CDZ Gun Control

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What do we know about guns and gun use?

We know this:

• All guns begin as legal firearms.
• The flow of illegal firearms is from the U.S. to other places far more so than it is into the U.S. from other places.
• Using a gun against another person who is no threat to one's own lawful acts and thoughts is a criminal act.

That they do means that for a gun to be used in a criminal act, either

• someone who legally participates in the process that begins with gun manufacture and ends with gun ownership exercised insufficient control over the possession of their firearm(s), or
• someone who legally purchased a gun used it illegally.

Somewhere on this forum, another member said the same thing. Accordingly, the thing we need is not gun control, but rather what accountants call "internal control" over gun ownership. What we need to do is make it (1) very hard or very unlikely for a lawful gun owner's gun to make its way to an unlawful gun user, and/or (2) make it very costly (financially or in terms of the loss of other rights/privileges even if there's no immediate financial cost) for lawful owners not to take "the right steps" to ensure their guns do not end up in the hands of unlawful gun users.

Check with the ATF bureau, and you'll see that the quantity of guns reported as lost or stolen ~200K in 2012) pales in comparison to the quantity of crimes (not deaths) committed using guns (literally millions). (The quantity of annual gun deaths is something around 1/6th or 1/7th the quantity of guns reported as being stolen or lost.) That only happens when lawfully purchased guns end up in the hands of folks having unlawful intents in mind for the gun(s) they acquire. There's either (1) a gap somewhere, or in multiple places, in the "supply chain" from manufacturers to end users, (2) insufficient tracking of legally purchased guns, or (3) a combination of both, or "flavors" of both.

Just a few weeks back, a Secret Service agent had his gun and shield stolen. The theft got reported, the thief may even have been captured and prosecuted. That's all well and good, but the relevant part of the event is that a gun was stolen, and it was stolen because due care was not exercised in securing it from being stolen. In other words, the agent exercised insufficient "internal control" over his possession of his firearm. He left it in a vehicle and walked away.

How does one implement a degree of tighter control over guns? My suggestion is that we install really thick bulletproof glass in post offices (post offices because there are already plenty of them near to where everyone lives; we've already delegated part of passport processing to the post office, why not this?) and then require folks who legally buy guns to show up once a year to show they they still have possession of their gun. (Perhaps it may make more sense to collocate ATF personnel in the post offices.) If lawful owners don't appear with the guns they are registered as owning, they go onto a "no buy" list for guns until they do show up with their gun(s).

As goes funding such an initiative, I don't think the gun owners should be made to pay one red cent unless they fail to appear. There'll already be enough griping about the idea to begin with. Make folks pay to show up and prove they still have possession of their gun and there'll just be more.

You can't title a car without having possession of the thing. Why can't we apply that principle to guns?

Because there's no Constitutional right to possess a car.

 

[320 Years of History]

What do we know about guns and gun use?

We know this:

• All guns begin as legal firearms.
• The flow of illegal firearms is from the U.S. to other places far more so than it is into the U.S. from other places.
• Using a gun against another person who is no threat to one's own lawful acts and thoughts is a criminal act.

That they do means that for a gun to be used in a criminal act, either

• someone who legally participates in the process that begins with gun manufacture and ends with gun ownership exercised insufficient control over the possession of their firearm(s), or
• someone who legally purchased a gun used it illegally.

Somewhere on this forum, another member said the same thing. Accordingly, the thing we need is not gun control, but rather what accountants call "internal control" over gun ownership. What we need to do is make it (1) very hard or very unlikely for a lawful gun owner's gun to make its way to an unlawful gun user, and/or (2) make it very costly (financially or in terms of the loss of other rights/privileges even if there's no immediate financial cost) for lawful owners not to take "the right steps" to ensure their guns do not end up in the hands of unlawful gun users.

Check with the ATF bureau, and you'll see that the quantity of guns reported as lost or stolen ~200K in 2012) pales in comparison to the quantity of crimes (not deaths) committed using guns (literally millions). (The quantity of annual gun deaths is something around 1/6th or 1/7th the quantity of guns reported as being stolen or lost.) That only happens when lawfully purchased guns end up in the hands of folks having unlawful intents in mind for the gun(s) they acquire. There's either (1) a gap somewhere, or in multiple places, in the "supply chain" from manufacturers to end users, (2) insufficient tracking of legally purchased guns, or (3) a combination of both, or "flavors" of both.

Just a few weeks back, a Secret Service agent had his gun and shield stolen. The theft got reported, the thief may even have been captured and prosecuted. That's all well and good, but the relevant part of the event is that a gun was stolen, and it was stolen because due care was not exercised in securing it from being stolen. In other words, the agent exercised insufficient "internal control" over his possession of his firearm. He left it in a vehicle and walked away.

How does one implement a degree of tighter control over guns? My suggestion is that we install really thick bulletproof glass in post offices (post offices because there are already plenty of them near to where everyone lives; we've already delegated part of passport processing to the post office, why not this?) and then require folks who legally buy guns to show up once a year to show they they still have possession of their gun. (Perhaps it may make more sense to collocate ATF personnel in the post offices.) If lawful owners don't appear with the guns they are registered as owning, they go onto a "no buy" list for guns until they do show up with their gun(s).

As goes funding such an initiative, I don't think the gun owners should be made to pay one red cent unless they fail to appear. There'll already be enough griping about the idea to begin with. Make folks pay to show up and prove they still have possession of their gun and there'll just be more.

You can't title a car without having possession of the thing. Why can't we apply that principle to guns?

Because there's no Constitutional right to possess a car.

The proposal above does not outright deny the right to possess a gun. It merely says that one must exercise due safeguards in doing so. In substance, it's no different than one's not being able to scream fire when there is no fire. Constitutionally granted or not, one must apply due care in the exercise of the rights themselves.

It's perfectly reasonable to hold one accountable for actually doing just that. In the matter of the first amendment rights, one can lose that right be incarcerated for abusing it. One way in which a person shows due care in the exercise of their right to free speech is by not shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. One way to exercise due care re: one's exercise of the right to bear arm is ensuring the arms one bought to bear lawfully for/by oneself do not make their way into the hands of people who will not bear them lawfully. Manufacturers and retailers have a similar burden in the production, distribution and sale of arms.

The right to vote is also given in the Constitution, but if one finds oneself in prison, even if for doing something unrelated to exercising the right to vote, one loses that right. What I've proposed is substantively no different.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Time to turn the tables.................

The Dems want Gun Control OUT OF FEAR OF THEM............

So why are the Dems so afraid of guns?

It's an economic issue, gun violence is paid for by the taxpayer. Since Democrats are fiscally responsible, vis a vis fiscally conservative, they hope to reduce taxes by not having to pay on the local level for first respondents, EMT's, Public Hospital emergency room costs, follow up treatment for those who survive; and the investigation, prosecution and incarceration of those who shoot and many times kill another.

Q. Why do you object to being licensed to own, possess or have a gun in your custody or control [Afraid of what a comprehensive background check will find?]

Why do you oppose having ID to vote? Afraid people are lying to vote?

 

[2aguy]

What do we know about guns and gun use?

We know this:

• All guns begin as legal firearms.
• The flow of illegal firearms is from the U.S. to other places far more so than it is into the U.S. from other places.
• Using a gun against another person who is no threat to one's own lawful acts and thoughts is a criminal act.

That they do means that for a gun to be used in a criminal act, either

• someone who legally participates in the process that begins with gun manufacture and ends with gun ownership exercised insufficient control over the possession of their firearm(s), or
• someone who legally purchased a gun used it illegally.

Somewhere on this forum, another member said the same thing. Accordingly, the thing we need is not gun control, but rather what accountants call "internal control" over gun ownership. What we need to do is make it (1) very hard or very unlikely for a lawful gun owner's gun to make its way to an unlawful gun user, and/or (2) make it very costly (financially or in terms of the loss of other rights/privileges even if there's no immediate financial cost) for lawful owners not to take "the right steps" to ensure their guns do not end up in the hands of unlawful gun users.

Check with the ATF bureau, and you'll see that the quantity of guns reported as lost or stolen ~200K in 2012) pales in comparison to the quantity of crimes (not deaths) committed using guns (literally millions). (The quantity of annual gun deaths is something around 1/6th or 1/7th the quantity of guns reported as being stolen or lost.) That only happens when lawfully purchased guns end up in the hands of folks having unlawful intents in mind for the gun(s) they acquire. There's either (1) a gap somewhere, or in multiple places, in the "supply chain" from manufacturers to end users, (2) insufficient tracking of legally purchased guns, or (3) a combination of both, or "flavors" of both.

Just a few weeks back, a Secret Service agent had his gun and shield stolen. The theft got reported, the thief may even have been captured and prosecuted. That's all well and good, but the relevant part of the event is that a gun was stolen, and it was stolen because due care was not exercised in securing it from being stolen. In other words, the agent exercised insufficient "internal control" over his possession of his firearm. He left it in a vehicle and walked away.

How does one implement a degree of tighter control over guns? My suggestion is that we install really thick bulletproof glass in post offices (post offices because there are already plenty of them near to where everyone lives; we've already delegated part of passport processing to the post office, why not this?) and then require folks who legally buy guns to show up once a year to show they they still have possession of their gun. (Perhaps it may make more sense to collocate ATF personnel in the post offices.) If lawful owners don't appear with the guns they are registered as owning, they go onto a "no buy" list for guns until they do show up with their gun(s).

As goes funding such an initiative, I don't think the gun owners should be made to pay one red cent unless they fail to appear. There'll already be enough griping about the idea to begin with. Make folks pay to show up and prove they still have possession of their gun and there'll just be more.

You can't title a car without having possession of the thing. Why can't we apply that principle to guns?

and then require folks who legally buy guns to show up once a year to show they they still have possession of their gun.

Unconstitutional.........that would mean that actual criminals would have to show up and show they have possession of illegal guns.....already covered by Haynes v. United States.

And there is no need...you catch a criminal, you simply throw them in jail...no need to license anyone, register guns or have universal background checks......you arrest, try and jail the individual who used the gun illegally.......just like every other law and crime.

If you want to get a straw buyer, you simply do what they do now...you get the captured criminal to snitch and you set up a sting........normal police work...

both concepts actually target criminals, not law abiding gun owners.....

And there is no reason for the Government to know which law abiding gun owners have guns. If they commit a crime, you arrest them then.

 

[2aguy]

What do we know about guns and gun use?

We know this:

• All guns begin as legal firearms.
• The flow of illegal firearms is from the U.S. to other places far more so than it is into the U.S. from other places.
• Using a gun against another person who is no threat to one's own lawful acts and thoughts is a criminal act.

That they do means that for a gun to be used in a criminal act, either

• someone who legally participates in the process that begins with gun manufacture and ends with gun ownership exercised insufficient control over the possession of their firearm(s), or
• someone who legally purchased a gun used it illegally.

Somewhere on this forum, another member said the same thing. Accordingly, the thing we need is not gun control, but rather what accountants call "internal control" over gun ownership. What we need to do is make it (1) very hard or very unlikely for a lawful gun owner's gun to make its way to an unlawful gun user, and/or (2) make it very costly (financially or in terms of the loss of other rights/privileges even if there's no immediate financial cost) for lawful owners not to take "the right steps" to ensure their guns do not end up in the hands of unlawful gun users.

Check with the ATF bureau, and you'll see that the quantity of guns reported as lost or stolen ~200K in 2012) pales in comparison to the quantity of crimes (not deaths) committed using guns (literally millions). (The quantity of annual gun deaths is something around 1/6th or 1/7th the quantity of guns reported as being stolen or lost.) That only happens when lawfully purchased guns end up in the hands of folks having unlawful intents in mind for the gun(s) they acquire. There's either (1) a gap somewhere, or in multiple places, in the "supply chain" from manufacturers to end users, (2) insufficient tracking of legally purchased guns, or (3) a combination of both, or "flavors" of both.

Just a few weeks back, a Secret Service agent had his gun and shield stolen. The theft got reported, the thief may even have been captured and prosecuted. That's all well and good, but the relevant part of the event is that a gun was stolen, and it was stolen because due care was not exercised in securing it from being stolen. In other words, the agent exercised insufficient "internal control" over his possession of his firearm. He left it in a vehicle and walked away.

How does one implement a degree of tighter control over guns? My suggestion is that we install really thick bulletproof glass in post offices (post offices because there are already plenty of them near to where everyone lives; we've already delegated part of passport processing to the post office, why not this?) and then require folks who legally buy guns to show up once a year to show they they still have possession of their gun. (Perhaps it may make more sense to collocate ATF personnel in the post offices.) If lawful owners don't appear with the guns they are registered as owning, they go onto a "no buy" list for guns until they do show up with their gun(s).

As goes funding such an initiative, I don't think the gun owners should be made to pay one red cent unless they fail to appear. There'll already be enough griping about the idea to begin with. Make folks pay to show up and prove they still have possession of their gun and there'll just be more.

You can't title a car without having possession of the thing. Why can't we apply that principle to guns?

Because there's no Constitutional right to possess a car.

The proposal above does not outright deny the right to possess a gun. It merely says that one must exercise due safeguards in doing so. In substance, it's no different than one's not being able to scream fire when there is no fire. Constitutionally granted or not, one must apply due care in the exercise of the rights themselves.

It's perfectly reasonable to hold one accountable for actually doing just that. In the matter of the first amendment rights, one can lose that right be incarcerated for abusing it. One way in which a person shows due care in the exercise of their right to free speech is by not shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. One way to exercise due care re: one's exercise of the right to bear arm is ensuring the arms one bought to bear lawfully for/by oneself do not make their way into the hands of people who will not bear them lawfully. Manufacturers and retailers have a similar burden in the production, distribution and sale of arms.

The right to vote is also given in the Constitution, but if one finds oneself in prison, even if for doing something unrelated to exercising the right to vote, one loses that right. What I've proposed is substantively no different.

Nope........you are arrested when you actually yell fire in a crowded theater...you are not expected to get clearence to attend the movie.....

You own the gun....and if you commit a crime with the gun you are arrested...same concept as yelling fire in a theater......

 

[Wry Catcher]

Time to turn the tables.................

The Dems want Gun Control OUT OF FEAR OF THEM............

So why are the Dems so afraid of guns?

It's an economic issue, gun violence is paid for by the taxpayer. Since Democrats are fiscally responsible, vis a vis fiscally conservative, they hope to reduce taxes by not having to pay on the local level for first respondents, EMT's, Public Hospital emergency room costs, follow up treatment for those who survive; and the investigation, prosecution and incarceration of those who shoot and many times kill another.

Q. Why do you object to being licensed to own, possess or have a gun in your custody or control [Afraid of what a comprehensive background check will find?]

Why do you oppose having ID to vote? Afraid people are lying to vote?

I don't oppose voter ID laws. I do oppose efforts to suppress the vote!

If the Congress or a State believes fraud requires voter ID's, the State or Federal Government must provide the ID at no cost to individuals, and grandfather in all of those who have voted for years the right to vote until a fair common sense law is passed.

Don't pretend that long lines and shorter hours at the polls, and reducing the number of polling places strategically is anything but a dishonest effort to suppress the vote of likely Democratic Voters.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Time to turn the tables.................

The Dems want Gun Control OUT OF FEAR OF THEM............

So why are the Dems so afraid of guns?

It's an economic issue, gun violence is paid for by the taxpayer. Since Democrats are fiscally responsible, vis a vis fiscally conservative, they hope to reduce taxes by not having to pay on the local level for first respondents, EMT's, Public Hospital emergency room costs, follow up treatment for those who survive; and the investigation, prosecution and incarceration of those who shoot and many times kill another.

Q. Why do you object to being licensed to own, possess or have a gun in your custody or control [Afraid of what a comprehensive background check will find?]

Why do you oppose having ID to vote? Afraid people are lying to vote?

I don't oppose voter ID laws. I do oppose efforts to suppress the vote!

If the Congress or a State believes fraud requires voter ID's, the State or Federal Government must provide the ID at no cost to individuals, and grandfather in all of those who have voted for years the right to vote until a fair common sense law is passed.

Don't pretend that long lines and shorter hours at the polls, and reducing the number of polling places strategically is anything but a dishonest effort to suppress the vote of likely Democratic Voters.

If a state wishes to enact a 'voter ID' law, it needs to justify doing so by citing objective, documented evidence that 'fraud' exists to such a degree as to warrant such a measure – which of course it cannot do.

Many older African-Americans, for example, lack the required documents to obtain such an ID, having nothing to do with its cost.

As already correctly noted: voter ID laws exist solely to discourage voting by those perceived by republicans likely to vote for democratic candidates, having nothing to do with 'fraud.'

 

[Elvis Obama]

Read up on what? Ceausescu was a joke. All the Soviet state governments collapsed after the USSR fell. Ceausescu was the only one stupid enough to try to keep up his pathetic Joe Stalin impersonation. He tried to act tough, but he didn't control the army. They abandoned him in a heartbeat. The guns held in the hands of citizens were irrelevant. Once the army deserts you, you could be taken down by a small biker gang.

He ruled with an iron fist for over 20 years and he was brought down by people with guns. Those people with guns killed the leaders in the Army that were for Ceausescu. Amazing how the army abandoned him when the leaders were dead. Your entire assertion is flat wrong and the Romanian experience proves it.

The USSR collapsed, and all its puppet states collapsed too. Period. The notion that Ceausescu had control is silly. He was loathed and had zero chance of surviving. The notion that a bunch of people with guns were able to topple a modern state is silly. Afghanistan was a disaster for the USSR and it contributed to their fall, but it wouldn't have happened without anti-aircraft weapons supplied by the US for the purpose of sticking a stick up a certain part of the Russian bear's anatomy. Even with anti-aircraft weapons, citizens of the US pose no threat to a hypothetical US government gone rogue.

I believe that the founding fathers were in complete support of the notion of citizens being able to oppose tyranny. As they were revolutionaries who had just fought a war against tyranny it's difficult to believe otherwise. I believe they would would have wanted citizens to retain that ability to resist tyranny. That, sadly, is no longer possible. Not by direct military means anyway.

Ummmmm, no. But that would be history and progressives try and ignore history.

Progressives are overwhelmingly over-represented in the ranks of those who write and teach history. You have some historical correction to suggest? The USSR collapsed and all its satellites went boom. Not correct? Do you suggest that Ceausescu was at the heights of his powers when he was toppled?

How about you tell us how each one of the satellites went "boom".

Peacefully, except for Romania. The specifics are irrelevant. The Soviet empire collapsed. This was in no way due to the possession of guns by the people of Romania. As far as Romania's response to this death blow it had received, Ceausescu tried to do a Black Knight impersonation. It's only a flesh wound. Given his eventual fate, I would imagine he got exactly what he'd feared he'd get. I in no way want to diminish the sacrifice of those who died to take him down, but to suggest that he was the robust ruler of a powerful military is inaccurate.

I repeat the point which started this discussion. The little popguns we spend so much time and energy on are trivial. The subject of how we can defend ourselves against tyranny is a worthwhile one, but it doesn't involve the issue of gun control or gun rights.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Time to turn the tables.................

The Dems want Gun Control OUT OF FEAR OF THEM............

So why are the Dems so afraid of guns?

It's an economic issue, gun violence is paid for by the taxpayer. Since Democrats are fiscally responsible, vis a vis fiscally conservative, they hope to reduce taxes by not having to pay on the local level for first respondents, EMT's, Public Hospital emergency room costs, follow up treatment for those who survive; and the investigation, prosecution and incarceration of those who shoot and many times kill another.

Q. Why do you object to being licensed to own, possess or have a gun in your custody or control [Afraid of what a comprehensive background check will find?]

Why do you oppose having ID to vote? Afraid people are lying to vote?

I don't oppose voter ID laws. I do oppose efforts to suppress the vote!

If the Congress or a State believes fraud requires voter ID's, the State or Federal Government must provide the ID at no cost to individuals, and grandfather in all of those who have voted for years the right to vote until a fair common sense law is passed.

Don't pretend that long lines and shorter hours at the polls, and reducing the number of polling places strategically is anything but a dishonest effort to suppress the vote of likely Democratic Voters.

If a state wishes to enact a 'voter ID' law, it needs to justify doing so by citing objective, documented evidence that 'fraud' exists to such a degree as to warrant such a measure – which of course it cannot do.

Many older African-Americans, for example, lack the required documents to obtain such an ID, having nothing to do with its cost.

As already correctly noted: voter ID laws exist solely to discourage voting by those perceived by republicans likely to vote for democratic candidates, having nothing to do with 'fraud.'

Yet according to YOU the Government does not need to justify enacting more restrictions on firearms purchases or background checks.

 

[BlackSand]

Anyone else ever notice that the only substantial result of government discussing "reasonable gun control measures" ... Is the explosion of gun sales and shortage of available ammunition as people stock up before the supposed measures are even finalized. It's like those on the side of more strict gun control measures should be getting a kick-back from the gun manufacturers and the NRA.


.

 

[westwall]

He ruled with an iron fist for over 20 years and he was brought down by people with guns. Those people with guns killed the leaders in the Army that were for Ceausescu. Amazing how the army abandoned him when the leaders were dead. Your entire assertion is flat wrong and the Romanian experience proves it.

The USSR collapsed, and all its puppet states collapsed too. Period. The notion that Ceausescu had control is silly. He was loathed and had zero chance of surviving. The notion that a bunch of people with guns were able to topple a modern state is silly. Afghanistan was a disaster for the USSR and it contributed to their fall, but it wouldn't have happened without anti-aircraft weapons supplied by the US for the purpose of sticking a stick up a certain part of the Russian bear's anatomy. Even with anti-aircraft weapons, citizens of the US pose no threat to a hypothetical US government gone rogue.

I believe that the founding fathers were in complete support of the notion of citizens being able to oppose tyranny. As they were revolutionaries who had just fought a war against tyranny it's difficult to believe otherwise. I believe they would would have wanted citizens to retain that ability to resist tyranny. That, sadly, is no longer possible. Not by direct military means anyway.

Ummmmm, no. But that would be history and progressives try and ignore history.

Progressives are overwhelmingly over-represented in the ranks of those who write and teach history. You have some historical correction to suggest? The USSR collapsed and all its satellites went boom. Not correct? Do you suggest that Ceausescu was at the heights of his powers when he was toppled?

How about you tell us how each one of the satellites went "boom".

Peacefully, except for Romania. The specifics are irrelevant. The Soviet empire collapsed. This was in no way due to the possession of guns by the people of Romania. As far as Romania's response to this death blow it had received, Ceausescu tried to do a Black Knight impersonation. It's only a flesh wound. Given his eventual fate, I would imagine he got exactly what he'd feared he'd get. I in no way want to diminish the sacrifice of those who died to take him down, but to suggest that he was the robust ruler of a powerful military is inaccurate.

I repeat the point which started this discussion. The little popguns we spend so much time and energy on are trivial. The subject of how we can defend ourselves against tyranny is a worthwhile one, but it doesn't involve the issue of gun control or gun rights.

That's not what the history books say. Even those written by your precious progressives acknowledge that guns played a role in the revolution.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Time to turn the tables.................

The Dems want Gun Control OUT OF FEAR OF THEM............

So why are the Dems so afraid of guns?

It's an economic issue, gun violence is paid for by the taxpayer. Since Democrats are fiscally responsible, vis a vis fiscally conservative, they hope to reduce taxes by not having to pay on the local level for first respondents, EMT's, Public Hospital emergency room costs, follow up treatment for those who survive; and the investigation, prosecution and incarceration of those who shoot and many times kill another.

Q. Why do you object to being licensed to own, possess or have a gun in your custody or control [Afraid of what a comprehensive background check will find?]

Why do you oppose having ID to vote? Afraid people are lying to vote?

I don't oppose voter ID laws. I do oppose efforts to suppress the vote!

If the Congress or a State believes fraud requires voter ID's, the State or Federal Government must provide the ID at no cost to individuals, and grandfather in all of those who have voted for years the right to vote until a fair common sense law is passed.

Don't pretend that long lines and shorter hours at the polls, and reducing the number of polling places strategically is anything but a dishonest effort to suppress the vote of likely Democratic Voters.

If a state wishes to enact a 'voter ID' law, it needs to justify doing so by citing objective, documented evidence that 'fraud' exists to such a degree as to warrant such a measure – which of course it cannot do.

Many older African-Americans, for example, lack the required documents to obtain such an ID, having nothing to do with its cost.

As already correctly noted: voter ID laws exist solely to discourage voting by those perceived by republicans likely to vote for democratic candidates, having nothing to do with 'fraud.'

If ever body were to watch the TV series Who do you think you are, they would understand that the slave trade brought Africans to the Americas, and to what was to become the United States, a hundred or more years than most of our ancestors arrived on our shores.

My earliest ancestor left Germany and arrived in New York in 1840, the rest after the Civil War.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The USSR collapsed, and all its puppet states collapsed too. Period. The notion that Ceausescu had control is silly. He was loathed and had zero chance of surviving. The notion that a bunch of people with guns were able to topple a modern state is silly. Afghanistan was a disaster for the USSR and it contributed to their fall, but it wouldn't have happened without anti-aircraft weapons supplied by the US for the purpose of sticking a stick up a certain part of the Russian bear's anatomy. Even with anti-aircraft weapons, citizens of the US pose no threat to a hypothetical US government gone rogue.

I believe that the founding fathers were in complete support of the notion of citizens being able to oppose tyranny. As they were revolutionaries who had just fought a war against tyranny it's difficult to believe otherwise. I believe they would would have wanted citizens to retain that ability to resist tyranny. That, sadly, is no longer possible. Not by direct military means anyway.

Ummmmm, no. But that would be history and progressives try and ignore history.

Progressives are overwhelmingly over-represented in the ranks of those who write and teach history. You have some historical correction to suggest? The USSR collapsed and all its satellites went boom. Not correct? Do you suggest that Ceausescu was at the heights of his powers when he was toppled?

How about you tell us how each one of the satellites went "boom".

Peacefully, except for Romania. The specifics are irrelevant. The Soviet empire collapsed. This was in no way due to the possession of guns by the people of Romania. As far as Romania's response to this death blow it had received, Ceausescu tried to do a Black Knight impersonation. It's only a flesh wound. Given his eventual fate, I would imagine he got exactly what he'd feared he'd get. I in no way want to diminish the sacrifice of those who died to take him down, but to suggest that he was the robust ruler of a powerful military is inaccurate.

I repeat the point which started this discussion. The little popguns we spend so much time and energy on are trivial. The subject of how we can defend ourselves against tyranny is a worthwhile one, but it doesn't involve the issue of gun control or gun rights.

That's not what the history books say. Even those written by your precious progressives acknowledge that guns played a role in the revolution.

And yet all we need to do to change our government is to vote. So our greatest fear should not be the fear of black helicopters, but of our vote being suppressed.

 

[westwall]

Ummmmm, no. But that would be history and progressives try and ignore history.

Progressives are overwhelmingly over-represented in the ranks of those who write and teach history. You have some historical correction to suggest? The USSR collapsed and all its satellites went boom. Not correct? Do you suggest that Ceausescu was at the heights of his powers when he was toppled?

How about you tell us how each one of the satellites went "boom".

Peacefully, except for Romania. The specifics are irrelevant. The Soviet empire collapsed. This was in no way due to the possession of guns by the people of Romania. As far as Romania's response to this death blow it had received, Ceausescu tried to do a Black Knight impersonation. It's only a flesh wound. Given his eventual fate, I would imagine he got exactly what he'd feared he'd get. I in no way want to diminish the sacrifice of those who died to take him down, but to suggest that he was the robust ruler of a powerful military is inaccurate.

I repeat the point which started this discussion. The little popguns we spend so much time and energy on are trivial. The subject of how we can defend ourselves against tyranny is a worthwhile one, but it doesn't involve the issue of gun control or gun rights.

That's not what the history books say. Even those written by your precious progressives acknowledge that guns played a role in the revolution.

And yet all we need to do to change our government is to vote. So our greatest fear should not be the fear of black helicopters, but of our vote being suppressed.

Care to bet how quick the voting system would be corrupted if the common man didn't have guns to defend the process? Throughout history countries have been controlled by men with guns. Countries where the people had no right to defend themselves from those guys with guns. Care to bet how long it would have taken to get industrial reforms enacted in a country where the people had the ability to defend themselves from the strike breakers?

Or how long do you think the conflict diamonds would still be for sale if the workers were able to arm themselves? Hmm?

Face it dude. The only reason why this country got to where it is, as fast as it did is because the wealthy were afraid that if they overstepped themselves they would get their asses handed to them. Now, lo and behold it is the super wealthy who are pushing for gun control with the eventual goal of disarming the public. Care to bet how long the people will survive as free people when that happens?

The one percenters are out to control the whole world and they have to disarm the people first. And you support them... Why?

 

[Elvis Obama]

Ummmmm, no. But that would be history and progressives try and ignore history.

Progressives are overwhelmingly over-represented in the ranks of those who write and teach history. You have some historical correction to suggest? The USSR collapsed and all its satellites went boom. Not correct? Do you suggest that Ceausescu was at the heights of his powers when he was toppled?

How about you tell us how each one of the satellites went "boom".

Peacefully, except for Romania. The specifics are irrelevant. The Soviet empire collapsed. This was in no way due to the possession of guns by the people of Romania. As far as Romania's response to this death blow it had received, Ceausescu tried to do a Black Knight impersonation. It's only a flesh wound. Given his eventual fate, I would imagine he got exactly what he'd feared he'd get. I in no way want to diminish the sacrifice of those who died to take him down, but to suggest that he was the robust ruler of a powerful military is inaccurate.

I repeat the point which started this discussion. The little popguns we spend so much time and energy on are trivial. The subject of how we can defend ourselves against tyranny is a worthwhile one, but it doesn't involve the issue of gun control or gun rights.

That's not what the history books say. Even those written by your precious progressives acknowledge that guns played a role in the revolution.

And yet all we need to do to change our government is to vote. So our greatest fear should not be the fear of black helicopters, but of our vote being suppressed.

That's what infuriates me, the waste of time and energy. We should be concerned about real problems instead of imagined threats.

It's an impossible wall to break through, I'm afraid. You cannot fight against a disinclination to find common ground.

 

[Elvis Obama]

The USSR collapsed, and all its puppet states collapsed too. Period. The notion that Ceausescu had control is silly. He was loathed and had zero chance of surviving. The notion that a bunch of people with guns were able to topple a modern state is silly. Afghanistan was a disaster for the USSR and it contributed to their fall, but it wouldn't have happened without anti-aircraft weapons supplied by the US for the purpose of sticking a stick up a certain part of the Russian bear's anatomy. Even with anti-aircraft weapons, citizens of the US pose no threat to a hypothetical US government gone rogue.

I believe that the founding fathers were in complete support of the notion of citizens being able to oppose tyranny. As they were revolutionaries who had just fought a war against tyranny it's difficult to believe otherwise. I believe they would would have wanted citizens to retain that ability to resist tyranny. That, sadly, is no longer possible. Not by direct military means anyway.

Ummmmm, no. But that would be history and progressives try and ignore history.

Progressives are overwhelmingly over-represented in the ranks of those who write and teach history. You have some historical correction to suggest? The USSR collapsed and all its satellites went boom. Not correct? Do you suggest that Ceausescu was at the heights of his powers when he was toppled?

How about you tell us how each one of the satellites went "boom".

Peacefully, except for Romania. The specifics are irrelevant. The Soviet empire collapsed. This was in no way due to the possession of guns by the people of Romania. As far as Romania's response to this death blow it had received, Ceausescu tried to do a Black Knight impersonation. It's only a flesh wound. Given his eventual fate, I would imagine he got exactly what he'd feared he'd get. I in no way want to diminish the sacrifice of those who died to take him down, but to suggest that he was the robust ruler of a powerful military is inaccurate.

I repeat the point which started this discussion. The little popguns we spend so much time and energy on are trivial. The subject of how we can defend ourselves against tyranny is a worthwhile one, but it doesn't involve the issue of gun control or gun rights.

That's not what the history books say. Even those written by your precious progressives acknowledge that guns played a role in the revolution.

Why are they my precious progressives?

What historians have to say is that Ceausescu refused to see the writing on the wall. He was a paper tiger, a pathetic figure that didn't last much more than a week after he pushed the people into revolution. Yes. They used guns. Of course they used guns. Against a dictator so weak he could be defeated by guns, in a matter of days, having been abandoned by the military and any part of the government he wasn't related to.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Progressives are overwhelmingly over-represented in the ranks of those who write and teach history. You have some historical correction to suggest? The USSR collapsed and all its satellites went boom. Not correct? Do you suggest that Ceausescu was at the heights of his powers when he was toppled?

How about you tell us how each one of the satellites went "boom".

Peacefully, except for Romania. The specifics are irrelevant. The Soviet empire collapsed. This was in no way due to the possession of guns by the people of Romania. As far as Romania's response to this death blow it had received, Ceausescu tried to do a Black Knight impersonation. It's only a flesh wound. Given his eventual fate, I would imagine he got exactly what he'd feared he'd get. I in no way want to diminish the sacrifice of those who died to take him down, but to suggest that he was the robust ruler of a powerful military is inaccurate.

I repeat the point which started this discussion. The little popguns we spend so much time and energy on are trivial. The subject of how we can defend ourselves against tyranny is a worthwhile one, but it doesn't involve the issue of gun control or gun rights.

That's not what the history books say. Even those written by your precious progressives acknowledge that guns played a role in the revolution.

And yet all we need to do to change our government is to vote. So our greatest fear should not be the fear of black helicopters, but of our vote being suppressed.

Care to bet how quick the voting system would be corrupted if the common man didn't have guns to defend the process? Throughout history countries have been controlled by men with guns. Countries where the people had no right to defend themselves from those guys with guns. Care to bet how long it would have taken to get industrial reforms enacted in a country where the people had the ability to defend themselves from the strike breakers?

Or how long do you think the conflict diamonds would still be for sale if the workers were able to arm themselves? Hmm?

Face it dude. The only reason why this country got to where it is, as fast as it did is because the wealthy were afraid that if they overstepped themselves they would get their asses handed to them. Now, lo and behold it is the super wealthy who are pushing for gun control with the eventual goal of disarming the public. Care to bet how long the people will survive as free people when that happens?

The one percenters are out to control the whole world and they have to disarm the people first. And you support them... Why?

What evidence do you have to prove your theory that the 1% want to banish guns from the common people? Even if Gates and the Kochs, et al wanted to confiscate all the guns in America, that task would be impossible.

Gun control in my vision is to take reasonable efforts to prevent what has become a daily occurrence in our country, and a rare one in other western democracies,

Your side sees any effort to do so as an effort to take away your gun(s) and those of us who support efforts to curtail the violence / murders as your enemy.

You sides obsession with guns is beyond my understanding and in my opinion borders on a fetish.

Your side sees your right to own a gun a greater right than a child in school, a teen at a movie theater or an adult at Christmas Party Right to live and their loved one's happiness.

By the way, I never take my gun to vote, do you?

BTW2, maybe those who are denied their right to vote because their polling place has been moved three bus transfers away, and it's only open for a few hours really will need a gun, or the gay people denied a marriage license to convince a fat bigoted thrice divorced clerk? What do you think about those situations?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Progressives are overwhelmingly over-represented in the ranks of those who write and teach history. You have some historical correction to suggest? The USSR collapsed and all its satellites went boom. Not correct? Do you suggest that Ceausescu was at the heights of his powers when he was toppled?

How about you tell us how each one of the satellites went "boom".

Peacefully, except for Romania. The specifics are irrelevant. The Soviet empire collapsed. This was in no way due to the possession of guns by the people of Romania. As far as Romania's response to this death blow it had received, Ceausescu tried to do a Black Knight impersonation. It's only a flesh wound. Given his eventual fate, I would imagine he got exactly what he'd feared he'd get. I in no way want to diminish the sacrifice of those who died to take him down, but to suggest that he was the robust ruler of a powerful military is inaccurate.

I repeat the point which started this discussion. The little popguns we spend so much time and energy on are trivial. The subject of how we can defend ourselves against tyranny is a worthwhile one, but it doesn't involve the issue of gun control or gun rights.

That's not what the history books say. Even those written by your precious progressives acknowledge that guns played a role in the revolution.

And yet all we need to do to change our government is to vote. So our greatest fear should not be the fear of black helicopters, but of our vote being suppressed.

That's what infuriates me, the waste of time and energy. We should be concerned about real problems instead of imagined threats.

It's an impossible wall to break through, I'm afraid. You cannot fight against a disinclination to find common ground.

You can try, remember Al Michael and the Miracle on Ice?

 

[2aguy]

Time to turn the tables.................

The Dems want Gun Control OUT OF FEAR OF THEM............

So why are the Dems so afraid of guns?

It's an economic issue, gun violence is paid for by the taxpayer. Since Democrats are fiscally responsible, vis a vis fiscally conservative, they hope to reduce taxes by not having to pay on the local level for first respondents, EMT's, Public Hospital emergency room costs, follow up treatment for those who survive; and the investigation, prosecution and incarceration of those who shoot and many times kill another.

Q. Why do you object to being licensed to own, possess or have a gun in your custody or control [Afraid of what a comprehensive background check will find?]

Why do you oppose having ID to vote? Afraid people are lying to vote?

I don't oppose voter ID laws. I do oppose efforts to suppress the vote!

If the Congress or a State believes fraud requires voter ID's, the State or Federal Government must provide the ID at no cost to individuals, and grandfather in all of those who have voted for years the right to vote until a fair common sense law is passed.

Don't pretend that long lines and shorter hours at the polls, and reducing the number of polling places strategically is anything but a dishonest effort to suppress the vote of likely Democratic Voters.

If a state wishes to enact a 'voter ID' law, it needs to justify doing so by citing objective, documented evidence that 'fraud' exists to such a degree as to warrant such a measure – which of course it cannot do.

Many older African-Americans, for example, lack the required documents to obtain such an ID, having nothing to do with its cost.

As already correctly noted: voter ID laws exist solely to discourage voting by those perceived by republicans likely to vote for democratic candidates, having nothing to do with 'fraud.'

Wrong….and voter i.d. is available free of charge and government bureaucrats will come to the residence of anyone who can't go and get the I.D. themselves. Fighting to keep voter i.d. hidden is an attempt to defraud the voting process…….as democrats do every election cycle.

 

[2aguy]

How about you tell us how each one of the satellites went "boom".

Peacefully, except for Romania. The specifics are irrelevant. The Soviet empire collapsed. This was in no way due to the possession of guns by the people of Romania. As far as Romania's response to this death blow it had received, Ceausescu tried to do a Black Knight impersonation. It's only a flesh wound. Given his eventual fate, I would imagine he got exactly what he'd feared he'd get. I in no way want to diminish the sacrifice of those who died to take him down, but to suggest that he was the robust ruler of a powerful military is inaccurate.

I repeat the point which started this discussion. The little popguns we spend so much time and energy on are trivial. The subject of how we can defend ourselves against tyranny is a worthwhile one, but it doesn't involve the issue of gun control or gun rights.

That's not what the history books say. Even those written by your precious progressives acknowledge that guns played a role in the revolution.

And yet all we need to do to change our government is to vote. So our greatest fear should not be the fear of black helicopters, but of our vote being suppressed.

Care to bet how quick the voting system would be corrupted if the common man didn't have guns to defend the process? Throughout history countries have been controlled by men with guns. Countries where the people had no right to defend themselves from those guys with guns. Care to bet how long it would have taken to get industrial reforms enacted in a country where the people had the ability to defend themselves from the strike breakers?

Or how long do you think the conflict diamonds would still be for sale if the workers were able to arm themselves? Hmm?

Face it dude. The only reason why this country got to where it is, as fast as it did is because the wealthy were afraid that if they overstepped themselves they would get their asses handed to them. Now, lo and behold it is the super wealthy who are pushing for gun control with the eventual goal of disarming the public. Care to bet how long the people will survive as free people when that happens?

The one percenters are out to control the whole world and they have to disarm the people first. And you support them... Why?

What evidence do you have to prove your theory that the 1% want to banish guns from the common people? Even if Gates and the Kochs, et al wanted to confiscate all the guns in America, that task would be impossible.

Gun control in my vision is to take reasonable efforts to prevent what has become a daily occurrence in our country, and a rare one in other western democracies,

Your side sees any effort to do so as an effort to take away your gun(s) and those of us who support efforts to curtail the violence / murders as your enemy.

You sides obsession with guns is beyond my understanding and in my opinion borders on a fetish.

Your side sees your right to own a gun a greater right than a child in school, a teen at a movie theater or an adult at Christmas Party Right to live and their loved one's happiness.

By the way, I never take my gun to vote, do you?

BTW2, maybe those who are denied their right to vote because their polling place has been moved three bus transfers away, and it's only open for a few hours really will need a gun, or the gay people denied a marriage license to convince a fat bigoted thrice divorced clerk? What do you think about those situations?

We already have reasonable efforts to reduce gun violence……we have mandatory federal background checks, and laws that state if you commit a crime with a gun you go to prison. Everything else is geared toward making harder for normal gun owners to exercise their right to keep and bear arms….since every effort targets normal gun owners and does nothing to stop criminals or mass shooters.

You guys created the gun free zones that allow killers to murder innocent men, women and children…those deaths are on you. Since each location you listed is a gun free zone created by you and your ilk.