What needs to be done if we want to control guns

[martybegan]

Missing the boat here pal

I am comparing drinking, smoking and guns as parts of the American culture, As such, it is unlikely we will be able to ban any of them. It does not mean that we cannot modify our culture and institute tighter controls. Just like we did with drunk driving and cigarettes

Driving and Drinking (even seperately) are not protected by the 2nd amendment as a right of the people. owning guns is. That creates a much higher bar (at least it is supposed to) to any restrictions on that right.

In fact, drinking can be restricted DUE to an amendment, as the states and other localities retain the right to regulate alcohol via the repeal of the Prohibition amendment.

And still, one has to remember that drunk drivers only get punished AFTER they get caught, like any other criminal. We do not restrict the speed of a person's car, nor how much they can drink. We do not have devices that prevent anyone from operating thier vehicle while drunk (unless mandated by a court order AFTER a conviction).

All of the prior restraints you want to place on law abiding gun owners are not used in the case of drunk driving OR smoking, regardless of current public opinion on them.

Totally irrelevant to the OP

How so? Even if you were to change the american opinion of firearms how would enacting prior restraint on people become a selling point? Your point was that the opinion of smoking and DWI changed over time. If you are correct, and you assume the same can be done with firearms, wouldnt the prior restraint actions I listed already be in place for both smoking and drunk driving?

If your premise is correct, then why do we NOT have vehicles that require breath tests prior to driving, or cars with speed governors, or 4 drink maximums at any place that sells alchohol?

All these are similar to restrictions on firearms.

 

[Gadawg73]

Actually, most Americans support more gun control

Nobody is advocating confiscating your guns. However stricter controls and tracking are warranted

Most Americans have been wrong on how many issues over the years?
We are not a majority mob rule country.
Stricter controls do what?
How does tracking stop criminals from obtaining guns?[/QUOTE]

Where do criminals get their guns?

Were they bought at WalMart?
Secondary gun market or resale?
Were they stolen?

If you are a responsible gun owner you should be responsible for securing your guns from theft and ensuring that you do not sell or transfer your guns to criminals

Tracking guns allows us to do that

Newport case no.
Owners guns were taken by her child.

 

[Gadawg73]

Pardon me for being amused by the concept of passing additional laws to keep the mentally disturbed and criminals already breaking the law from getting weapons.

You will make it harder for law abiding citizens who obey the laws to get guns but you won't make a difference to those who have no qualms about breaking the law. Thinking that you will is simply self-delusional. One of the things that makes a school so attractive to a wack job is that they know there will not be weapons that the people who work there can use against them. That might not be the case elsewhere. People don't go shoot up police stations because cops have guns and will respond.

You have to have responsible ownership of guns. YOU must be responsible for how your guns are secured in your home and who they get sold to. If you sell a gun to a criminal or crazy...It is YOU who holds the resposibility

We need to dry up the supplies of guns to those who should not have them.

Why would a so called responsible gun owner object to laws that control the flow of guns to criminals?

Laws never "dry up" guns to the criminals.
Respectfully, that is a no brainer.
CRIMINALS need to be punished for breaking the laws.
That is how we fight this. GUNS are not the problem.

 

[rightwinger]

Driving and Drinking (even seperately) are not protected by the 2nd amendment as a right of the people. owning guns is. That creates a much higher bar (at least it is supposed to) to any restrictions on that right.

In fact, drinking can be restricted DUE to an amendment, as the states and other localities retain the right to regulate alcohol via the repeal of the Prohibition amendment.

And still, one has to remember that drunk drivers only get punished AFTER they get caught, like any other criminal. We do not restrict the speed of a person's car, nor how much they can drink. We do not have devices that prevent anyone from operating thier vehicle while drunk (unless mandated by a court order AFTER a conviction).

All of the prior restraints you want to place on law abiding gun owners are not used in the case of drunk driving OR smoking, regardless of current public opinion on them.

Totally irrelevant to the OP

How so? Even if you were to change the american opinion of firearms how would enacting prior restraint on people become a selling point? Your point was that the opinion of smoking and DWI changed over time. If you are correct, and you assume the same can be done with firearms, wouldnt the prior restraint actions I listed already be in place for both smoking and drunk driving?

If your premise is correct, then why do we NOT have vehicles that require breath tests prior to driving, or cars with speed governors, or 4 drink maximums at any place that sells alchohol?

All these are similar to restrictions on firearms.

The OP relates to the need for groundswell support for gun controls from the American people. We cannot rely on Congress to do the job. They have shown they are not capable or willing

It will take major political pressure from the American people to get change

It happened with smoking and drunk driving. It can happen with guns

 

[Defiant1]

Adopt Florida's law - Ten, Twenty, Life

produce a gun while committing a felony - ten years
fire the weapon - 20 years
shoot a person (person doesn't have to die) - life

edited to add: But individual states need to do this, not the Federal Government.

 

[rightwinger]

Pardon me for being amused by the concept of passing additional laws to keep the mentally disturbed and criminals already breaking the law from getting weapons.

You will make it harder for law abiding citizens who obey the laws to get guns but you won't make a difference to those who have no qualms about breaking the law. Thinking that you will is simply self-delusional. One of the things that makes a school so attractive to a wack job is that they know there will not be weapons that the people who work there can use against them. That might not be the case elsewhere. People don't go shoot up police stations because cops have guns and will respond.

You have to have responsible ownership of guns. YOU must be responsible for how your guns are secured in your home and who they get sold to. If you sell a gun to a criminal or crazy...It is YOU who holds the resposibility

We need to dry up the supplies of guns to those who should not have them.

Why would a so called responsible gun owner object to laws that control the flow of guns to criminals?

Laws never "dry up" guns to the criminals.
Respectfully, that is a no brainer.
CRIMINALS need to be punished for breaking the laws.
That is how we fight this. GUNS are not the problem.

Once again...where do criminals get their guns and how can we dry up their supply?

If they come from WalMart then background checks should block the supply
If they come from gun shows or the secondary market, again background checks should block the supply
If they are stolen, then the gun owner should be held responsible for not securing his weapons

Responsible gun owners should support drying up the black market transfer of guns to criminals

 

[martybegan]

Totally irrelevant to the OP

How so? Even if you were to change the american opinion of firearms how would enacting prior restraint on people become a selling point? Your point was that the opinion of smoking and DWI changed over time. If you are correct, and you assume the same can be done with firearms, wouldnt the prior restraint actions I listed already be in place for both smoking and drunk driving?

If your premise is correct, then why do we NOT have vehicles that require breath tests prior to driving, or cars with speed governors, or 4 drink maximums at any place that sells alchohol?

All these are similar to restrictions on firearms.

The OP relates to the need for groundswell support for gun controls from the American people. We cannot rely on Congress to do the job. They have shown they are not capable or willing

It will take major political pressure from the American people to get change

It happened with smoking and drunk driving. It can happen with guns

And as I said, in both cases, you are not dealing with consitutionally protected rights, and in both cases there is no prior restraint in the sale or use of both items. You actually have to commit the crime for you to be punished, and with the exception of age or prior conviction, there is no restriction on the use of either.

 

[rightwinger]

How so? Even if you were to change the american opinion of firearms how would enacting prior restraint on people become a selling point? Your point was that the opinion of smoking and DWI changed over time. If you are correct, and you assume the same can be done with firearms, wouldnt the prior restraint actions I listed already be in place for both smoking and drunk driving?

If your premise is correct, then why do we NOT have vehicles that require breath tests prior to driving, or cars with speed governors, or 4 drink maximums at any place that sells alchohol?

All these are similar to restrictions on firearms.

The OP relates to the need for groundswell support for gun controls from the American people. We cannot rely on Congress to do the job. They have shown they are not capable or willing

It will take major political pressure from the American people to get change

It happened with smoking and drunk driving. It can happen with guns

And as I said, in both cases, you are not dealing with consitutionally protected rights, and in both cases there is no prior restraint in the sale or use of both items. You actually have to commit the crime for you to be punished, and with the exception of age or prior conviction, there is no restriction on the use of either.

Nobody is punishing you and nobody is prohibiting you from legally obtaining guns

Your Second Amendment Rights are still intact

That does not mean we can not pass laws that inhibit the ability of criminals and the insane from obtaining firearms

 

[martybegan]

The OP relates to the need for groundswell support for gun controls from the American people. We cannot rely on Congress to do the job. They have shown they are not capable or willing

It will take major political pressure from the American people to get change

It happened with smoking and drunk driving. It can happen with guns

And as I said, in both cases, you are not dealing with consitutionally protected rights, and in both cases there is no prior restraint in the sale or use of both items. You actually have to commit the crime for you to be punished, and with the exception of age or prior conviction, there is no restriction on the use of either.

Nobody is punishing you and nobody is prohibiting you from legally obtaining guns

Your Second Amendment Rights are still intact

That does not mean we can not pass laws that inhibit the ability of criminals and the insane from obtaining firearms

How is imposing a 7 round magazine limit inhibiting the ability of criminals and the insane from obtaining firearms?

 

[nodoginnafight]

President Obama made a nice speech but other than some executive orders on gun registration and sharing of information, nothing will be done by Congress

The NRA has too much influence over Congress to get any gun legislation passed. Congress may huff and puff but nothing will be done

I grew up in the 50s and 60s. Half the people smoked and it was ridiculous to think Congress could do anything about smoking. Smoking was part of our culture and the smoking lobby was very powerful
Drunk Driving killed thousands of people a year. It was accepted that nothing could be done. Drinking was part of our culture and the alcohol lobby was very strong

What changed?

It was the people who got fed up. Grass roots movements against smoking and groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving became politically powerful. Smoking and drunk driving no longer were socially acceptable. It became politically unfeasable to support smoking or lax drunk driving rules.
Public smoking was banned, drunk driving laws were made tougher and the rates of smoking and drunk driving decreased dramatically

If anything will be done on gun violence it will have to come from the American people and not the politicians. Strong grass roots movements need to rise up and say "Enough is enough". These movements need to go head to head with the NRA and support candidates who are willing to fight for stricter gun laws

Unless that happens we will see business as usual

I particularly like the M.A.D.D. analogy. It is a real grass roots success story. What started out as a few moms who lost children to drunk drivers emerged as a real force for social change. I couldn't be more proud of those ladies and what they accomplished. But the hurdle is bigger on the gun control issue. I'm not saying it can't be done - I believe that in America, anything can be done.

But gun owners have a much stronger case than drunks. And smokers are generally not proud of their habit, most (I believe) would discourage others from taking it up and would love to be free of the habit themselves. They aren't likely to stand up to defend the practice.

There is no logical defense for driving drunk or smoking. And even though many on these boards like to stubbornly cling to the very worst arguments, I believe there are some pretty decent logical arguments for gun ownership.

It's going to be a lot tougher.

 

[Stephanie]

Pardon me for being amused by the concept of passing additional laws to keep the mentally disturbed and criminals already breaking the law from getting weapons.

You will make it harder for law abiding citizens who obey the laws to get guns but you won't make a difference to those who have no qualms about breaking the law. Thinking that you will is simply self-delusional. One of the things that makes a school so attractive to a wack job is that they know there will not be weapons that the people who work there can use against them. That might not be the case elsewhere. People don't go shoot up police stations because cops have guns and will respond.

You have to have responsible ownership of guns. YOU must be responsible for how your guns are secured in your home and who they get sold to. If you sell a gun to a criminal or crazy...It is YOU who holds the resposibility

We need to dry up the supplies of guns to those who should not have them.

Why would a so called responsible gun owner object to laws that control the flow of guns to criminals?

You people didn't care about Holders gun running but now your are worried about "drying" up the supplies of guns" that got people killed but now you want to dump on the citizens of the country.
my gawd you people are scary

 

[martybegan]

President Obama made a nice speech but other than some executive orders on gun registration and sharing of information, nothing will be done by Congress

The NRA has too much influence over Congress to get any gun legislation passed. Congress may huff and puff but nothing will be done

I grew up in the 50s and 60s. Half the people smoked and it was ridiculous to think Congress could do anything about smoking. Smoking was part of our culture and the smoking lobby was very powerful
Drunk Driving killed thousands of people a year. It was accepted that nothing could be done. Drinking was part of our culture and the alcohol lobby was very strong

What changed?

It was the people who got fed up. Grass roots movements against smoking and groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving became politically powerful. Smoking and drunk driving no longer were socially acceptable. It became politically unfeasable to support smoking or lax drunk driving rules.
Public smoking was banned, drunk driving laws were made tougher and the rates of smoking and drunk driving decreased dramatically

If anything will be done on gun violence it will have to come from the American people and not the politicians. Strong grass roots movements need to rise up and say "Enough is enough". These movements need to go head to head with the NRA and support candidates who are willing to fight for stricter gun laws

Unless that happens we will see business as usual

I particularly like the M.A.D.D. analogy. It is a real grass roots success story. What started out as a few moms who lost children to drunk drivers emerged as a real force for social change. I couldn't be more proud of those ladies and what they accomplished. But the hurdle is bigger on the gun control issue. I'm not saying it can't be done - I believe that in America, anything can be done.

But gun owners have a much stronger case than drunks. And smokers are generally not proud of their habit, most (I believe) would discourage others from taking it up and would love to be free of the habit themselves. They aren't likely to stand up to defend the practice.

There is no logical defense for driving drunk or smoking. And even though many on these boards like to stubbornly cling to the very worst arguments, I believe there are some pretty decent logical arguments for gun ownership.

It's going to be a lot tougher.

The only critique of MADD is that to me a .08 BAC for DWI is really too low. Most crashes done by drunks are drivers in the .20+ range.

 

[RoadVirus]

The OP relates to the need for groundswell support for gun controls from the American people. We cannot rely on Congress to do the job. They have shown they are not capable or willing

It will take major political pressure from the American people to get change

It happened with smoking and drunk driving. It can happen with guns

And as I said, in both cases, you are not dealing with consitutionally protected rights, and in both cases there is no prior restraint in the sale or use of both items. You actually have to commit the crime for you to be punished, and with the exception of age or prior conviction, there is no restriction on the use of either.

Nobody is punishing you and nobody is prohibiting you from legally obtaining guns

Your Second Amendment Rights are still intact

That does not mean we can not pass laws that inhibit the ability of criminals and the insane from obtaining firearms

Yeah...because we all know criminals obey the law.

 

[nodoginnafight]

President Obama made a nice speech but other than some executive orders on gun registration and sharing of information, nothing will be done by Congress

The NRA has too much influence over Congress to get any gun legislation passed. Congress may huff and puff but nothing will be done

I grew up in the 50s and 60s. Half the people smoked and it was ridiculous to think Congress could do anything about smoking. Smoking was part of our culture and the smoking lobby was very powerful
Drunk Driving killed thousands of people a year. It was accepted that nothing could be done. Drinking was part of our culture and the alcohol lobby was very strong

What changed?

It was the people who got fed up. Grass roots movements against smoking and groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving became politically powerful. Smoking and drunk driving no longer were socially acceptable. It became politically unfeasable to support smoking or lax drunk driving rules.
Public smoking was banned, drunk driving laws were made tougher and the rates of smoking and drunk driving decreased dramatically

If anything will be done on gun violence it will have to come from the American people and not the politicians. Strong grass roots movements need to rise up and say "Enough is enough". These movements need to go head to head with the NRA and support candidates who are willing to fight for stricter gun laws

Unless that happens we will see business as usual

I particularly like the M.A.D.D. analogy. It is a real grass roots success story. What started out as a few moms who lost children to drunk drivers emerged as a real force for social change. I couldn't be more proud of those ladies and what they accomplished. But the hurdle is bigger on the gun control issue. I'm not saying it can't be done - I believe that in America, anything can be done.

But gun owners have a much stronger case than drunks. And smokers are generally not proud of their habit, most (I believe) would discourage others from taking it up and would love to be free of the habit themselves. They aren't likely to stand up to defend the practice.

There is no logical defense for driving drunk or smoking. And even though many on these boards like to stubbornly cling to the very worst arguments, I believe there are some pretty decent logical arguments for gun ownership.

It's going to be a lot tougher.

The only critique of MADD is that to me a .08 BAC for DWI is really too low. Most crashes done by drunks are drivers in the .20+ range.

You know they STILL send people into courts to monitor sentencing. If they are there, you aren't gonna get any kind of deal or slack. Judges DO NOT want to appear on their hit list.

Like many things that start out very good - it can be corrupted. I'm not saying MADD is corrupted, but I can easily see them moving into an area where their power creates a huge temptation for some to use that power in a corrupt way.

 

[Clementine]

We don't need to control guns. Each owner is responsible for that. Controlling guns means taking them away from everyone, though getting them from criminals isn't likely. We need to ensure that people are protected and, sadly, there aren't enough police to do that. Putting up signs declaring a place a gun-free zone was incredibly stupid and pointless. Who obeyed the signs other than good people who could have taken out the shooters?

Guns in the hands of decent people are not dangerous. Some people are dangerous whether they have guns or not. I think many good people are tired of always being belittled and further controlled because of the actions of the crazy and evil people. Gun control won't change a damn thing and I can't believe that any of those pushing for it will really feel safer.

I don't anticipate Obama or other politicians cutting back on the number of armed guards at their disposal because of the new laws that are supposed to actually make a difference. What a fucking joke. No, they understand the reality of it all, the same way gun owners do. You need good guys with guns to be safe. They insist on it for themselves, but are sure quick to say you and your family aren't as worthy as they are of actually being safe.

 

[Stephanie]

The OP relates to the need for groundswell support for gun controls from the American people. We cannot rely on Congress to do the job. They have shown they are not capable or willing

It will take major political pressure from the American people to get change

It happened with smoking and drunk driving. It can happen with guns

And as I said, in both cases, you are not dealing with consitutionally protected rights, and in both cases there is no prior restraint in the sale or use of both items. You actually have to commit the crime for you to be punished, and with the exception of age or prior conviction, there is no restriction on the use of either.

Nobody is punishing you and nobody is prohibiting you from legally obtaining guns

Your Second Amendment Rights are still intact

That does not mean we can not pass laws that inhibit the ability of criminals and the insane from obtaining firearms

Except NONE of these suggest by Obama does that, it infringes on the people WHO ISN'T INSANE OR CRIMINALS..but you people don't care about that

 

[nodoginnafight]

Controlling guns means taking them away from everyone

Yeah ... just like requiring seatbelts took away everyones' cars.

 

[rightwinger]

And as I said, in both cases, you are not dealing with consitutionally protected rights, and in both cases there is no prior restraint in the sale or use of both items. You actually have to commit the crime for you to be punished, and with the exception of age or prior conviction, there is no restriction on the use of either.

Nobody is punishing you and nobody is prohibiting you from legally obtaining guns

Your Second Amendment Rights are still intact

That does not mean we can not pass laws that inhibit the ability of criminals and the insane from obtaining firearms

How is imposing a 7 round magazine limit inhibiting the ability of criminals and the insane from obtaining firearms?

Inconvenient? Possibly
punishment? hardly

 

[rightwinger]

And as I said, in both cases, you are not dealing with consitutionally protected rights, and in both cases there is no prior restraint in the sale or use of both items. You actually have to commit the crime for you to be punished, and with the exception of age or prior conviction, there is no restriction on the use of either.

Nobody is punishing you and nobody is prohibiting you from legally obtaining guns

Your Second Amendment Rights are still intact

That does not mean we can not pass laws that inhibit the ability of criminals and the insane from obtaining firearms

Yeah...because we all know criminals obey the law.

As a responsible gun owner, why would you want your gun to end up in the hands of a criminal?

 

[Stephanie]

Nobody is punishing you and nobody is prohibiting you from legally obtaining guns

Your Second Amendment Rights are still intact

That does not mean we can not pass laws that inhibit the ability of criminals and the insane from obtaining firearms

Yeah...because we all know criminals obey the law.

As a responsible gun owner, why would you want your gun to end up in the hands of a criminal?

alright then, when a criminal steals your CAR you should be held responsible if they commit a murder with it and go to jail..You should of taken better care not to let your car be stolen