Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    8:30 PM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: US politics > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: Reasoning for and against Gun Control. Back to Topics
btc1

Champion Author
Lexington

Posts:23,259
Points:894,095
Joined:Aug 2006
Message Posted: Feb 24, 2013 9:07:44 AM

" "If you take away from a man that which he considers to be justly his own, you make him desperate, and he will retaliate upon you. You can never by oppression make a man obey willingly the laws of his country. Act justly toward him, let him see he has a government which will protect him and he will love that government. But oppress and rob him, and he will despise and hate you."

This could be an argument against gun control. It is not it is an argument against abolishment of slavery.

Brutus Clay on the 23rd Amendment.

Kentucky did not ratify the 23rd Amendment until 1976.

Oddly enough, just this week the Kentucky State Senate passed a bill to enforce the 2nd Amendment even if it were changed. Oddly. Treason? Some say it would be.

Not everything in the original Constitution should be left alone.

[Edited by: btc1 at 2/24/2013 9:08:46 AM EST]
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
sissurf
Champion Author Virginia Beach

Posts:24,951
Points:2,301,575
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Feb 28, 2013 4:25:36 PM



btc1 said, "Felons aren't felons until they commit the crime. If you are insane, how do people recognize that until you do something crazy? So how do you begin to prevent these people access to dangerous weapons?"

Easy, the system already exist! They just have to be willing to use it.
ie: school mental exams when kids have gone beyond the normal acting out. Shrinks with patients who are a danger to themselves or others, so on, and so on.

If they had used the system in Conn. the murders of those children would have not happened! I say this because the attacker, even though he had serious mental problems in school, he was never put on a list! This was due to the fact that his family had money and that the town they lived in was on the up scale. Even though he was not on the list it would have not matter for he had planned the murder of his mother and then planned on stealing her weapons to committed the mass murder at the school. So as you should be able to see he was a criminal with a sick mind from the very beginning when he planed his criminal acts.

The only thing when someone is on the no buy list would help is when that criminal wishes to buy a firearm. As I stated earlier he did not buy his fire arm, he stole them from his mother.

Just because of one sick individual you don't have to force a change on the rest of honest Americans!

Profile Pic
PopcornPirate
Champion Author New Jersey

Posts:5,602
Points:1,546,695
Joined:Nov 2006
Message Posted: Feb 28, 2013 9:08:13 AM

More government regulation to chip away at our freedoms & taking more & more money from hard working citizens.

Order of progression in a Liberals mind.
Register all guns.
Make sure police have list of all guns.
Make police inspect the safety of all guns.
Make police deem who can possess a gun.
Police Confiscate guns from those deemed ineligible to possess a gun.
Expand list of Ineligible to possess a gun.
Confiscate guns from ALL ineligible to possess a gun...

Sound far fetched?
Look at possessing a gun 100 years ago as opposed to now.
Just guess what it would be like in another 100 years.
Sure.. All of us will be long gone.... But what about our grand children?
What kind of maze of government regulation will they have to deal with on a daily basis?

Fight for your freedom. Even if the one you fight says they are only doing it for your own good.

Profile Pic
WES03
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:7,162
Points:1,822,850
Joined:Feb 2009
Message Posted: Feb 28, 2013 8:31:23 AM

Gun ownership is at an all time high and yet murder rates are dropping (FBI stats). How is that explained?
Profile Pic
btc1
Champion Author Lexington

Posts:23,259
Points:894,095
Joined:Aug 2006
Message Posted: Feb 28, 2013 8:17:43 AM

Felons aren't felons until they commit the crime. If you are insane, how do people recognize that until you do something crazy? So how do you begin to prevent these people access to dangerous weapons?
Profile Pic
sissurf
Champion Author Virginia Beach

Posts:24,951
Points:2,301,575
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Feb 28, 2013 12:41:55 AM



We the law abiding American people don't need any one spying on us and entering our home just because, we the government, found another loop hole to chip away bit by bit our Freedom as we know it as an American!

What we need are answers to this.

"35,000+ known felons tried to pass a background check in one year. 44 were prosecuted for this felony crime. Now tell me again how doing ever more background checks will do any good at all."

What was it that Biden say, he didn't have the man power or money to investigate these felons?


[Edited by: sissurf at 2/28/2013 12:48:24 AM EST]
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,492
Points:1,563,575
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Feb 27, 2013 9:23:16 PM

More liberal hypocrisy
.
>>>New York sought to combat violence by rushing the nation's toughest gun control measure into law after the Connecticut school shootings that killed 26 people, but the state is now carving out an exemption to make sure movie and TV producers can stage running gun battles on Manhattan streets.

Movie and TV productions have long been courted by New York and other states with tax breaks in exchange for the jobs and glamour of the industry. Hollywood is also a major campaign fundraising stop for New York politicians.

"We spend a lot of money in the state bringing movie production here, post-production here, so obviously we would want to facilitate that," said Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who wants to expand the film and TV tax credit.

He said movies and TV may use fake guns that wouldn't be subject to the new law but the industry wants "certainty." The revised law would allow them to use real weapons without real ammunition.<<<

And they just dont see anything wrong with this thinking at all.....
Profile Pic
ministorage
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:12,588
Points:1,156,845
Joined:Oct 2008
Message Posted: Feb 27, 2013 7:50:31 PM

Reasons for gun control in the U.S.:

--You're a violent felon
--You're insane
--You're not a U.S. citizen

For the rest of us citizens of the U.S.,

Gas Buddy may not have enough exabytes of domain space for all the reasons guns should not be banned, controlled, limited in sale, purchased or traded for and by the rest of the adult U.S. population.

[Edited by: ministorage at 2/27/2013 7:59:32 PM EST]
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:22,372
Points:325,725
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Feb 27, 2013 7:49:26 PM

"If you have a gun to "protect your home and property" then you should already have that type of insurance."

You should, but there's no requirement and I suspect many don't because it would make for a more expensive insurance premium. More money spent on insurance = less money available to spend on more guns and ammunition to defend oneself against marauding hordes or government agents coming to take away one's guns.

Never mind about someone who might accidentally get hurt with one's weapon. One could always sell the gun privately and claim the weapon had been stolen unawares.

[Edited by: MiddletownMarty at 2/27/2013 7:52:00 PM EST]
Profile Pic
btc1
Champion Author Lexington

Posts:23,259
Points:894,095
Joined:Aug 2006
Message Posted: Feb 27, 2013 6:53:01 PM

Marty, just make it an addendum to homeowners or renter's insurance. If you have a gun to "protect your home and property" then you should already have that type of insurance. No insurance, no gun. Hmmmm.....

But, still there is the problem with the criminal element. They do not get insurance!

Two sides to everything always throws the monkey wrench in the mix.

[Edited by: btc1 at 2/27/2013 6:54:42 PM EST]
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,492
Points:1,563,575
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Feb 27, 2013 5:57:42 PM

I have never heard of any homeowners insurance company "inspecting" the home before they issue a policy Marty. Maybe they do back where you live but if so that just another reason to live somewhere else.
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:22,372
Points:325,725
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Feb 27, 2013 5:09:53 PM

"You mean like health insurance, where no one can afford that either?"

I mean like homeowner's insurance, where someone who is injured as a result of a homeowner's negligence can recover damages. Insurance companies perform inspections on the homes they insure to determine whether there are unacceptable risk factors. It could (and should) be the same for guns.
Profile Pic
sissurf
Champion Author Virginia Beach

Posts:24,951
Points:2,301,575
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Feb 27, 2013 4:57:48 PM


You mean like health insurance, where no one can afford that either?! lol

Another words you want such a high price on guns no matter which way the wind blows.

Lets just make it hard so the average citizen can't afford to even carry a gun.

That would be right up your alley, marty.
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:22,372
Points:325,725
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Feb 27, 2013 4:32:50 PM

"A Washington State bill would allow sheriffs to conduct home inspections once per year to ensure gun owners are “safely and securely” storing their “assault weapon.”

It would be more appropriate if insurance were required for each gun owned, and such inspections were required by the insurance company.
Profile Pic
sissurf
Champion Author Virginia Beach

Posts:24,951
Points:2,301,575
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Feb 27, 2013 2:37:28 PM



Here's one reasoning against gun control

A Washington State bill would allow sheriffs to conduct home inspections once per year to ensure gun owners are “safely and securely” storing their “assault weapon.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Washington State Gun Bill Contains Home Inspection Provision

February 20, 2013 by Bob Livingston

"Gun grabbers love to denigrate 2nd Amendment supporters by claiming their fear that registration leads to confiscation is hyperbole or simple nuttery. And then there is Washington Senate Bill 5737, an “assault weapons” ban introduced last week.

“They (gun grabbers) always say, ‘We’ll never go house-to-house to take your guns away.’ But then you see this, and you have to wonder,” said Lance Palmer, a Seattle trial lawyer and self-described liberal.

The “this” he’s referencing is a provision in the bill that would allow sheriffs to conduct home inspections once per year to ensure gun owners are “safely and securely” storing their “assault weapon.”

With the bill, Washington joins the parade of States competing in the biggest gun nanny contest. But clearly, the home inspection issue gives Washington a leg up.

“I’m a liberal Democrat — I’ve voted for only one Republican in my life,” Palmer told The Seattle Times. “But now I understand why my right-wing opponents worry about having to fight a government takeover.”

When called on the home inspection provision, the bill’s sponsors, Senators Adam Kline and Ed Murray, claimed to be surprised that the provision was in there.

Kline claimed not to have read the eight-page bill closely enough.

“I made a mistake. I frankly should have vetted this more closely,” he said.

Murray said, “I have to admit that shouldn’t be in there.” He admitted such a provision would probably be unConstitutional.

He then said an “assault weapons” ban has little chance of passing anyway, so he put in this bill more as “a general statement, as a guiding light of where we need to go.”

This bill makes it clear that if gun grabbers are willing to try to sneak a provision through that calls for inspection, which requires a registry, the natural next step is confiscation for those who don’t meet the arbitrary definition of “safely and securely” storing those weapons."

personalliberty.com
Profile Pic
oilpan4
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:13,728
Points:333,550
Joined:Jul 2006
Message Posted: Feb 27, 2013 2:05:22 PM

Gun buy backs may work in some inner city areas.
But they have to be long term and manned by people who can tell the difference between a serviceable firearm and a BB gun or toy gun (something local police seem to have trouble with). Or else people will turn in junk and nonfirearm items to score a quick bill to fuel their addictions.

The ATF did a long term buy back sting quite a few years ago, but unlike typical police by backs the ATF used the by back transaction as evidence against the former gun owners and put most of them in jail. Gun crime in that local area did drop some and they hailed the program as a huge success.
Only problem is this will only work once and people will get wise to it.
I would agree, taking guns away from criminals and putting them in jail works. What a concept!
Profile Pic
btc1
Champion Author Lexington

Posts:23,259
Points:894,095
Joined:Aug 2006
Message Posted: Feb 27, 2013 1:39:10 PM

Pan, "Participating in a gun buy back because you believe that the criminals have too many guns is like having yourself castrated because you believe that the neighbors have too many kids."

I agree with you. But the administration is also looking into and asking for ideas to increase the ability to control the criminal access to weaponry, too.
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,492
Points:1,563,575
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Feb 27, 2013 11:09:19 AM

"The only way to reduce crime in our society is to separate the criminals from society."

And it would be much more effective if we 'removed' a lot of them rapidly and permanently (with prejudice).
Profile Pic
Panama19
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:30,812
Points:3,182,810
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Feb 27, 2013 10:54:07 AM


Participating in a gun buy back because you believe that the criminals have too many guns is like having yourself castrated because you believe that the neighbors have too many kids.

Same principle applies to restricting the rights of the law-abiding to control the criminal element.

It cannot work. It is simply an emotional/liberal desire to "do something" when they lack the stomach to hold criminals responsible for their behavior and find it convenient to attack the inanimate object instead.

It is not possible to achieve security for the public by allowing criminals to roam free while trying to remove all sharp and blunt objects from society in order that the criminals cannot commit crime.

The only way to reduce crime in our society is to separate the criminals from society.

Profile Pic
btc1
Champion Author Lexington

Posts:23,259
Points:894,095
Joined:Aug 2006
Message Posted: Feb 27, 2013 8:31:57 AM

BGT, I know about what Brutus Clay was speaking. My post points that out. I saw similarities in what Brutus had said about slavery to what is being said about gun control.

The bigger point is whenever any gun regulation or control is mentioned it is always equated to repeal of the 2nd Amendment. That is not proposed. It is not an all or nothing situation. It is merely a proposal to limit legal access to some ammunition and certain weapons. That is all. Yet, the gun rights activists insist that any of it equates to banning all guns. Hogwash.

This also, points out, that, as society develops some changes to what was original to the Constitution can and should be revised.
Profile Pic
Panama19
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:30,812
Points:3,182,810
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Feb 27, 2013 8:03:24 AM


mnrick041, excellent points. Thanks.
Profile Pic
BlackGumTree
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:18,444
Points:1,459,940
Joined:Dec 2005
Message Posted: Feb 26, 2013 5:44:09 PM

btc1 - "Reasoning for and against Gun Control"

You topic appears to be about Gun Control but your initial post appears to be more about Slavery and electors for Washington, DC.

Perhaps this illustrates how a liberal mind works.

Slavery is pretty much misunderstood today. You may have meant the 13th Amendment as Brutus Clay did speak about that and not the 23rd Amendment.

The 13th Amendment reads:
1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

The reason it read "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude" is because Slavery and Involuntary Servitude are not exactly the same. Slavery existed in America long before Europeans ever discovered the place and it was practiced pretty much the same all over the world. Slavery was mostly Voluntary Servitude that was entered into by the Slave to avoid the alternative. This choice was usually the result of war. There were no prisoner of wars camps, no exchanges of prisoners with the enemy. The prisoners of war were sometimes but not always give the choice: Slavery or Death. Those not given the choice automatically received the alternative: Death. Traditionally Slaves were not allowed to reproduce and if a brave mated with a female slave he accepted the child as his own.
Involuntary Servitude was the result of a child born to a slave who was never given the choice of Death.

What does this have to do with Gun Control?

Gun Control is what is needed to avoid missing the target resulting in a stray round damaging property or hitting a non-combatant bystander.

It is a natural God given right to protect yourself and to use sensible means in the process. That includes the ownership of Guns and the education in their use so that they can be Controlled properly when needed.
Profile Pic
PopcornPirate
Champion Author New Jersey

Posts:5,602
Points:1,546,695
Joined:Nov 2006
Message Posted: Feb 26, 2013 10:09:02 AM

Maybe the reason so many co-workers, students, spouses, store clerks, etc. have NOT been killed is because they had a gun to protect themselves.
Profile Pic
jdhelm
Champion Author Iowa

Posts:16,451
Points:1,841,115
Joined:Dec 2009
Message Posted: Feb 26, 2013 9:45:51 AM

10 myths about gun control
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:22,372
Points:325,725
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Feb 25, 2013 1:44:46 PM

Maybe the reason so many co-workers, students, spouses, store clerks, etc. have been killed is because Americans still have guns.
Profile Pic
PopcornPirate
Champion Author New Jersey

Posts:5,602
Points:1,546,695
Joined:Nov 2006
Message Posted: Feb 25, 2013 9:53:19 AM

Maybe the reason no Tyrants have been overthrown is because Americans still have guns & there is a 2 term limit on a US President.

You forget Japan's General Isoroku Yamamoto's statement.
“You cannot invade America. There is a rifle behind every blade of grass.”

Why did he stat that???? Because it is almost true.
Profile Pic
mnrick041
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:17,814
Points:2,021,510
Joined:Jun 2009
Message Posted: Feb 25, 2013 7:01:15 AM

Why is it always the Democrats who push gun control?

Why are the Republicans more about crime control?

The Democrats do not want to enforce the current laws but yet they want new ones.

I see no need for gun control other than a enforcement of the current laws. If someone lies on a background check they should go to prison.

“In 2010, there were 76,142 [National Instant Criminal Background Check System] denials screened by the ATF’s Denial Enforcement and NICS Intelligence (DENI) Branch. Of those screened, 4,732 denials were referred to field offices for investigation. However, only 62 prosecutions resulted from these actions,” the letter says. “A prosecution rate this low is not indicative of a Department of Justice that takes the act of illegally attempting to acquire a firearm seriously.”
Judiciary Committee sends letter to Obama, Holder about lack of enforcement of current laws
Profile Pic
AFSNCO
Champion Author Montgomery

Posts:19,937
Points:1,867,540
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Feb 24, 2013 10:10:19 PM

btc, what they should do is start enforcing the laws that are currently on the books. We have not seen an effort by our government to take the current laws serious yet they are proposing all these new measures that we will not have the manpower to follow up on anyway!
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:22,372
Points:325,725
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Feb 24, 2013 9:22:13 PM

Second Amendment Scoreboard
Profile Pic
RAB2010
All-Star Author Kalamazoo

Posts:661
Points:81,550
Joined:Mar 2010
Message Posted: Feb 24, 2013 9:04:31 PM

There does not exist any rational thought favoring gun control.
Profile Pic
daylily2009
Champion Author Fayetteville

Posts:2,443
Points:1,166,870
Joined:Oct 2009
Message Posted: Feb 24, 2013 6:02:53 PM

A shot gun --A rifle --and hand gun -- Should be had if you want to protect your family!!
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:31,586
Points:3,491,445
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Feb 24, 2013 11:16:14 AM

btc1 - I've got news for you - the 23rd Amendment wasn't the original constitution. DC didn't exist.

From Wikipedia: The Twenty-third Amendment (Amendment XXIII) to the United States Constitution permits citizens in the District of Columbia to vote for Electors for President and Vice President. The amendment was proposed by Congress on June 17, 1960, and ratified by the states on March 29, 1961. The first Presidential election in which it was in effect was the presidential election of 1964. Prior to the passage of the amendment, residents of Washington, D.C. were forbidden from voting for President or Vice President as the District is not a U.S. state. However, they are still unable to send voting Representatives or Senators to Congress.
The amendment restricts the district to the number of Electors of the least populous state, irrespective of its own population. As of 2011, that state is Wyoming, which has three Electors. However, even without this clause, the district's present population would only entitle it to three Electors. Since the passage of this amendment, the District's electoral votes have gone towards the candidates of the Democratic Party in every presidential election."

OK, so how does DC getting the vote and gun control meet up? Explain. IMHO, DC needs to ABOLISH gun control. It might help residents if they could defend themselves against their resident thugs (and no, I don't mean the Democrat party!).
Profile Pic
Panama19
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:30,812
Points:3,182,810
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Feb 24, 2013 11:01:23 AM


mudtoe, "That's why the founders created two methods by which the Constitution could be amended, and neither of which involves the Supreme Court"

Nor do they involve ignoring the inconvenient bits like this administration is doing.

Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:14,091
Points:1,921,160
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Feb 24, 2013 10:31:42 AM

btc: "Not everything in the original Constitution should be left alone."



That's why the founders created two methods by which the Constitution could be amended, and neither of which involves the Supreme Court.


mudtoe

[Edited by: mudtoe at 2/24/2013 10:32:35 AM EST]
Post a reply Back to Topics