CDZ A Week of Gun Violence Does Nothing to Change the N.R.A.’s Message

[OldLady]

But in order to keep drugs from addicts, doctors have severely limited pain prescriptions to ALL patients. And doctors and pharmacies share pain prescription information on all patients to catch those abusing them. And to limit drunk drivers, all drivers can be stopped and tested, bars can be held liable for serving to someone already three sheets to the wind, regardless of whether they're driving. To limit gun violence, perhaps guns need to be limited for all. Fair? Maybe not. Who told you life is fair? I said limited, not completely gone, btw.

And so people buy drugs ... illegally. My point. You may have heard about that, it's been in the news ...

No. The point is actually that many addicts began by being prescribed opiates for a bonafide medical issue. Then they got hooked and tried "doctor shopping" and emergency room jumping to get more as their need increased. And when that no longer worked, they switched to heroin. Focusing on the root of the problem, where it started, will hopefully save the upcoming generation from a similar fate. To me, it makes equal sense that if the root of the illegal gun problem--guns in circulation--were addressed, it would help keep them from the wrong hands by the sheer weight of the numbers.

When you ban guns for law abiding people who do not use them for crime.....criminals will still get them.....that is how it is all around the world.......the criminals have guns, normal people do not......

How?

Let's look at this logically.

Heroin is ILLEGAL in this country. Oh sure a few specialized labs can legally own heroin, but the average person on the street? It's illegal.

Yet, we have a heroin epidemic in this country with people using illegal heroin.

America's Heroin Epidemic - NBC News

How is this possible? We made heroin illegal, don't people realize they aren't supposed to own it?

Follow the money and you will find the answer. People are becoming very rich selling heroin. Maybe what we should really be doing is focusing on them, instead of the poor, powerless people who have destroyed their lives on junk.

 

[kaz]

The government taking the property of people who haven't been convicted of a crime is a flagrant violation of due process and I say that repeatedly. The War on Drugs is a Constitutional abomination and anyone who supports what they do and thinks they are a "Constitutionalist" is a liar

I give you credit for being principly consistent, at least in the specific regard noted above. That too is more than I can say for most posters on here. It may well be that you and I just have differing principles. I don't know for sure if that's totally so or just somewhat so. Even so, adhering to a given principle at all its levels of scope is to be commended.

Thank you, but as for your qualification, "at least in the specific regard noted above," I challenge you to ever find me inconsistent on that

To be honest, I don't have any recollection of much else that you've written on here. I can only remark about what I have seen and recall, and what I've seen and recall is what I remarked about.

Here you go:

What is a small government libertarian?

I say specifically what government should be allowed to do. If you see anything that you have another solution for then let me know

To your link I want to add my version of it, which adds federalism to the equation, along with strict constructionism.

For example, with your abortion viewpoint, I don't really care if people have them, even though i think they are wrong when it comes to use as birth control. However I do not see how the Federal Courts can stop Alabama or Mississippi from banning the procedure.

Agreed. Just to be sure on the abortion standpoint, you realize we agree on that. I say the Federal government has zero say over abortion. That means as you say Alabama or Mississippi can certainly ban it. Though I would oppose them doing that. I would do nothing to stop them

 

[kaz]

Why should it,if anything it proves how dangerous life can be.
Gun crazies want to disarm the people.what kind of logic is that?

Yes, taking guns from law abiding citizens is like targeting the drug war on people who don't do drugs and drunk driving programs on people who don't drink. Fact and logic, liberals take to them like fish take to cameras and fire flies

But in order to keep drugs from addicts, doctors have severely limited pain prescriptions to ALL patients. And doctors and pharmacies share pain prescription information on all patients to catch those abusing them. And to limit drunk drivers, all drivers can be stopped and tested, bars can be held liable for serving to someone already three sheets to the wind, regardless of whether they're driving. To limit gun violence, perhaps guns need to be limited for all. Fair? Maybe not. Who told you life is fair? I said limited, not completely gone, btw.

The problem is that we simply don't trust you to stop at limited.

In all of the cases above except the painkiller one, there is no prior restraint. you have to do something bad before you can be punished for them.

And the idea of making it very very hard for people to get painkillers because some abuse them leads to people suffering for no reason other than the laziness of those out there trying to enforce the law.

Government has plenty of existing laws out there to combat gun crimes, and the ownership of guns by those who should not have them. I suggest they use those laws already existing before bringing up more laws, especially "shotgun" effect laws that attempt to solve a problem by punishing everyone, and not just those who want to break/actually break the law.

I agree wholeheartedly that we should be enforcing the laws with vigor. I don't know what the problem is, but if it's anything like around here, cops are pretty busy just putting out the local fires with more and more limited manpower. We've had a bad economy, ya know? Don't know if that might have something to do with it.

And you're right, Marty, you wouldn't want to trust ME about stopping at "limited." I'd like to go Australia on you folks. But semiautomatic weapons and replaceable magazines will be a suitable compromise. I know many gun owners, including in my own family, and I understand that there are many responsible gun owners out there who respect the sanctity of human life and do not misuse their killing machine. I can actually agree that we have a right to choose self protection, but America has gone way overboard. It's as much the fault of the firearm manufacturers and their greed as it is individuals. They've had one of the best marketing campaigns out there for years--better than tobacco in its day.

And when only the criminals are armed you'll feel safer? Why?

 

[OldLady]

Put away your paint roller, buster. I never said borders should remain open to anyone who wants to cross them.
Why is WHAT? Where did I say limiting semiautomatic rifles was making "300 million guns disappear."

One...because when you say semi automatic...you think you know what you mean......to an anti gun politician...that means any weapon that is semi auto...including pistols....that is the bait and switch I keep posting about......

By banning semi autos.....you can lump in any weapon that fires one bullet for each pull of the trigger...that means all guns.....then they can go as far as they think they can get away with.......

Semi automatic weapons automatically pull a new bullet into the chamber each time a bullet is fired. You don't have to do anything to reset the gun to discharge. So a good semiautomatic can deliver more bullets more quickly than a pump action weapon. I know that much. I realize that most handguns are manufactured the same way these days, but the gun manufacturers can certainly convert, if it means sales...
And please don't make fun of my probably not exact terminology above. I get the drift.

Using correct terminology IS important though because as we have seen, many of the anti gun politicians and their supporters have not just used terms that they don't even understand , but they have made up entire new terms in their crusade against guns.

I mean calling an AR15 a weapon of war, for example? Give me a break.

And the same goes for some on the right, terminology matters, an AR15 IS a assault weapon. No sense denying that.Congress of course defined the term assault weapon , that's all that term means. It doesn't actually mean a .223 caliber rifle is any more dangerous just because it is called an assault weapon by Congress.

The main problem is the bait and switch that the anti gunners do.......that is why there is no trust when they say they simply want "common sense" gun control.........

Of course, but that is again where conservatives need to get smarter. Instead of screaming "no no no" as they have been for seven and a half fucking years every time liberals want to do something, beat them to the punch for a change.

Do you watch Oreilly? He said much the same thing to Paul Ryan a few weeks ago in regards to Kate's Law, he asked Ryan why he won't have a vote on that law when he KNOWS it would easily pass the House, Ryan's response was "because we know the Dems won't let it pass the Senate, and we know Obama will veto it if they did" Oreilly's response was "so what? Do SOMETHING, let them look like the assholes"

Same thing here, conservatives DO SOMETHING then when liberals scream "no that's not enough" THEY look like the assholes. That's something liberals have figured out very well. They suggest all sorts of stupid, outlandish bills and then when conservatives say "no , that is insane" they just stand back and say "see those damned conservatives, they are just the party of no, they don't have any ideas"

Jesus Christ man, it's OBVIOUS we need better gun control in this country. If conservatives define that better gun control it will actually mean control of who can get a gun, if liberals do so it will be more bans that don't do anything, but make people feel better.

Maybe he will back Collins' legislation? Doubtful.

 

[martybegan]

I give you credit for being principly consistent, at least in the specific regard noted above. That too is more than I can say for most posters on here. It may well be that you and I just have differing principles. I don't know for sure if that's totally so or just somewhat so. Even so, adhering to a given principle at all its levels of scope is to be commended.

Thank you, but as for your qualification, "at least in the specific regard noted above," I challenge you to ever find me inconsistent on that

To be honest, I don't have any recollection of much else that you've written on here. I can only remark about what I have seen and recall, and what I've seen and recall is what I remarked about.

Here you go:

What is a small government libertarian?

I say specifically what government should be allowed to do. If you see anything that you have another solution for then let me know

To your link I want to add my version of it, which adds federalism to the equation, along with strict constructionism.

For example, with your abortion viewpoint, I don't really care if people have them, even though i think they are wrong when it comes to use as birth control. However I do not see how the Federal Courts can stop Alabama or Mississippi from banning the procedure.

Agreed. Just to be sure on the abortion standpoint, you realize we agree on that. I say the Federal government has zero say over abortion. That means as you say Alabama or Mississippi can certainly ban it. Though I would oppose them doing that. I would do nothing to stop them

The only thing the feds could get involved in is a State couldn't punish a person for having an abortion out of State when they came back. A State could also not prevent people from travelling to another State to have an abortion, just as States can't restrict travel, or punish acts outside its borders in general.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

And so people buy drugs ... illegally. My point. You may have heard about that, it's been in the news ...

No. The point is actually that many addicts began by being prescribed opiates for a bonafide medical issue. Then they got hooked and tried "doctor shopping" and emergency room jumping to get more as their need increased. And when that no longer worked, they switched to heroin. Focusing on the root of the problem, where it started, will hopefully save the upcoming generation from a similar fate. To me, it makes equal sense that if the root of the illegal gun problem--guns in circulation--were addressed, it would help keep them from the wrong hands by the sheer weight of the numbers.

When you ban guns for law abiding people who do not use them for crime.....criminals will still get them.....that is how it is all around the world.......the criminals have guns, normal people do not......

How?

Let's look at this logically.

Heroin is ILLEGAL in this country. Oh sure a few specialized labs can legally own heroin, but the average person on the street? It's illegal.

Yet, we have a heroin epidemic in this country with people using illegal heroin.

America's Heroin Epidemic - NBC News

How is this possible? We made heroin illegal, don't people realize they aren't supposed to own it?

Follow the money and you will find the answer. People are becoming very rich selling heroin. Maybe what we should really be doing is focusing on them, instead of the poor, powerless people who have destroyed their lives on junk.

See though, that ignores the point.

Let's assume you made guns illegal, and put S&W and Colt, and every other manufacture out of business. Do you think people would just say "well no more guns" or would they follow the example of drug dealers and start selling illicit guns to people who you have now made criminals?"

Conversely, suppose you made heroin legal to buy , wouldn't that likewise take the power away from drug dealers ?

Of course both things are true. Making drugs illegal didn't stop people from wanting drugs and making guns illegal won't stop people from wanting guns, and where there is a want, there will be a market, legal or not.

 

[OldLady]

Why should it,if anything it proves how dangerous life can be.
Gun crazies want to disarm the people.what kind of logic is that?

Yes, taking guns from law abiding citizens is like targeting the drug war on people who don't do drugs and drunk driving programs on people who don't drink. Fact and logic, liberals take to them like fish take to cameras and fire flies

But in order to keep drugs from addicts, doctors have severely limited pain prescriptions to ALL patients. And doctors and pharmacies share pain prescription information on all patients to catch those abusing them. And to limit drunk drivers, all drivers can be stopped and tested, bars can be held liable for serving to someone already three sheets to the wind, regardless of whether they're driving. To limit gun violence, perhaps guns need to be limited for all. Fair? Maybe not. Who told you life is fair? I said limited, not completely gone, btw.

The problem is that we simply don't trust you to stop at limited.

In all of the cases above except the painkiller one, there is no prior restraint. you have to do something bad before you can be punished for them.

And the idea of making it very very hard for people to get painkillers because some abuse them leads to people suffering for no reason other than the laziness of those out there trying to enforce the law.

Government has plenty of existing laws out there to combat gun crimes, and the ownership of guns by those who should not have them. I suggest they use those laws already existing before bringing up more laws, especially "shotgun" effect laws that attempt to solve a problem by punishing everyone, and not just those who want to break/actually break the law.

I agree wholeheartedly that we should be enforcing the laws with vigor. I don't know what the problem is, but if it's anything like around here, cops are pretty busy just putting out the local fires with more and more limited manpower. We've had a bad economy, ya know? Don't know if that might have something to do with it.

And you're right, Marty, you wouldn't want to trust ME about stopping at "limited." I'd like to go Australia on you folks. But semiautomatic weapons and replaceable magazines will be a suitable compromise. I know many gun owners, including in my own family, and I understand that there are many responsible gun owners out there who respect the sanctity of human life and do not misuse their killing machine. I can actually agree that we have a right to choose self protection, but America has gone way overboard. It's as much the fault of the firearm manufacturers and their greed as it is individuals. They've had one of the best marketing campaigns out there for years--better than tobacco in its day.

And when only the criminals are armed you'll feel safer? Why?

I understand that there are many responsible gun owners out there who respect the sanctity of human life and do not misuse their killing machine. I can actually agree that we have a right to choose self protection,

Where did you get that from? Limit gun ownership and ban semiautomatic weapons/replaceable magazines.

 

[kaz]

Why should it,if anything it proves how dangerous life can be.
Gun crazies want to disarm the people.what kind of logic is that?

Yes, taking guns from law abiding citizens is like targeting the drug war on people who don't do drugs and drunk driving programs on people who don't drink. Fact and logic, liberals take to them like fish take to cameras and fire flies

But in order to keep drugs from addicts, doctors have severely limited pain prescriptions to ALL patients. And doctors and pharmacies share pain prescription information on all patients to catch those abusing them. And to limit drunk drivers, all drivers can be stopped and tested, bars can be held liable for serving to someone already three sheets to the wind, regardless of whether they're driving. To limit gun violence, perhaps guns need to be limited for all. Fair? Maybe not. Who told you life is fair? I said limited, not completely gone, btw.

access to guns is already limited.....

And doctors and pharmacies share pain prescription information on all patients to catch those abusing them.

that is what you call Felons.....they are already prohibited from buying, owning or carrying guns...and just like drug addicts, they get people to buy their drugs/guns for them...or they steal their drugs/guns....

And to limit drunk drivers, all drivers can be stopped and tested,

If you are stopped by police and found to have an illegal gun...you can be arrested...already, under current law....

bars can be held liable for serving to someone already three sheets to the wind,

If you are found to be a straw buyer...someone using their clean record to buy guns for criminals, you can already be arrested...I have linked to these stories in other threads over the last year...

Guns are already limited......you cannot use a gun to commit a crime, if you do you go to jail. If you are felon caught with a gun, you go to jail......if you are dangerously mentally ill, you are not allowed to have a gun at all......

You guys keep acting like guns are just given away to criminals and the dangerously mentally ill, they simply do what people intent on doing bad things do....they get around your gun laws.....so you want more gun laws, which they also get around....

The French have every single gun law you want...to the point they do not have gun stores, they do not have gun shows and fully automatic rifles are completely illegal....and criminals and terrorists in France get the guns easily........

You guys focus all of your energy on normal, law abiding gun owners when we know that to solve the problem...you actually need to focus on criminals.....

If you really want to stop gun violence...put a 30 year sentence on gun crime..by actual criminals...not the law abiding gun owner who didn't realize that being a legal gun owner in New York made him a criminal if he crossed the border into New Jersey.....

We have had these conversations so many times before that you already know I support enforcing existing gun laws. Guns, however, are not "limited" when Americans have amassed 300,000,000 of them. I have seen you explain away the fact that European countries with strict gun laws have many fewer gun deaths than the U.S. by citing their "cultures." It is also possible that the limited availability of guns makes gun violence less easy to commit.

And yet your choice place to start is the guns and owners who are committing the least amount of the crimes ...

 

[OldLady]

No. The point is actually that many addicts began by being prescribed opiates for a bonafide medical issue. Then they got hooked and tried "doctor shopping" and emergency room jumping to get more as their need increased. And when that no longer worked, they switched to heroin. Focusing on the root of the problem, where it started, will hopefully save the upcoming generation from a similar fate. To me, it makes equal sense that if the root of the illegal gun problem--guns in circulation--were addressed, it would help keep them from the wrong hands by the sheer weight of the numbers.

When you ban guns for law abiding people who do not use them for crime.....criminals will still get them.....that is how it is all around the world.......the criminals have guns, normal people do not......

How?

Let's look at this logically.

Heroin is ILLEGAL in this country. Oh sure a few specialized labs can legally own heroin, but the average person on the street? It's illegal.

Yet, we have a heroin epidemic in this country with people using illegal heroin.

America's Heroin Epidemic - NBC News

How is this possible? We made heroin illegal, don't people realize they aren't supposed to own it?

Follow the money and you will find the answer. People are becoming very rich selling heroin. Maybe what we should really be doing is focusing on them, instead of the poor, powerless people who have destroyed their lives on junk.

See though, that ignores the point.

Let's assume you made guns illegal, and put S&W and Colt, and every other manufacture out of business. Do you think people would just say "well no more guns" or would they follow the example of drug dealers and start selling illicit guns to people who you have now made criminals?"

Conversely, suppose you made heroin legal to buy , wouldn't that likewise take the power away from drug dealers ?

Of course both things are true. Making drugs illegal didn't stop people from wanting drugs and making guns illegal won't stop people from wanting guns, and where there is a want, there will be a market, legal or not.

I did not advocate making guns illegal or shutting down S&W and Colt. I am supporting banning semiautomatic weapons/detachable magazines and better tactics for keeping guns from the wrong hands. Are you saying a non-semi weapon will be so unacceptable for defense or hunting that the black market will simply be our new Cabela's ?

 

[2aguy]

One...because when you say semi automatic...you think you know what you mean......to an anti gun politician...that means any weapon that is semi auto...including pistols....that is the bait and switch I keep posting about......

By banning semi autos.....you can lump in any weapon that fires one bullet for each pull of the trigger...that means all guns.....then they can go as far as they think they can get away with.......

Semi automatic weapons automatically pull a new bullet into the chamber each time a bullet is fired. You don't have to do anything to reset the gun to discharge. So a good semiautomatic can deliver more bullets more quickly than a pump action weapon. I know that much. I realize that most handguns are manufactured the same way these days, but the gun manufacturers can certainly convert, if it means sales...
And please don't make fun of my probably not exact terminology above. I get the drift.

Using correct terminology IS important though because as we have seen, many of the anti gun politicians and their supporters have not just used terms that they don't even understand , but they have made up entire new terms in their crusade against guns.

I mean calling an AR15 a weapon of war, for example? Give me a break.

And the same goes for some on the right, terminology matters, an AR15 IS a assault weapon. No sense denying that.Congress of course defined the term assault weapon , that's all that term means. It doesn't actually mean a .223 caliber rifle is any more dangerous just because it is called an assault weapon by Congress.

The main problem is the bait and switch that the anti gunners do.......that is why there is no trust when they say they simply want "common sense" gun control.........

Of course, but that is again where conservatives need to get smarter. Instead of screaming "no no no" as they have been for seven and a half fucking years every time liberals want to do something, beat them to the punch for a change.

Do you watch Oreilly? He said much the same thing to Paul Ryan a few weeks ago in regards to Kate's Law, he asked Ryan why he won't have a vote on that law when he KNOWS it would easily pass the House, Ryan's response was "because we know the Dems won't let it pass the Senate, and we know Obama will veto it if they did" Oreilly's response was "so what? Do SOMETHING, let them look like the assholes"

Same thing here, conservatives DO SOMETHING then when liberals scream "no that's not enough" THEY look like the assholes. That's something liberals have figured out very well. They suggest all sorts of stupid, outlandish bills and then when conservatives say "no , that is insane" they just stand back and say "see those damned conservatives, they are just the party of no, they don't have any ideas"

Jesus Christ man, it's OBVIOUS we need better gun control in this country. If conservatives define that better gun control it will actually mean control of who can get a gun, if liberals do so it will be more bans that don't do anything, but make people feel better.

Maybe he will back Collins' legislation? Doubtful.

You mean the one that doesn't actually do anything...that one?

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Yes, taking guns from law abiding citizens is like targeting the drug war on people who don't do drugs and drunk driving programs on people who don't drink. Fact and logic, liberals take to them like fish take to cameras and fire flies

But in order to keep drugs from addicts, doctors have severely limited pain prescriptions to ALL patients. And doctors and pharmacies share pain prescription information on all patients to catch those abusing them. And to limit drunk drivers, all drivers can be stopped and tested, bars can be held liable for serving to someone already three sheets to the wind, regardless of whether they're driving. To limit gun violence, perhaps guns need to be limited for all. Fair? Maybe not. Who told you life is fair? I said limited, not completely gone, btw.

The problem is that we simply don't trust you to stop at limited.

In all of the cases above except the painkiller one, there is no prior restraint. you have to do something bad before you can be punished for them.

And the idea of making it very very hard for people to get painkillers because some abuse them leads to people suffering for no reason other than the laziness of those out there trying to enforce the law.

Government has plenty of existing laws out there to combat gun crimes, and the ownership of guns by those who should not have them. I suggest they use those laws already existing before bringing up more laws, especially "shotgun" effect laws that attempt to solve a problem by punishing everyone, and not just those who want to break/actually break the law.

I agree wholeheartedly that we should be enforcing the laws with vigor. I don't know what the problem is, but if it's anything like around here, cops are pretty busy just putting out the local fires with more and more limited manpower. We've had a bad economy, ya know? Don't know if that might have something to do with it.

And you're right, Marty, you wouldn't want to trust ME about stopping at "limited." I'd like to go Australia on you folks. But semiautomatic weapons and replaceable magazines will be a suitable compromise. I know many gun owners, including in my own family, and I understand that there are many responsible gun owners out there who respect the sanctity of human life and do not misuse their killing machine. I can actually agree that we have a right to choose self protection, but America has gone way overboard. It's as much the fault of the firearm manufacturers and their greed as it is individuals. They've had one of the best marketing campaigns out there for years--better than tobacco in its day.

And when only the criminals are armed you'll feel safer? Why?

I understand that there are many responsible gun owners out there who respect the sanctity of human life and do not misuse their killing machine. I can actually agree that we have a right to choose self protection,

Where did you get that from? Limit gun ownership and ban semiautomatic weapons/replaceable magazines.

I don't get you sometimes you seem reasonable and willing to look at facts and sometimes you are just off the rails.

Look at these facts concerning assault weapons and come back again and tell me how important it is that we ban semi automatic weapons (unless you actually call to ban semi automatic hand guns as well, not just a return of the previous ban.

Gun Facts | Gun Control Facts Concerning Assault Weapons

The big black scary assault weapon is RARELY used in criminal activity. For a variety of reasons.

 

[2aguy]

Yes, taking guns from law abiding citizens is like targeting the drug war on people who don't do drugs and drunk driving programs on people who don't drink. Fact and logic, liberals take to them like fish take to cameras and fire flies

But in order to keep drugs from addicts, doctors have severely limited pain prescriptions to ALL patients. And doctors and pharmacies share pain prescription information on all patients to catch those abusing them. And to limit drunk drivers, all drivers can be stopped and tested, bars can be held liable for serving to someone already three sheets to the wind, regardless of whether they're driving. To limit gun violence, perhaps guns need to be limited for all. Fair? Maybe not. Who told you life is fair? I said limited, not completely gone, btw.

The problem is that we simply don't trust you to stop at limited.

In all of the cases above except the painkiller one, there is no prior restraint. you have to do something bad before you can be punished for them.

And the idea of making it very very hard for people to get painkillers because some abuse them leads to people suffering for no reason other than the laziness of those out there trying to enforce the law.

Government has plenty of existing laws out there to combat gun crimes, and the ownership of guns by those who should not have them. I suggest they use those laws already existing before bringing up more laws, especially "shotgun" effect laws that attempt to solve a problem by punishing everyone, and not just those who want to break/actually break the law.

I agree wholeheartedly that we should be enforcing the laws with vigor. I don't know what the problem is, but if it's anything like around here, cops are pretty busy just putting out the local fires with more and more limited manpower. We've had a bad economy, ya know? Don't know if that might have something to do with it.

And you're right, Marty, you wouldn't want to trust ME about stopping at "limited." I'd like to go Australia on you folks. But semiautomatic weapons and replaceable magazines will be a suitable compromise. I know many gun owners, including in my own family, and I understand that there are many responsible gun owners out there who respect the sanctity of human life and do not misuse their killing machine. I can actually agree that we have a right to choose self protection, but America has gone way overboard. It's as much the fault of the firearm manufacturers and their greed as it is individuals. They've had one of the best marketing campaigns out there for years--better than tobacco in its day.

And when only the criminals are armed you'll feel safer? Why?

I understand that there are many responsible gun owners out there who respect the sanctity of human life and do not misuse their killing machine. I can actually agree that we have a right to choose self protection,

Where did you get that from? Limit gun ownership and ban semiautomatic weapons/replaceable magazines.

So you only want 5 shot revovlers to be allowed...right...while the military and cops have real weapons.....just like in Mexico...how is that working out?

 

[2aguy]

But in order to keep drugs from addicts, doctors have severely limited pain prescriptions to ALL patients. And doctors and pharmacies share pain prescription information on all patients to catch those abusing them. And to limit drunk drivers, all drivers can be stopped and tested, bars can be held liable for serving to someone already three sheets to the wind, regardless of whether they're driving. To limit gun violence, perhaps guns need to be limited for all. Fair? Maybe not. Who told you life is fair? I said limited, not completely gone, btw.

The problem is that we simply don't trust you to stop at limited.

In all of the cases above except the painkiller one, there is no prior restraint. you have to do something bad before you can be punished for them.

And the idea of making it very very hard for people to get painkillers because some abuse them leads to people suffering for no reason other than the laziness of those out there trying to enforce the law.

Government has plenty of existing laws out there to combat gun crimes, and the ownership of guns by those who should not have them. I suggest they use those laws already existing before bringing up more laws, especially "shotgun" effect laws that attempt to solve a problem by punishing everyone, and not just those who want to break/actually break the law.

I agree wholeheartedly that we should be enforcing the laws with vigor. I don't know what the problem is, but if it's anything like around here, cops are pretty busy just putting out the local fires with more and more limited manpower. We've had a bad economy, ya know? Don't know if that might have something to do with it.

And you're right, Marty, you wouldn't want to trust ME about stopping at "limited." I'd like to go Australia on you folks. But semiautomatic weapons and replaceable magazines will be a suitable compromise. I know many gun owners, including in my own family, and I understand that there are many responsible gun owners out there who respect the sanctity of human life and do not misuse their killing machine. I can actually agree that we have a right to choose self protection, but America has gone way overboard. It's as much the fault of the firearm manufacturers and their greed as it is individuals. They've had one of the best marketing campaigns out there for years--better than tobacco in its day.

And when only the criminals are armed you'll feel safer? Why?

I understand that there are many responsible gun owners out there who respect the sanctity of human life and do not misuse their killing machine. I can actually agree that we have a right to choose self protection,

Where did you get that from? Limit gun ownership and ban semiautomatic weapons/replaceable magazines.

I don't get you sometimes you seem reasonable and willing to look at facts and sometimes you are just off the rails.

Look at these facts concerning assault weapons and come back again and tell me how important it is that we ban semi automatic weapons (unless you actually call to ban semi automatic hand guns as well, not just a return of the previous ban.

Gun Facts | Gun Control Facts Concerning Assault Weapons

The big black scary assault weapon is RARELY used in criminal activity. For a variety of reasons.

Facts don't matter...ask her.....

 

[Fair&Balanced]

When you ban guns for law abiding people who do not use them for crime.....criminals will still get them.....that is how it is all around the world.......the criminals have guns, normal people do not......

How?

Let's look at this logically.

Heroin is ILLEGAL in this country. Oh sure a few specialized labs can legally own heroin, but the average person on the street? It's illegal.

Yet, we have a heroin epidemic in this country with people using illegal heroin.

America's Heroin Epidemic - NBC News

How is this possible? We made heroin illegal, don't people realize they aren't supposed to own it?

Follow the money and you will find the answer. People are becoming very rich selling heroin. Maybe what we should really be doing is focusing on them, instead of the poor, powerless people who have destroyed their lives on junk.

See though, that ignores the point.

Let's assume you made guns illegal, and put S&W and Colt, and every other manufacture out of business. Do you think people would just say "well no more guns" or would they follow the example of drug dealers and start selling illicit guns to people who you have now made criminals?"

Conversely, suppose you made heroin legal to buy , wouldn't that likewise take the power away from drug dealers ?

Of course both things are true. Making drugs illegal didn't stop people from wanting drugs and making guns illegal won't stop people from wanting guns, and where there is a want, there will be a market, legal or not.

I did not advocate making guns illegal or shutting down S&W and Colt. I am supporting banning semiautomatic weapons/detachable magazines and better tactics for keeping guns from the wrong hands. Are you saying a non-semi weapon will be so unacceptable for defense or hunting that the black market will simply be our new Cabela's ?

I'm simply not going to answer any more of your questions until you directly respond to mine.

Do you really not believe that if we made ALL semi automatic weapons illegal that a black market would develop and criminals who want to obtain semi automatic weapons will still obtain them? That is a simple yes or no question.

Even the firearm control act of 1938 wasn't made because the government felt they needed to keep people from getting automatic weapons, it was made to have another tool to go after the mob, nothing more.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

The problem is that we simply don't trust you to stop at limited.

In all of the cases above except the painkiller one, there is no prior restraint. you have to do something bad before you can be punished for them.

And the idea of making it very very hard for people to get painkillers because some abuse them leads to people suffering for no reason other than the laziness of those out there trying to enforce the law.

Government has plenty of existing laws out there to combat gun crimes, and the ownership of guns by those who should not have them. I suggest they use those laws already existing before bringing up more laws, especially "shotgun" effect laws that attempt to solve a problem by punishing everyone, and not just those who want to break/actually break the law.

I agree wholeheartedly that we should be enforcing the laws with vigor. I don't know what the problem is, but if it's anything like around here, cops are pretty busy just putting out the local fires with more and more limited manpower. We've had a bad economy, ya know? Don't know if that might have something to do with it.

And you're right, Marty, you wouldn't want to trust ME about stopping at "limited." I'd like to go Australia on you folks. But semiautomatic weapons and replaceable magazines will be a suitable compromise. I know many gun owners, including in my own family, and I understand that there are many responsible gun owners out there who respect the sanctity of human life and do not misuse their killing machine. I can actually agree that we have a right to choose self protection, but America has gone way overboard. It's as much the fault of the firearm manufacturers and their greed as it is individuals. They've had one of the best marketing campaigns out there for years--better than tobacco in its day.

And when only the criminals are armed you'll feel safer? Why?

I understand that there are many responsible gun owners out there who respect the sanctity of human life and do not misuse their killing machine. I can actually agree that we have a right to choose self protection,

Where did you get that from? Limit gun ownership and ban semiautomatic weapons/replaceable magazines.

I don't get you sometimes you seem reasonable and willing to look at facts and sometimes you are just off the rails.

Look at these facts concerning assault weapons and come back again and tell me how important it is that we ban semi automatic weapons (unless you actually call to ban semi automatic hand guns as well, not just a return of the previous ban.

Gun Facts | Gun Control Facts Concerning Assault Weapons

The big black scary assault weapon is RARELY used in criminal activity. For a variety of reasons.

Facts don't matter...ask her.....

You're not helping. I've seen OldLady be reasonable, let's give her a chance to look at facts and be honest in the discussion.

 

[OldLady]

Why should it,if anything it proves how dangerous life can be.
Gun crazies want to disarm the people.what kind of logic is that?

Yes, taking guns from law abiding citizens is like targeting the drug war on people who don't do drugs and drunk driving programs on people who don't drink. Fact and logic, liberals take to them like fish take to cameras and fire flies

But in order to keep drugs from addicts, doctors have severely limited pain prescriptions to ALL patients. And doctors and pharmacies share pain prescription information on all patients to catch those abusing them. And to limit drunk drivers, all drivers can be stopped and tested, bars can be held liable for serving to someone already three sheets to the wind, regardless of whether they're driving. To limit gun violence, perhaps guns need to be limited for all. Fair? Maybe not. Who told you life is fair? I said limited, not completely gone, btw.

access to guns is already limited.....

And doctors and pharmacies share pain prescription information on all patients to catch those abusing them.

that is what you call Felons.....they are already prohibited from buying, owning or carrying guns...and just like drug addicts, they get people to buy their drugs/guns for them...or they steal their drugs/guns....

And to limit drunk drivers, all drivers can be stopped and tested,

If you are stopped by police and found to have an illegal gun...you can be arrested...already, under current law....

bars can be held liable for serving to someone already three sheets to the wind,

If you are found to be a straw buyer...someone using their clean record to buy guns for criminals, you can already be arrested...I have linked to these stories in other threads over the last year...

Guns are already limited......you cannot use a gun to commit a crime, if you do you go to jail. If you are felon caught with a gun, you go to jail......if you are dangerously mentally ill, you are not allowed to have a gun at all......

You guys keep acting like guns are just given away to criminals and the dangerously mentally ill, they simply do what people intent on doing bad things do....they get around your gun laws.....so you want more gun laws, which they also get around....

The French have every single gun law you want...to the point they do not have gun stores, they do not have gun shows and fully automatic rifles are completely illegal....and criminals and terrorists in France get the guns easily........

You guys focus all of your energy on normal, law abiding gun owners when we know that to solve the problem...you actually need to focus on criminals.....

If you really want to stop gun violence...put a 30 year sentence on gun crime..by actual criminals...not the law abiding gun owner who didn't realize that being a legal gun owner in New York made him a criminal if he crossed the border into New Jersey.....

We have had these conversations so many times before that you already know I support enforcing existing gun laws. Guns, however, are not "limited" when Americans have amassed 300,000,000 of them. I have seen you explain away the fact that European countries with strict gun laws have many fewer gun deaths than the U.S. by citing their "cultures." It is also possible that the limited availability of guns makes gun violence less easy to commit.

And yet your choice place to start is the guns and owners who are committing the least amount of the crimes ...

Semi automatic weapons automatically pull a new bullet into the chamber each time a bullet is fired. You don't have to do anything to reset the gun to discharge. So a good semiautomatic can deliver more bullets more quickly than a pump action weapon. I know that much. I realize that most handguns are manufactured the same way these days, but the gun manufacturers can certainly convert, if it means sales...
And please don't make fun of my probably not exact terminology above. I get the drift.

Using correct terminology IS important though because as we have seen, many of the anti gun politicians and their supporters have not just used terms that they don't even understand , but they have made up entire new terms in their crusade against guns.

I mean calling an AR15 a weapon of war, for example? Give me a break.

And the same goes for some on the right, terminology matters, an AR15 IS a assault weapon. No sense denying that.Congress of course defined the term assault weapon , that's all that term means. It doesn't actually mean a .223 caliber rifle is any more dangerous just because it is called an assault weapon by Congress.

The main problem is the bait and switch that the anti gunners do.......that is why there is no trust when they say they simply want "common sense" gun control.........

Of course, but that is again where conservatives need to get smarter. Instead of screaming "no no no" as they have been for seven and a half fucking years every time liberals want to do something, beat them to the punch for a change.

Do you watch Oreilly? He said much the same thing to Paul Ryan a few weeks ago in regards to Kate's Law, he asked Ryan why he won't have a vote on that law when he KNOWS it would easily pass the House, Ryan's response was "because we know the Dems won't let it pass the Senate, and we know Obama will veto it if they did" Oreilly's response was "so what? Do SOMETHING, let them look like the assholes"

Same thing here, conservatives DO SOMETHING then when liberals scream "no that's not enough" THEY look like the assholes. That's something liberals have figured out very well. They suggest all sorts of stupid, outlandish bills and then when conservatives say "no , that is insane" they just stand back and say "see those damned conservatives, they are just the party of no, they don't have any ideas"

Jesus Christ man, it's OBVIOUS we need better gun control in this country. If conservatives define that better gun control it will actually mean control of who can get a gun, if liberals do so it will be more bans that don't do anything, but make people feel better.

Maybe he will back Collins' legislation? Doubtful.

You mean the one that doesn't actually do anything...that one?

I knew it.

 

[kaz]

Why should it,if anything it proves how dangerous life can be.
Gun crazies want to disarm the people.what kind of logic is that?

Yes, taking guns from law abiding citizens is like targeting the drug war on people who don't do drugs and drunk driving programs on people who don't drink. Fact and logic, liberals take to them like fish take to cameras and fire flies

But in order to keep drugs from addicts, doctors have severely limited pain prescriptions to ALL patients. And doctors and pharmacies share pain prescription information on all patients to catch those abusing them. And to limit drunk drivers, all drivers can be stopped and tested, bars can be held liable for serving to someone already three sheets to the wind, regardless of whether they're driving. To limit gun violence, perhaps guns need to be limited for all. Fair? Maybe not. Who told you life is fair? I said limited, not completely gone, btw.

And so people buy drugs ... illegally. My point. You may have heard about that, it's been in the news ...

No. The point is actually that many addicts began by being prescribed opiates for a bonafide medical issue. Then they got hooked and tried "doctor shopping" and emergency room jumping to get more as their need increased. And when that no longer worked, they switched to heroin. Focusing on the root of the problem, where it started, will hopefully save the upcoming generation from a similar fate. To me, it makes equal sense that if the root of the illegal gun problem--guns in circulation--were addressed, it would help keep them from the wrong hands by the sheer weight of the numbers.

When you ban guns for law abiding people who do not use them for crime.....criminals will still get them.....that is how it is all around the world.......the criminals have guns, normal people do not......

Don't you like liberals who keep saying that criminals can't get guns if you make them illegal while still advocating open borders.

And in OldLady's case, she condemned attacks on Nazis demonstrating as a violation of free speech, but not radical leftists attacking Trump supporters. Nazis need free speech. Her political opponents? Not so much ...

 

[2aguy]

Yes, taking guns from law abiding citizens is like targeting the drug war on people who don't do drugs and drunk driving programs on people who don't drink. Fact and logic, liberals take to them like fish take to cameras and fire flies

But in order to keep drugs from addicts, doctors have severely limited pain prescriptions to ALL patients. And doctors and pharmacies share pain prescription information on all patients to catch those abusing them. And to limit drunk drivers, all drivers can be stopped and tested, bars can be held liable for serving to someone already three sheets to the wind, regardless of whether they're driving. To limit gun violence, perhaps guns need to be limited for all. Fair? Maybe not. Who told you life is fair? I said limited, not completely gone, btw.

access to guns is already limited.....

And doctors and pharmacies share pain prescription information on all patients to catch those abusing them.

that is what you call Felons.....they are already prohibited from buying, owning or carrying guns...and just like drug addicts, they get people to buy their drugs/guns for them...or they steal their drugs/guns....

And to limit drunk drivers, all drivers can be stopped and tested,

If you are stopped by police and found to have an illegal gun...you can be arrested...already, under current law....

bars can be held liable for serving to someone already three sheets to the wind,

If you are found to be a straw buyer...someone using their clean record to buy guns for criminals, you can already be arrested...I have linked to these stories in other threads over the last year...

Guns are already limited......you cannot use a gun to commit a crime, if you do you go to jail. If you are felon caught with a gun, you go to jail......if you are dangerously mentally ill, you are not allowed to have a gun at all......

You guys keep acting like guns are just given away to criminals and the dangerously mentally ill, they simply do what people intent on doing bad things do....they get around your gun laws.....so you want more gun laws, which they also get around....

The French have every single gun law you want...to the point they do not have gun stores, they do not have gun shows and fully automatic rifles are completely illegal....and criminals and terrorists in France get the guns easily........

You guys focus all of your energy on normal, law abiding gun owners when we know that to solve the problem...you actually need to focus on criminals.....

If you really want to stop gun violence...put a 30 year sentence on gun crime..by actual criminals...not the law abiding gun owner who didn't realize that being a legal gun owner in New York made him a criminal if he crossed the border into New Jersey.....

We have had these conversations so many times before that you already know I support enforcing existing gun laws. Guns, however, are not "limited" when Americans have amassed 300,000,000 of them. I have seen you explain away the fact that European countries with strict gun laws have many fewer gun deaths than the U.S. by citing their "cultures." It is also possible that the limited availability of guns makes gun violence less easy to commit.

And yet your choice place to start is the guns and owners who are committing the least amount of the crimes ...

Using correct terminology IS important though because as we have seen, many of the anti gun politicians and their supporters have not just used terms that they don't even understand , but they have made up entire new terms in their crusade against guns.

I mean calling an AR15 a weapon of war, for example? Give me a break.

And the same goes for some on the right, terminology matters, an AR15 IS a assault weapon. No sense denying that.Congress of course defined the term assault weapon , that's all that term means. It doesn't actually mean a .223 caliber rifle is any more dangerous just because it is called an assault weapon by Congress.

The main problem is the bait and switch that the anti gunners do.......that is why there is no trust when they say they simply want "common sense" gun control.........

Of course, but that is again where conservatives need to get smarter. Instead of screaming "no no no" as they have been for seven and a half fucking years every time liberals want to do something, beat them to the punch for a change.

Do you watch Oreilly? He said much the same thing to Paul Ryan a few weeks ago in regards to Kate's Law, he asked Ryan why he won't have a vote on that law when he KNOWS it would easily pass the House, Ryan's response was "because we know the Dems won't let it pass the Senate, and we know Obama will veto it if they did" Oreilly's response was "so what? Do SOMETHING, let them look like the assholes"

Same thing here, conservatives DO SOMETHING then when liberals scream "no that's not enough" THEY look like the assholes. That's something liberals have figured out very well. They suggest all sorts of stupid, outlandish bills and then when conservatives say "no , that is insane" they just stand back and say "see those damned conservatives, they are just the party of no, they don't have any ideas"

Jesus Christ man, it's OBVIOUS we need better gun control in this country. If conservatives define that better gun control it will actually mean control of who can get a gun, if liberals do so it will be more bans that don't do anything, but make people feel better.

Maybe he will back Collins' legislation? Doubtful.

You mean the one that doesn't actually do anything...that one?

I knew it.

Tell Fair and Balanced how you feel about guns.....you are honest and I appreciate that......

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Yes, taking guns from law abiding citizens is like targeting the drug war on people who don't do drugs and drunk driving programs on people who don't drink. Fact and logic, liberals take to them like fish take to cameras and fire flies

But in order to keep drugs from addicts, doctors have severely limited pain prescriptions to ALL patients. And doctors and pharmacies share pain prescription information on all patients to catch those abusing them. And to limit drunk drivers, all drivers can be stopped and tested, bars can be held liable for serving to someone already three sheets to the wind, regardless of whether they're driving. To limit gun violence, perhaps guns need to be limited for all. Fair? Maybe not. Who told you life is fair? I said limited, not completely gone, btw.

access to guns is already limited.....

And doctors and pharmacies share pain prescription information on all patients to catch those abusing them.

that is what you call Felons.....they are already prohibited from buying, owning or carrying guns...and just like drug addicts, they get people to buy their drugs/guns for them...or they steal their drugs/guns....

And to limit drunk drivers, all drivers can be stopped and tested,

If you are stopped by police and found to have an illegal gun...you can be arrested...already, under current law....

bars can be held liable for serving to someone already three sheets to the wind,

If you are found to be a straw buyer...someone using their clean record to buy guns for criminals, you can already be arrested...I have linked to these stories in other threads over the last year...

Guns are already limited......you cannot use a gun to commit a crime, if you do you go to jail. If you are felon caught with a gun, you go to jail......if you are dangerously mentally ill, you are not allowed to have a gun at all......

You guys keep acting like guns are just given away to criminals and the dangerously mentally ill, they simply do what people intent on doing bad things do....they get around your gun laws.....so you want more gun laws, which they also get around....

The French have every single gun law you want...to the point they do not have gun stores, they do not have gun shows and fully automatic rifles are completely illegal....and criminals and terrorists in France get the guns easily........

You guys focus all of your energy on normal, law abiding gun owners when we know that to solve the problem...you actually need to focus on criminals.....

If you really want to stop gun violence...put a 30 year sentence on gun crime..by actual criminals...not the law abiding gun owner who didn't realize that being a legal gun owner in New York made him a criminal if he crossed the border into New Jersey.....

We have had these conversations so many times before that you already know I support enforcing existing gun laws. Guns, however, are not "limited" when Americans have amassed 300,000,000 of them. I have seen you explain away the fact that European countries with strict gun laws have many fewer gun deaths than the U.S. by citing their "cultures." It is also possible that the limited availability of guns makes gun violence less easy to commit.

And yet your choice place to start is the guns and owners who are committing the least amount of the crimes ...

Using correct terminology IS important though because as we have seen, many of the anti gun politicians and their supporters have not just used terms that they don't even understand , but they have made up entire new terms in their crusade against guns.

I mean calling an AR15 a weapon of war, for example? Give me a break.

And the same goes for some on the right, terminology matters, an AR15 IS a assault weapon. No sense denying that.Congress of course defined the term assault weapon , that's all that term means. It doesn't actually mean a .223 caliber rifle is any more dangerous just because it is called an assault weapon by Congress.

The main problem is the bait and switch that the anti gunners do.......that is why there is no trust when they say they simply want "common sense" gun control.........

Of course, but that is again where conservatives need to get smarter. Instead of screaming "no no no" as they have been for seven and a half fucking years every time liberals want to do something, beat them to the punch for a change.

Do you watch Oreilly? He said much the same thing to Paul Ryan a few weeks ago in regards to Kate's Law, he asked Ryan why he won't have a vote on that law when he KNOWS it would easily pass the House, Ryan's response was "because we know the Dems won't let it pass the Senate, and we know Obama will veto it if they did" Oreilly's response was "so what? Do SOMETHING, let them look like the assholes"

Same thing here, conservatives DO SOMETHING then when liberals scream "no that's not enough" THEY look like the assholes. That's something liberals have figured out very well. They suggest all sorts of stupid, outlandish bills and then when conservatives say "no , that is insane" they just stand back and say "see those damned conservatives, they are just the party of no, they don't have any ideas"

Jesus Christ man, it's OBVIOUS we need better gun control in this country. If conservatives define that better gun control it will actually mean control of who can get a gun, if liberals do so it will be more bans that don't do anything, but make people feel better.

Maybe he will back Collins' legislation? Doubtful.

You mean the one that doesn't actually do anything...that one?

I knew it.

I oppose Collin's proposed bill because it is stupid. We don't even know how people's names end up on those terror watch lists. Where is the due process in that?

 

[OldLady]

But in order to keep drugs from addicts, doctors have severely limited pain prescriptions to ALL patients. And doctors and pharmacies share pain prescription information on all patients to catch those abusing them. And to limit drunk drivers, all drivers can be stopped and tested, bars can be held liable for serving to someone already three sheets to the wind, regardless of whether they're driving. To limit gun violence, perhaps guns need to be limited for all. Fair? Maybe not. Who told you life is fair? I said limited, not completely gone, btw.

The problem is that we simply don't trust you to stop at limited.

In all of the cases above except the painkiller one, there is no prior restraint. you have to do something bad before you can be punished for them.

And the idea of making it very very hard for people to get painkillers because some abuse them leads to people suffering for no reason other than the laziness of those out there trying to enforce the law.

Government has plenty of existing laws out there to combat gun crimes, and the ownership of guns by those who should not have them. I suggest they use those laws already existing before bringing up more laws, especially "shotgun" effect laws that attempt to solve a problem by punishing everyone, and not just those who want to break/actually break the law.

I agree wholeheartedly that we should be enforcing the laws with vigor. I don't know what the problem is, but if it's anything like around here, cops are pretty busy just putting out the local fires with more and more limited manpower. We've had a bad economy, ya know? Don't know if that might have something to do with it.

And you're right, Marty, you wouldn't want to trust ME about stopping at "limited." I'd like to go Australia on you folks. But semiautomatic weapons and replaceable magazines will be a suitable compromise. I know many gun owners, including in my own family, and I understand that there are many responsible gun owners out there who respect the sanctity of human life and do not misuse their killing machine. I can actually agree that we have a right to choose self protection, but America has gone way overboard. It's as much the fault of the firearm manufacturers and their greed as it is individuals. They've had one of the best marketing campaigns out there for years--better than tobacco in its day.

And when only the criminals are armed you'll feel safer? Why?

I understand that there are many responsible gun owners out there who respect the sanctity of human life and do not misuse their killing machine. I can actually agree that we have a right to choose self protection,

Where did you get that from? Limit gun ownership and ban semiautomatic weapons/replaceable magazines.

I don't get you sometimes you seem reasonable and willing to look at facts and sometimes you are just off the rails.

Look at these facts concerning assault weapons and come back again and tell me how important it is that we ban semi automatic weapons (unless you actually call to ban semi automatic hand guns as well, not just a return of the previous ban.

Gun Facts | Gun Control Facts Concerning Assault Weapons

For a variety of reasons.

Yes, for what it's worth, I said semi-automatic weapons and I meant just that. Including hand guns. And after you so kindly reminded me on the importance of using our words carefully, you start flinging around "assault weapons" again? If you don't like Congress's definition, don't use it. I'm sorry you think I'm off the rails, but guns that can deliver 20-30 bullets per minute are not necessary for Joe Citizen. You can't convince me otherwise.

The big black scary assault weapon is RARELY used in criminal activity.
But when it is, how many innocent people does it kill?