.
-
sammielee24
Gun ownership and gun violence
No need to cite Canadian stats - I just got back from another visit there and honestly, I am far less fearful of violence there than I am here. Many more issues are involved than that of just gun ownership . You would need to address the fear, motivation, race issues, poverty and any other inequalities that might add to the reason for gun violence. I had to take a mandatory firearms course and training and have a police check done on me before I could even go out and buy a gun in Canada. I had a firearms acquisition certificate and it had to be renewed - the US could easily start by enacting laws like that which would still allow for gun ownership but would also ensure a background check is done. You cannot keep comparing any other country to the USA when it comes to gun ownership and you cannot keep citing stats, simply because the USA has very different laws and social programs that all contribute in varying degrees to how guns are bought, sold and used. sammieswife.
-
Bendrr
Sammie, the U.S. does require background checks on firearms sales. And that includes gun shows.
Firearms sales between private individuals don't require background checks (except for NFA weapons, which must be transferred through a Class III dealer), however they are still covered by the same laws regarding who is legally eligible to purchase and possess a firearm. Therefore let's say I were to sell one of my guns to someone who is a convicted felon, I would be in trouble should the law find out.
I totally agree with you on mandatory training, however I support it for those who obtain carry permits, not as a requirement merely for ownership. It's irresponsible to own and carry a deadly weapon without meeting a minimum level of skill and knowledge, as well as learning applicable laws.
(speaking of knowing the laws, my pet peeve is cops who are ignorant of current firearms carry laws. yes, there's a LOT of that ignorance out there and it is frightening)
And now, here's one for the 2A crowd here:
-
Hittman
Personal gun ownership wasn't even possible when the constitution or the amendment was written, it was way to expensive and the masses simply couln't affor them.
Absolute nonsense. Read some history.
Chomsky on Gun Control:
Chomsky is a complete flaming idiot on [i]everything[/i] except linguistics. And evidently he even fails at something as simple as reading. He says " It's pretty clear that, taken literally, the Second Amendment doesn't permit people to have guns."
The amendment says "The right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The quotes of Naom Chomski speak volumes, and do make a lot of sense on many levels.
I have never known him to make sense on any level. He is the poster boy for ignorant ivory tower intellectuals whose cushy academic life means he's never had to fend for himself in the real world. His only purpose is as a gullibility meter – anyone who gives him credence is extremely gullible.But isn't there anything we can do about morons?
No. Politicians depend on them to get elected, then reelected, then reelected, over and over again.
Research the Warsaw Ghetto uprising. This Jewish community revolted when they came to ship them off to camps and held the might of the Nazi Wehrmacht off for weeks with nothing more than a handful of smuggled firearms. The Nazis couldn't believe it.
This is one of my favorite pieces of history, and it's not taught in government schools. Gee, I wonder why?
I have a challenge for anyone who wants to outlaw (or severely restrict) gun ownership. First, Google "Warsaw Jews" and learn the history. Then make a case for restricting gun access.
I would gladly forfeit some of my freedom in order to keep crazy people from killing any more innocents. Methinks that is what it is going to take. And we won't do it. Because we have no frame of reference.
No, it's because we don't trust the government, or anyone else, to define crazy.
Are JayDubs crazy? No doubt about it. Should we restrict their ability to breed? Or to spew their drivel? Or, if they are so inclined, to own guns? -
read good books
I agree Hitman, and all you have to do is go back and read the writings of the Constitution's authors like Thomas Jefferson and he recommends the average citizen not only have a gun but practice using it. Doesn't Chomsky read Jefferson? It probably helped win the Revolution that the Renegade American Soldiers were farmers and hunters and could hit the fly on the wall across a football field.
"I would gladly forfeit some of my freedom in order to keep crazy people from killing any more innocents. Methinks that is what it is going to take." And we won't do it.
If you think giving up some of your freedom will make you safer than why just give up all your damm freedom, why don't we all live in seperate cages. Then we will be the safest of all.
-
beksbks
It probably helped win the Revolution that the Renegade American Soldiers were farmers and hunters and could hit the fly on the wall across a football field.
?? My understanding is that muskets were notoriously inacurate, and rifles were not favored in battle because of load time.
-
avishai
The Brits used more muskets, the colonials used more rifles. Rifles were and are far more accurate because the barrels are "rifled". It also helped that the colonials learned alot about guerrila warfare from the natives. See "The coin toss" by Bill Cosby. Also, I believe because of these factors, the colonials were able to keep their heavy arms, i.e cannon etc. something that later british colonies were unable to do.
-
beksbks
Yes the colonials used more rifles than the British, but the main weapon was the Musket.
-
John Doe
Beks, I think you should have to spend an afternoon on a firing range. You might like it.
