Gun control protects criminals

Do you really think the US government would blow its own peopl into the stone age? I don't think so Tim.

I'm not the one who is saying that we need to keep guns so the government doesn't turn on the US people.

I don't think it is absurd to consider that the right to bear arms was given at a time when it took a long time to reload weapons. I don't think that the founding fathers meant that people should be allowed to own automatic weapons.
 
I'm not the one who is saying that we need to keep guns so the government doesn't turn on the US people.

I don't think it is absurd to consider that the right to bear arms was given at a time when it took a long time to reload weapons. I don't think that the founding fathers meant that people should be allowed to own automatic weapons.

They meant to allow people to protect themselves, period. This part is purely speculative, but I would think they were observant enough to note that deadliest weapon a citizen could be accosted with would be a gun and a citizen would need the ability to sufficiently and efficiently protect themselves from such an attack. The only thing that accomplishes that is another gun.

You folks keep making this argument about the gun, but that isn't what the argument is about. I don't know when you're gonna get that.
 
Not really. What is the difference between 50 machine guns in the hands of mother theresa and 50 machine guns in the hands of Osama bin Laden?

neither one are American enough to qualify for our Constitutionally granted liberties??


RIMSHOT!
 
You folks keep making this argument about the gun, but that isn't what the argument is about. I don't know when you're gonna get that.

If it's not about the gun, what is it about? And here I thought it was called "gun control" because it's about guns? What am I missing? Fill me in.
 
If it's not about the gun, what is it about? And here I thought it was called "gun control" because it's about guns? What am I missing? Fill me in.

It is why I asked the question in post 60. A gun is an inanimate object. When we talk about gun control, it isn't really guns we're trying to control. We're talking about people's behavior with guns. Every gun law passed with regards to limiting or banning this assault rifle or that pistol isn't trying to control the gun. The real purpose is to avoid the consequences of the actions of someone who uses one of those weapons. The goal is to stop the behavior of an individual. So we take the easy way out because it's just too darn hard to address changing behavior, so we'll just disregard a person's malicious mentality in favor of laws designed to keep inanimate objects out of their hands. To me it's a cop out solution to avoid addressing the real the problem.

There is no justifiable reason to limit firearms in any shape or form. We are suppossed to be free to do what we want. What you want should only be limited to the extent that your actions effect others. that being the case there shouldn't be any reason I shouldn't be allowed a tank for my own personal amusement.
 
That's close enough actually. The difference is NOT the 50 machine guns.

having a lil fun, dude.

I might have used a 120 lb chick holding a .38 during an evening walk in a urban park versus a masked gunman robbing a liquor store with the same gun.
 
So is it just guns that you think shouldn't be limited by the government, or is it anything? Should we let people practice medicine on each other and prescribe random medications to them without a medical license? I'm sure that there are some people out there who could handle it. As long as they're not hurting anyone else, why can't they just practice medicine?
Do you believe that restaurants shouldn't be subject to health inspections? Because hey, as long as they're not hurting anyone, they should be able to do whatever they want. The vast majority of restaurants never have caused food poisoning or illness in people, why should they ALL have to follow the laws and regulations of food handling?
 
Then you are a short sighted dumbass.

Has the Bill of Rights crumbled to dust? If so, then I guess I have absolutely no right to own a gun, no right to practice my religion within reason. I won’t stoop to name-calling but I hope that it is clear to most people here that even the Bill of Rights is understood to have at least some implied or generally understood limitations and yet the Bill of Rights still exists.
 
So basically you see no inherent problems with gun laws now as they are defined by the federal government?

All I was getting at is you mention gun control isn't banishing firearms when that is exactly how it is defined by those that want gun control. ie Brady, Clinton, Obama(http://www.ontheissues.org/Domestic/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm)

I'm entirely ignorant of the situation in the US and I don't presume to comment on it as it exists (or not) in the US.
 
It is why I asked the question in post 60. A gun is an inanimate object. When we talk about gun control, it isn't really guns we're trying to control. We're talking about people's behavior with guns. Every gun law passed with regards to limiting or banning this assault rifle or that pistol isn't trying to control the gun. The real purpose is to avoid the consequences of the actions of someone who uses one of those weapons. The goal is to stop the behavior of an individual. So we take the easy way out because it's just too darn hard to address changing behavior, so we'll just disregard a person's malicious mentality in favor of laws designed to keep inanimate objects out of their hands. To me it's a cop out solution to avoid addressing the real the problem.

There is no justifiable reason to limit firearms in any shape or form. We are suppossed to be free to do what we want. What you want should only be limited to the extent that your actions effect others. that being the case there shouldn't be any reason I shouldn't be allowed a tank for my own personal amusement.

Mother Teresa would probably use the tank for kids' amusement, bin Laden would probably use it to kill people. Given that the tank may fall 50-50 into Mother Teresa's hands or those of bin Laden that's probably a reason for gun control.
 
So is it just guns that you think shouldn't be limited by the government, or is it anything? Should we let people practice medicine on each other and prescribe random medications to them without a medical license? I'm sure that there are some people out there who could handle it. As long as they're not hurting anyone else, why can't they just practice medicine?
Do you believe that restaurants shouldn't be subject to health inspections? Because hey, as long as they're not hurting anyone, they should be able to do whatever they want. The vast majority of restaurants never have caused food poisoning or illness in people, why should they ALL have to follow the laws and regulations of food handling?

Of course not. You didn't read very well. I said if we're all about freedom in this country, we should be free to do pretty much anything, or own pretty much anything, up until our actions affect the freedom of others. Practicing medicine without a license affects the freedom of others. Unclean restaurants affects others. Me owning a tank, in of itself, does not affect others until I (the person, not the inanimate object) choose to make it affect others.
 
Mother Teresa would probably use the tank for kids' amusement, bin Laden would probably use it to kill people. Given that the tank may fall 50-50 into Mother Teresa's hands or those of bin Laden that's probably a reason for gun control.

No it isn't. There are a bunch of variables in that equation. Only one of them is problematic for other people. I think we can all agree on what it is and that is bin Laden. So we've identified our problem which is essentially that given past actions we have good reason to believe bin laden would use weapons to hurt others.

Now our solutions to the problem: The gun control crowd believes the best way to stop a behavior is to make a law that would make it harder for bin Laden to acquire the tools to act out the behavior. Which by the way affects people who's behavior we don't have to worry about. Again instead of solving the real problem, we're just gonna ignore it and focus on an inanimate object instead.

Being a member of the right that solution is just puzzling. Isn't the left the group saying if we use diplomacy, if we just talk to people, we can change their behavior? Yet their solution where guns are concerned clearly doesn't reflect that.
 
Which liberties are constitutionally granted and which are merely protected by the constitution?

Your question sounds like a dog chasing it's tail. As I understand it, the enumerated amendments convey specific protected liberties while the Ninth amendment validates everything else. When in doubt, err on the side of liberty. The constitution doesn't try to predict behaviour or quell reactions. Life happens. Our laws won't take the chaos out of everyday life. That is not why it was written. It was written in order to preserve the liberty of Americans and create a representative form of democracy.
 
No it isn't. There are a bunch of variables in that equation. Only one of them is problematic for other people. I think we can all agree on what it is and that is bin Laden. So we've identified our problem which is essentially that given past actions we have good reason to believe bin laden would use weapons to hurt others.

Now our solutions to the problem: The gun control crowd believes the best way to stop a behavior is to make a law that would make it harder for bin Laden to acquire the tools to act out the behavior. Which by the way affects people who's behavior we don't have to worry about. Again instead of solving the real problem, we're just gonna ignore it and focus on an inanimate object instead.

Being a member of the right that solution is just puzzling. Isn't the left the group saying if we use diplomacy, if we just talk to people, we can change their behavior? Yet their solution where guns are concerned clearly doesn't reflect that.

I gave a ridiculous example that was made to make the point that probability of misuse is a factor in deciding on gun control. If society was composed solely of Mother Teresa people then we'd probably be relaxed with tanks being available. If society were composed of bin Laden people then I think we'd realise that tanks would have to be taken away from everyone but the military. So, the probability of misuse of weapons is a consideration in the debate. From there it requires a bit more thought. How strong is the probability of misuse? Can the effects of misuse be ameliorated by restricting the type of firearms lawfully available?
 
Your question sounds like a dog chasing it's tail. As I understand it, the enumerated amendments convey specific protected liberties while the Ninth amendment validates everything else. When in doubt, err on the side of liberty. The constitution doesn't try to predict behaviour or quell reactions. Life happens. Our laws won't take the chaos out of everyday life. That is not why it was written. It was written in order to preserve the liberty of Americans and create a representative form of democracy.

Does the constitution grant any liberties? Or does it restrict government from unnecessarily infringing on liberties which exist simply by virtue of someone being a human?
 
With the recent shootings at colleges the gun control lobby has stepped into full swing. How does disarming law abiding citizens stop violence? It leaves us helpless to defend our families against criminals who obtain their guns illegally and also leaves us helpless to defend ourselves against a rogue government. We are seeing scary signs today that our government does not have the best interests of the american people at heart. They seem to be anxious to disarm the public. Also no coincidence this latest shooting took place in Illinois (obama) and has connections to the v tech shooter . Cia disarm the people before martial law anyone? WAKE UP. i bet we see obama pushing gun control big time soon.

And deregulation puts guns in the hands of criminals faster and without any pesky law enforcement background checks
 

Forum List

Back
Top