Gun Control

[dirty dog]

Originally Posted by Bartman1963

I don't know if laws making it more difficult to get guns will work.

Bart, please understand that my responses are not meant to be combative as you know I have a great deal of respectfor you.

What I do know is that children are dying. Children shot multiple times at close range with a weapon designed to kill people. Bart, ALL guns are designed to kill people.
Not a long gun I would want, because ironically its ammunition is generally regarded as too weak to hunt large game such as deer. But it is a near perfect gun for varmet and preditor hunting, also this assault rifle comes in various calibers, 6.8 mm, .308 winchester, 7.62X39. These weapons are appearing quite often in the deer woods with great success.
But a weapon perfect for killing that delicate thin skinned light boned animal known as Man. See above
"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."
Well regulated Militia. Where is that? I wanna join. I want to be part of that "well regulated" militia that is necessary to the security of our free State.
Truth is there is no well regulated Militia. It went out the door a long time ago. Replaced by our standing Army and the other branches of the service all of us are so rightly proud of. Many people misinturpret the 2nd admentment. A standing army is designed to protect the country from outside threats. The 2nd amendment was incorperated to provide the citizens with a means to overthrow our government and protect us from a tyranical government.
So why do we REALLY need guns? Most of us will never have the need to fire a weapon in defense of self or loved ones. Let alone in defense of liberty and freedom. Unless we are in those armed forces of course. We really don't NEED guns. We want them. We want them so bad we convince ourselves we need them.
Shooting is fun. Shooting is powerful. I love my .45 acp. I don't need the dozen 16 round magazines I have for it. I WANTED them.
The point is stopping something awful almost always involves sacrifice. What are we willing to sacrifice? Since 1966 there have been 77 mass killings in this country, assult weapons were used in 10. What about the people who have used their weapons in self defense and really honestly we dont really need cars, we dont have to have them, we want them, we could walk, use the buss, ride bicycles, cars kill far more than guns. Just yesterday a woman had to use a weapon to defend herself from someone breaking into her house. I guess we could have just sacraficed her.
I hear a lot of people talk about this subject and very few are willing to sacrifice a damned thing. Not one ounce of personal freedom or liberty. Why is the 2nd amendment of the bill of rights treated like its a privilage to own guns, its not its a right no difference than the 1st, 4, 8th and so on. Are you willing to give up your other rights.
I have found that those the most adamant gun control is not the answer are usually not able to give an idea of what should be done, other than to say we need more guns. Guns on guards in every school. Armed teachers. Will that work? Maybe, but somebody would have to convince me. I have found that those most adament that gun bans usually let emotions rather than reason lead the way. Whats wrong with armed guards in our schools, we have them everywhere esle that we feel something needs protection, shouldnt we also want them where the most valuable asset we have are in one area.
I don't know what will work. But I will continue to throw out ideas. I am willing to work with people who don't think like I do. I will continue to say something does need to change and damned soon. I doubd that you are really that open to anything but banning them.

I am tired of tearing up at the thought of, or sight of murdered children on TV.

I am willing to sacrifice. How much? I hope just a little. What? What I have to.
But if convinced of the rightness of the answer, I would sacrifice my 45. I don't love it more than the lives of kids. Ah but see I love my children more than the guy breaking into my home. I would rather be able to defend them until the police arrive than set on the curb and cry as the body bags are hauled away. In fact I don't care if my right to own any gun I legally can now is limited a little, if that is the answer, so kids are less easily butchered, their little faces rendered unrecognizable by the horrible wounds that a 5.56 mm round at less than 15 feet cause to delicate human bodies. Once again Bart your emotions are overruling reason, what do you think a 12 guage with double 00 shot would do to their poor little f

It's time everyone join the discussion and get serious about real answers. Bickering gives the next nut more time to prepare. Maybe we should quit trying to prosecute the tool and stop ignoring the nut that you have admitted is preparing Whatever the answer proves to be, lets get after finding it.

Its easy to bame assualt weapons, it will make those screaming for it feel good, they cant blame the killer in CT he is dead, but in the typical American way there has to be someone or something to blame and whether it works or not is not important just as long as it make you feel like you have done somethig

[Bartman1963]

I guess what I want to get across to everyone is that it is time. Time to find an answer. Time to listen. DD, you are listening, and I do appreciate that. This is the time to sit down and decide now to keep nuts from getting guns. I don't want a ban to be honest. I would love that new LWRC in 6.8 SPC that is coming out soon. And I have my .45 to protect my kids too. Come in to my house especially when they know I am home...bastard is asking for a new laser guided hole in his forehead and I wouldn't feel bad at all (unless the hole wasn't dead center). What I want is dialog, meaningful dialog from left and right, and find an answer we can all live with. I don't care if it is a James Bond Chip in the gun that recognizes only you, or if it is something else. Just by Jesus Christ lets all get together, agree that life needs to be protected, and how and what can we do? True traffic is a killer, but we accept speed limits and rules to govern our behavior on the road. Drunk driving is punished (not hard enough IMHO, but oh well), you get my meaning. With rights come responsibilities.

There have been gun tragedies in my family. A wonderful young boy was shot and bled to death. I can't speak to the relative involved to this day and it was ten years ago. We all told him to keep his guns unloaded and the ammo locked up (there was no way in hell he would lock the guns, so we quit beating that horse). But he knew "his" kids were safe gun handlers. Didn't plan on the unsafe neighbor kid did he? Now one young man's life is forever marred by death and another child is dead.

DD, If the Mother of the killer in CT had used a big old gun safe for her weapons, (and she was a prepper from what I have heard, so prepping for the security of her weapons makes sense) then that psycho son of her's couldn't have gotten her guns so easily after killing her. It may have slowed him enough that he couldn't have killed the other women and children.

So there are other ideas I like other than banning. In fact, I really want to keep my guns. I'm good with 'em. I just am tired of nuts getting a hold of them and killing old people in Luby's, kids in their classrooms, Sikhs in temples, Doctors in church or somebody who cut them off in traffic, just to name a few.

I want people to come together on this. We can do that can't we?

Then again maybe not. See my "great big fucking two legged rat" theory for that show.

[bartipero]

Sorry, Bartman, on this issue we are decidedly not going to get together. This is much bigger than what you're concerned about. It really is. This is one piece of a fabric that keeps us from being serfs and slaves. It really does, and there have already been too many erosions of sacrosanct rights to keep giving--and I don't mean on guns. And the common law of most states already requires safe storage, so no mandate is needed.

I don't know about Missouri, but I don't see the Kansas delegation in Congress voting in favor of this. This is classic politics--do the big damage early in your term, pander to a sympathetic group, make it extend past your term as far as you can, make it too inconvenient and expensuve to challenge and hope the electorate forgets about it by mid-term elections.

I guarantee you that if Obama pushes this through with the budget battle and the new health care taxes hitting we will be in deep do-do by 2014 and he will effectively have handed Congress and his last 2 years in office to his opposition, and maybe the whole government to the Republicans in 2016. That isn't something you really want.

This is an issue the representatives of the more populous state's will likely decide due to the number if them, anyway. But in the mean time my check is going to the NRA. Someone has to stand for the Constitution even if somewhat radical. After all its concept was radical.

[dirty dog]

Originally Posted by bartipero

Sorry, Bartman, on this issue we are decidedly not going to get together. This is much bigger than what you're concerned about. It really is. This is one piece of a fabric that keeps us from being serfs and slaves. It really does, and there have already been too many erosions of sacrosanct rights to keep giving--and I don't mean on guns. And the common law of most states already requires safe storage, so no mandate is needed.

I don't know about Missouri, but I don't see the Kansas delegation in Congress voting in favor of this. This is classic politics--do the big damage early in your term, pander to a sympathetic group, make it extend past your term as far as you can, make it too inconvenient and expensuve to challenge and hope the electorate forgets about it by mid-term elections.

I guarantee you that if Obama pushes this through with the budget battle and the new health care taxes hitting we will be in deep do-do by 2014 and he will effectively have handed Congress and his last 2 years in office to his opposition, and maybe the whole government to the Republicans in 2016. That isn't something you really want.

This is an issue the representatives of the more populous state's will likely decide due to the number if them, anyway. But in the mean time my check is going to the NRA. Someone has to stand for the Constitution even if somewhat radical. After all its concept was radical.

During his whole first term I was telling people that Obama is an anti-gun President, people kept telling me know, man he's not even talking about guns, I told everyone I spoke with that after his re-election it will only take one incident to trigger a full court press on guns, damn I hate being right. Its funny to be that in May beore the election he was in Colorado after the shooting there and he was saying that there was no need for more gun laws there were enough on the books now if they were enforced.

[Mr. Crowley]

...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Assault against our natural (God given) rights, is at an all time high. First amendment assaults including, freedom of religion (aspects of the affordable care act) freedom of speech (Sec of State, Hillary Clinton told father of slain CIA operative they would see the person responsible for a video that was being used as reason for the attack on Bhengazi consulate, jailed!).

The assault started immediately following ratification of the greatest document to support human freedom in history. The previous examples were used because they are the most recent, not another attack on the administration. The Patriot Act is problematic on many levels. I will however, ask everyone to watch what is done through a constitutionally accurate way, and those done by presidential edict.

U.S. Constitution is,was, and can continue to be the guarantor of freedom but, it must be constantly defended. You may not have my freedom. I will speak what I wish and suffer the consequences. I will practice my religion as I wish. I will insist on all of my constitutionally guaranteed rights, including my right to arms.

The argument that says "if it saves just one life" is an emotional plea that if used on every product, would leave us with very little in the way of modern products. We simply can't turn this into a Nerf world. Life is sometimes difficult, tragic, joyous and rewarding, sometimes alll at once!

If you are interested in saving 10's, possibly hundreds of thousands of lives, bring back DDT (pesticide). The ban on DDT came about because of an emotional plea from the book "Silent Spring". It has become obvious in the wake of a hasty ban that it has actually cost many more lives due to mosquito born malaria.

Keep your emotional pleas. We all know people who were harmed or killed by the MIS-use of a firearm. With rights comes responsibility, so I would agree that training and practice should be done. No law can insure this is done to a perfect extent. It's a messy world. I personally would prefer we license people before they can have children or vote.

Please don't compare the US to European countries. We left there to allow people freedom and liberty and the ability to fully live and defend their lives.

[i'va biggen]

People with guns only kill 30,000 Americans a year men women and children.that is a drop in the bucket why worry about guns?

[dirty dog]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

People with guns only kill 30,000 Americans a year men women and children.that is a drop in the bucket why worry about guns?

Your 30,000 American killed a year stat is a little skewed, because it includes deaths caused by police shootings, suicides (54%) and accidents (3%). Homicides accounted for 41% of that number. This puts your stat at about 12000 people a year. Drunk drivers kill on avg 9000 people a year but never has their been a discussion about banning cars. The reason is that in the case of the drunk driver society lays the blame where it belongs on the driver not the car.

[ez2plz]

The closest thing I want to gun control, is that I control my gun if I am ever in a situation where I have to use it!

[BigMikeinKC]

Why do people claim that the rights given in the Constitution are God given. The writers of the Constitution were not gods, although it seems like many have elevated them to that position.

Why does everyone claim that people misinterpret the 2nd amendment if their interpretation does not agree with theirs. Until the gutless wonders on the SC take a real case and give an actual interpretation, people can argue what it really means. Thomas Jefferson is not one of the voices in my head, so I can't ask him what he really meant.

The countries of Europe are no longer those our father fled. Most are now republics or democracies.

As I've said before try to keep guns out of the hands of the "mentally ill" is a very slippery slope and beside how many times have you heard " he was such a nice neighbor, never bothered anyone.

Gun control, honestly even if you want it, its too late. Too many guns out there to regulate, whatever is put in place is not going to work.

But with the clamor going on about armed guards in our schools, I can see the future. Every store, school, means of public transportation, mall, public gathering place while have armed security so that we feel safe.

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by dirty dog

Your 30,000 American killed a year stat is a little skewed, because it includes deaths caused by police shootings, suicides (54%) and accidents (3%). Homicides accounted for 41% of that number. This puts your stat at about 12000 people a year. Drunk drivers kill on avg 9000 people a year but never has their been a discussion about banning cars. The reason is that in the case of the drunk driver society lays the blame where it belongs on the driver not the car.

What was the total of gun related deaths? Regardless of who pulled the trigger.

[dirty dog]

Originally Posted by BigMikeinKC

Why do people claim that the rights given in the Constitution are God given. The writers of the Constitution were not gods, although it seems like many have elevated them to that position. No they were not gods but the principles then instilled via the constitution are the principles which have made this country the strongest superpower on the planet. Why is it that people like you Mike have no problem with the other admendments written into the bill of rights, those seem to be good enough, but then they meet the requirments for the life that you want to live.

Why does everyone claim that people misinterpret the 2nd amendment if their interpretation does not agree with theirs. Until the gutless wonders on the SC take a real case and give an actual interpretation, The gutless wonders on the supreme court have given an actual interpretation in DC VS Heller the court held that

• The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

It sounds as if this was not an interrpretation that you agreed with but it is the law of the land. It should be noted that the court did also say that although the right to own firearms is individual it did also state that the state and federal government can regulate it. Hense were back to the problem. But its doubtful that a case will ever come out that says that the individual has a right to own an AK47 or another specific "assualt" weapon.
people can argue what it really means. Thomas Jefferson is not one of the voices in my head, so I can't ask him what he really meant.

The countries of Europe are no longer those our father fled. Most are now republics or democracies. While it may seem as if this admendment is very ambigous, it has been in fact broken down and defined through out the years by consitutional scholars and the courts. I found a breakdown which was easiest for laymen to understand. Here it is

The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.

As I've said before try to keep guns out of the hands of the "mentally ill" is a very slippery slope and beside how many times have you heard " he was such a nice neighbor, never bothered anyone. Mike I have been giving a lot of thought to our earlier conversation, and I have come to the conclusion that anyone electing to apply to purchase a weapon surrenders his right protecting his mental history voluntarily when he/she enters into the process of purchasing a weapon. Look if I honestly believed that banning assualt weapons would elminate the danger to our children I would be all for it, but my experience, past bans and common reason says it wont, its just an emotional response a serious situation. Will looking at a persons mental history eliminate a person from becoming crazy or from a border line case stepping over the line, no, but to we really want people who have been diagnosed with Schizophrenia whether they are on medication or not have a weapon, we dont allow people with historys of seizures to drive. But I also dont this that the only answer nor do I blame video games. I believe that just because you have the right to own a weapon that you can do so without responsibilities, its your responsibility to secure your weapon so that it is not stolen and used for a crime. Its every gun buyers responsibility to have a gun legally transfered when conducting a person to person sale, this way everyone gets a back ground check. Whether this is law or not its smart to do it, that way if the gun is used in a crime they police dont come looking for the last registered owner, the seller. But each gun owner has the moral responsibility to ensure that the guns they are selling are not getting into the hands of felons, criminals and mentally challenged persons.

Gun control, honestly even if you want it, its too late. Too many guns out there to regulate, whatever is put in place is not going to work.

But with the clamor going on about armed guards in our schools, I can see the future. Every store, school, means of public transportation, mall, public gathering place while have armed security so that we feel safe. We have them everywhere now, except schools outside the inner city. But you cant go anywhere without a guard, its been that way for a while. Look around, there are Arrowhead, the bank, walmart, greyhound terminal, city hall, public library etc etc.

I have also been thinking about the assualt weapons ban, while I dont agree with it and do not think it will change anything if implemented I would be willing to accept a non ban but special registration process to purchase one such as we do for machine guns and such under the 1934 gun registration law, if your not familar with the process you have to first apply with the ATF for the federal gun stamp, the fee is around $300.00. The ATF does a very very very thorough background check, if your pass the back ground check you must then get the police chief in your community to sign off on the purchase. At this point you would have to go to a Class 3 dealer. The advantages is that the buyer still get the weapon they want, society benefits from the extra money, but also by the rules involved. The gun cannot be sold to anyone, you have to sell it back to the class 3 dealer, if you have a buyer they have to go through the whole process, it cannot be passed on through inheritance without being part of a special firearms trust. Lastly the law requires that the weapon be kept in a gun safe when not in use. The ATF has the right to demand from the owner an inspecition of the weapon any time they like. I think this is a good compromise, unlike some I am not afraid of a little compromise, I am apposed to bans and confiscations, the same process could also be used for hi cap magazines. This way the government knows who has what for these types of weapons.

[dirty dog]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

What was the total of gun related deaths? Regardless of who pulled the trigger.

Your figure was 30,000. What was the total of vehicle deaths?

[dirty dog]

Originally Posted by Bartman1963

I guess what I want to get across to everyone is that it is time. Time to find an answer. Time to listen. DD, you are listening, and I do appreciate that. This is the time to sit down and decide now to keep nuts from getting guns. I don't want a ban to be honest. I would love that new LWRC in 6.8 SPC that is coming out soon. And I have my .45 to protect my kids too. Come in to my house especially when they know I am home...bastard is asking for a new laser guided hole in his forehead and I wouldn't feel bad at all (unless the hole wasn't dead center). What I want is dialog, I cant agree with you more Bart, a dialog with reason and not emotion and hypebol from both sides. meaningful dialog from left and right, and find an answer we can all live with. I don't care if it is a James Bond Chip in the gun that recognizes only you, or if it is something else. Just by Jesus Christ lets all get together, agree that life needs to be protected, and how and what can we do? True traffic is a killer, but we accept speed limits and rules to govern our behavior on the road. Drunk driving is punished (not hard enough IMHO, but oh well), you get my meaning. With rights come responsibilities.

There have been gun tragedies in my family. A wonderful young boy was shot and bled to death. I can't speak to the relative involved to this day and it was ten years ago. We all told him to keep his guns unloaded and the ammo locked up (there was no way in hell he would lock the guns, so we quit beating that horse). But he knew "his" kids were safe gun handlers. Didn't plan on the unsafe neighbor kid did he? Now one young man's life is forever marred by death and another child is dead.

DD, If the Mother of the killer in CT had used a big old gun safe for her weapons, (and she was a prepper from what I have heard, so prepping for the security of her weapons makes sense) then that psycho son of her's couldn't have gotten her guns so easily after killing her. It may have slowed him enough that he couldn't have killed the other women and children. Your preaching to the choir there Bart I believe that guns need to be secured when not in the possession of its owner, now my hardline on that may be because I have kids and grandkids. I can see how a single guy would think differently, but with all the modern elctronic safes that allow quick access through your fingerprint its just not necessary to have them laying around to be picked up by an innocent or by a theif.

So there are other ideas I like other than banning. In fact, I really want to keep my guns. I'm good with 'em. I just am tired of nuts getting a hold of them and killing old people in Luby's, kids in their classrooms, Sikhs in temples, Doctors in church or somebody who cut them off in traffic, just to name a few.

I want people to come together on this. We can do that can't we?

Then again maybe not. See my "great big fucking two legged rat" theory for that show.

I wish I had the answer Bart, but we both know its not going to be just one thing, its going to have to be a number of them, but blaming one type of firearm over another well it just does not fly, the people doing the banning don't even know what there banning or what type of firearm does what. But its not just one side, I stopped my NRA membership years ago because I thought their hardline stance ON EVERYTHING worked against us in the long run. I understand why they do it but just dont think it will work for guns owners going into the future. Do I think Bidon listened to a word any of the gun owner groups said, no, I think they have their agenda and no amount of anything said will change anything done.

[dirty dog]

I do appreciate that regardless of which side of the debate your on, we have managed to have 7 pages of dialog without anyone being called a cock sucker LOL. It's nice that we can talk and argue without it being pesonal and with only a minimum of sarcasim.

[ElumEno]

Originally Posted by dirty dog

I do appreciate that regardless of which side of the debate your on, we have managed to have 7 pages of dialog without anyone being called a cock sucker LOL. It's nice that we can talk and argue without it being pesonal and with only a minimum of sarcasim.

Nope you are all a bunch of 'Haters'.

Sorry could not resist...

I have to say it has been a good read... both sides of the debate have made some good points.