Here comes the GUN CONTROL. (page 2)

Priest73

Good gun control is hitting what your aiming at.

Amen

-Priest (Gun Enthusiast)

SixofNine

While I proudly call myself a Democrat, one of the key areas I disagree with the base of my party is on gun control.

Two questions:

Could you tell me exactly where I might find the base of your party's stance on gun control?

Also, are you saying you are against gun control? All gun control laws should be rolled back? Gun control laws should be what they are now, because we now have the perfect blend of freedom and regulation? What exactly is it you disagree with? What exactly is your ideal amount of gun control?

beksbks

This is what you get when you mix easy access to guns, morons and blustering radio and television hatemongers whipping up the public with propaganda.

rolling rock

Not that this really answers anyone's questions but I thought actually showing the text of the 2nd amendment may be helpful;

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

It seems to me that partially regulating/banning guns has been happening in the US for a very long time. You used to go to a gunsmith and hand them money and get the gun you were looking for. Now you have to go through an increasingly lenghthy process. Gunsmiths cannot make certain guns here and certainly aren't in a position to sell direct to individuals like they were many years ago. Middle men were set in place. That is another control - for better or for worse.

I have no issue with anyone legally obtaining ANY gun so long as they have shown the care needed to get the permit for it. Just the same way I don't think it's wrong for people to have a drivers liscense if they are a drinker. It's about personal responsibility. Having faith in your fellow man may end up biting you in the ass sometimes but that thread of faith is what holds a country together.

drew sagan

I think there are various reasons individuals tend to view gun control as a serious issue. Some of it has nothing to do with guns in particluar but rather feelings of disconnect between citizen and their government. I like what Noam Chomsky had to say:

Chomsky on Gun Control:Q: Advocates of free access to arms cite the Second Amendment. Do you believe
that it permits unrestricted, uncontrolled possession of guns?

It's pretty clear that, taken literally, the Second Amendment doesn't permit
people to have guns. But laws are never taken literally, including amendments
to the Constitution or constitutional rights. Laws permit what the tenor of
the times interprets them as permitting.

But underlying the controversy over guns are some serious questions. There's
a feeling in the country that people are under attack. I think they're
misidentifying the source of the attack, but they do feel under attack.

The government is the only power structure that's even partially accountable
to the population, so naturally the business sectors want to make that the
enemy--not the corporate system, which is totally unaccountable. After decades
of intensive business propaganda, people feel that the government is some
kind of enemy and that they have to defend themselves from it.

It's not that that doesn't have its justifications. The government is
authoritarian and commonly hostile to much of the population. But it's
partially influenceable--and potentially very influenceable--by the general
population.

Many people who advocate keeping guns have fear of the government in the
back of their minds. But that's a crazy response to a real problem.

Q: Do the media foster the feeling people have that they're under attack?

At the deepest level, the media contribute to the sense that the government
is the enemy, and they suppress the sources of real power in the society,
which lie in the totalitarian institutions--the corporations, now international
in scale--that control the economy and much of our social life. In fact, the
corporations set the conditions within which the government operates, and
control it to a large extent.

The picture presented in the media is constant, day after day. People simply
have no awareness of the system of power under which they're suffering. As a
result--as intended--they turn their attention against the government.

People have all kinds of motivations for opposing gun control, but there's
definitely a sector of the population that considers itself threatened by big
forces, ranging from the Federal Reserve to the Council on Foreign Relations
to big government to who knows what, and they're calling for guns to protect
themselves.

Radio listener: On the issue of gun control, I believe that the US is becoming
much more like a Third World country, and nothing is necessarily going to put
a stop to it. I look around and see a lot of Third World countries where, if
the citizens had weapons, they wouldn't have the government they've got. So-
I think that maybe people are being a little shortsighted in arguing for gun control and at the same time realizing that the government they've got is not
exactly a benign one.

Your point illustrates exactly what I think is a major fallacy. The government
is far from benign--that's true. On the other hand, it's at least partially
accountable, and it can become as benign as we make it.

What's not benign (what's extremely harmful, in fact) is something you didn't
mention--business power, which is highly concentrated and, by now, largely
transnational. Business power is very far from benign and it's completely
unaccountable. It's a totalitarian system that has an enormous effect on our
lives. It's also the main reason why the government isn't benign.

As for guns being the way to respond to this, that's outlandish. First of
all, this is not a weak Third World country. If people have pistols, the
government has tanks. If people get tanks, the government has atomic weapons.
There's no way to deal with these issues by violent force, even if you think
that that's morally legitimate.

Guns in the hands of American citizens are not going to make the country more
benign. They're going to make it more brutal, ruthless and destructive. So
while one can recognize the motivation that lies behind some of the opposition
to gun control, I think it's sadly misguided.

BizzyBee

Guns + crazypeople = massacres of innocents. Clearly escalating, too.

Something must be done.

keyser soze

Guns + crazypeople = massacres of innocents. Clearly escalating, too.

Something must be done.

If we pass enough laws, then guns and crazy people won't exist anymore.

rolling rock

If you take any othe country but US - it is pretty easy (and common sense) to keep gun sales and possesion illegal, because people have no guns, and never had them...

But when people always had them and sale was always legal (US), plus constitution has an amendment that says so - it would be a very difficult task to start banning firearms, regardless of benefits...

Banning firearms in US would be as difficult as outlawing poppy cultivation in Afganistan...

...so it is pretty much a Gordian Knot - kind of a problem

skeeter1

I think it's Hollywood that needs to be controlled. Too many violent movies with 20 people killed in the first 5 minutes. Video games....don't get me started. Desensitizes people about life. We are a culture feeding on violence. Cowboys and Indian movies were bad enough...but it's gone overboard.

Garbage in - Garbage out. Violence in - violence out.

Plus, we cut our government dollars for mental health. More money to mental health and locking these people up for good.

Skeeter (who packs a few guns)

hubert

I totally agree with Skeeter.

Hubert

Here comes the GUN CONTROL.

Share this