Gun Ownership / Laws Discussion & Debate

[PoliticalChic]

Can I show where a voice can incite violence? Are you serious? As far as that poll, unless you can point to the party affiliation breakdown it remains worthless.

Why should party affiliation matter at all?

Fact is, most Americans don't want Jared Loughner to be able to walk into a gun store and come out armed to the teeth and ready to kill the people the voices in his head tell him to.

But the NRA has managed to block any kind of common sense gun regulation.

"Fact is" that for liberals, feeling passes for knowing.

How about you join those who use data and experience before making decisons. The following might help you toward that end:


JANUARY 13, 2011 4:00 A.M.
Rounding Up the Guns
What not to do
Rounding Up the Guns - Interview - National Review Online

1. In the light of the Louchner-Tucson Massacre, NR interviewed John Lott, jr. an economist and foxnews.com contributor, he is author of the authoritative More Guns, Less Crime. Here is part of that interview.

2. Background checks are actually very ineffective to begin with and are mostly an inconvenience for regular people. In 2008, 1.5 percent of those having a Brady background check were forbidden from purchasing a gun. Unfortunately, virtually all these cases represent so-called “false positives.” In 2006 and 2007 (the latest years with detailed data), a tiny fraction — just 2 percent — of those denials involved possible unlawful possession; and just 0.2 percent of the denials were viewed as prosecutable — 174 cases in 2006 and 122 in 2007.

3. The Brady background checks have done virtually nothing to prevent people with criminal intent from getting guns. Given that, it isn’t too surprising that no academic studies by economists or criminologists have found that the Brady Act or other state background checks have reduced violent crime.

4. Nine-millimeter semiautomatic pistols are by far the most common handguns sold in the U.S. Handguns are particularly useful for self-defense in enclosed spaces such as inside a house. Indeed, there is a safety reason for using handguns. The bullets fired by handguns travel more slowly than those fired by rifles and are thus less likely to harm people outside of the home.

5. Rather than behaving passively or offering no resistance to a criminal, the rate of sustaining injury or further injury was lower in every instance than was the rate of sustaining injury when no self-protection measure was employed at all. National Crime Victimization Survey

6. When the federal assault-weapons ban expired on Sept. 14, 2004, those favoring the ban predicted a massive violent-crime wave. Massachusetts senator John Kerry, the Democratic party’s presidential nominee that year, warned it would make “the job of terrorists easier.” California senator Dianne Feinstein foresaw that deadly crime would soar because of the “pent-up demand for 50-round magazines and larger.” Gun-control advocates such as Sarah Brady, James’s wife, anticipated similar problems. Six years have passed since the ban sunset, and none of those fears has been borne out. Indeed, every category of violent crime has fallen, with the murder rate falling by about 15 percent between 2004 and June 2010. The recently released third edition of More Guns, Less Crime found that the six states that have their own assault-weapons ban saw a smaller drop in murders than the 44 states without such laws. No one in the media holds gun-control advocates responsible for past claims.

7. Too often, knee-jerk reactions cause Congress to pass laws that actually make future crimes more likely. Creating gun-free zones is one such example. Banning guns from places such as schools might have seemed like a way of protecting children or college students, but instead it created a magnet for those intent on causing harm. The problem is that instead of gun-free zones making it safe for potential victims, they make it safe for criminals. Criminals are less likely to run into those who might be able to stop them.

8. Letting civilians have permitted concealed handguns limits the damage from attacks. A major factor in determining how many people are harmed by these killers is the amount of time that elapses between when the attack starts and when someone with a gun is able to arrive on the scene.

9. In every instance, we have data that show that when a ban is imposed, murder rates rise. In America, people are all too familiar with the increased murder rates in Chicago and Washington, D.C., following their handgun bans. They might even be familiar with the 36 percent drop in murder rates in D.C. since the Supreme Court struck down its handgun ban and gun-lock laws.

10. Sen. John Thune’s proposal for right-to-carry reciprocity, to make concealed-carry licenses more like driver’s licenses, would be helpful. Rounding Up the Guns - Interview - National Review Online

 

[JoeB131]

Why should party affiliation matter at all?

Fact is, most Americans don't want Jared Loughner to be able to walk into a gun store and come out armed to the teeth and ready to kill the people the voices in his head tell him to.

But the NRA has managed to block any kind of common sense gun regulation.

Because when you stack the opinion of like minded individuals it will skew the results.

That's right.... ALL the polls are biased. Except the ones the NRA does, of course.

Guy, the thing is, the whole, "Anyone should be able to buy a gun anytime" position is a fringe, crazy minority position, which is just louder and more vocal than anyone else.

My whole point is that most Americans want you to be able to enjoy responsible gun ownership, but want to make it harder for criminals or people who shouldn't have them to get them.

Yes or no, do you really think the mentally insane should have a right to get a gun without government interference?

Sadly, the NRA and Sarah Brady types dominate this conversation. A pox on both your houses, I say.

 

[BoycottTheday]

I'll bet i could find a poll done before the civil war that suggested a majority wanted slavery to continue, i dont care if 99% want to take my rights away, then i fight the 99%ers.

End of story.

 

[Full-Auto]

Because when you stack the opinion of like minded individuals it will skew the results.

That's right.... ALL the polls are biased. Except the ones the NRA does, of course.

Guy, the thing is, the whole, "Anyone should be able to buy a gun anytime" position is a fringe, crazy minority position, which is just louder and more vocal than anyone else.

My whole point is that most Americans want you to be able to enjoy responsible gun ownership, but want to make it harder for criminals or people who shouldn't have them to get them.

Yes or no, do you really think the mentally insane should have a right to get a gun without government interference?

Sadly, the NRA and Sarah Brady types dominate this conversation. A pox on both your houses, I say.

Now you are fishing pathetically. I have thoroughly refuted your studies.

Now its back and forth on your feelings. Come back when you have something else.

 

[Full-Auto]

Lets touch on one other subject.

A WELL REGULATED A MILITIA BEING NECESSARY TO A FREE STATE.

The call to arms as not gone out, so no militia has been formed.

Thanks for playing.

 

[JoeB131]

Why should party affiliation matter at all?

Fact is, most Americans don't want Jared Loughner to be able to walk into a gun store and come out armed to the teeth and ready to kill the people the voices in his head tell him to.

But the NRA has managed to block any kind of common sense gun regulation.

"Fact is" that for liberals, feeling passes for knowing.

How about you join those who use data and experience before making decisons. The following might help you toward that end:


Don't care... ]

One more time.

Jared Loughner, who had been thrown out of his college for being insane and a preceived threat to his fellow students, was able to walk into a gun store and LEGALLY buy a gun and an extra large clip. (Because, hey, if you are going off on that rampage, you need an extra large clip. I mean someone might tackle you while you are reloading, which is pretty much what happened.)

This never should have been allowed to happen, but because our gun laws are so lax, it did.

Seung-Hui Cho (The VA Tech Shooter) was considered so unstable that he was taken out of classes and given separate tutoring. Yet he was able to legally buy two guns in VA.

I spoke about my next door neighbor who shot himself. About a month before that, he shot out the patio door with his gun, but the local police (after catching him in a lie) didn't confiscate his gun. Nope, wouldn't want to violate his second amendment rights.

We have a loud, angry fringe that keeps us from even doing the most common sense things. If you are comfortable with the toll in human life that causes, that is your business. I'm not.

And while I support the right of responsible, law-abiding citizens to own guns, they shouldn't whine about sensible precautions to keep people who shouldn't have guns from getting them.

If the Brady law isn't working, then come up with a law that will. Don't throw up your hands and accept dead people as acceptable.

 

[JoeB131]

Now you are fishing pathetically. I have thoroughly refuted your studies.

Now its back and forth on your feelings. Come back when you have something else.

Yes or no question. Should criminally insane people have a right to acquire guns?

It's really a simple question, you are avoiding it.

 

[Full-Auto]

"Fact is" that for liberals, feeling passes for knowing.

How about you join those who use data and experience before making decisons. The following might help you toward that end:


Don't care... ]

One more time.

Jared Loughner, who had been thrown out of his college for being insane and a preceived threat to his fellow students, was able to walk into a gun store and LEGALLY buy a gun and an extra large clip. (Because, hey, if you are going off on that rampage, you need an extra large clip. I mean someone might tackle you while you are reloading, which is pretty much what happened.)

This never should have been allowed to happen, but because our gun laws are so lax, it did.

Seung-Hui Cho (The VA Tech Shooter) was considered so unstable that he was taken out of classes and given separate tutoring. Yet he was able to legally buy two guns in VA.

I spoke about my next door neighbor who shot himself. About a month before that, he shot out the patio door with his gun, but the local police (after catching him in a lie) didn't confiscate his gun. Nope, wouldn't want to violate his second amendment rights.

We have a loud, angry fringe that keeps us from even doing the most common sense things. If you are comfortable with the toll in human life that causes, that is your business. I'm not.

And while I support the right of responsible, law-abiding citizens to own guns, they shouldn't whine about sensible precautions to keep people who shouldn't have guns from getting them.

If the Brady law isn't working, then come up with a law that will. Don't throw up your hands and accept dead people as acceptable.

The FBI just approved the transfer of weapons to known felons. Through this administration. The knowledge of said transfers goes all the way to the white house.


What was your point about loughner?

 

[PoliticalChic]

One more time.

Jared Loughner, who had been thrown out of his college for being insane and a preceived threat to his fellow students, was able to walk into a gun store and LEGALLY buy a gun and an extra large clip. (Because, hey, if you are going off on that rampage, you need an extra large clip. I mean someone might tackle you while you are reloading, which is pretty much what happened.)

This never should have been allowed to happen, but because our gun laws are so lax, it did.

Seung-Hui Cho (The VA Tech Shooter) was considered so unstable that he was taken out of classes and given separate tutoring. Yet he was able to legally buy two guns in VA.

I spoke about my next door neighbor who shot himself. About a month before that, he shot out the patio door with his gun, but the local police (after catching him in a lie) didn't confiscate his gun. Nope, wouldn't want to violate his second amendment rights.

We have a loud, angry fringe that keeps us from even doing the most common sense things. If you are comfortable with the toll in human life that causes, that is your business. I'm not.

And while I support the right of responsible, law-abiding citizens to own guns, they shouldn't whine about sensible precautions to keep people who shouldn't have guns from getting them.

If the Brady law isn't working, then come up with a law that will. Don't throw up your hands and accept dead people as acceptable.

The FBI just approved the transfer of weapons to known felons. Through this administration. The knowledge of said transfers goes all the way to the white house.


What was your point about loughner?

That was not my quote.
Please correct attribution.

 

[Seawytch]

I'm a liberal who likes my guns...have a lot of them...stockpiles ammunition...and thinks there should limits to what kind of gun I can own, how big the clip is and what TYPE of ammunition I can use.

Why can there be no middle ground?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Lets touch on one other subject.

A WELL REGULATED A MILITIA BEING NECESSARY TO A FREE STATE.

The call to arms as not gone out, so no militia has been formed.

Thanks for playing.

You misunderstand the meaning of 'militia.'

Let me help:

George Mason, Father of the Bill of Rights:"I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." (Jonathan Elliot, The Debates of the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, [NY: Burt Franklin,1888] p.425-6)

The Constitution gave Congress the power to raise and support a national army, and to organize “the Militia.” This is because an army didn’t naturally exist, while “the Militia” only had to be organized: it always existed. (See enumerated powers in Article 1,Section 8.)

The Supreme Court, in US v. Miller, (1939) “…militia system…implied the general obligation of all adult male inhabitants to possess arms, and, with certain exceptions, to cooperate in the work of defence.” It concluded that the militia was primarily civilians.

Today, federal law defines “the militia of the United States” to include all able-bodied males from 17 to 45 and members of the National Guard up to age 64, but excluding those who have no intention of becoming citizens, and active military personnel. (US Code Title 10, sect. 311-313)

Totally changes your perspective, eh?

 

[JoeB131]

The FBI just approved the transfer of weapons to known felons. Through this administration. The knowledge of said transfers goes all the way to the white house.

And everyone involved in that grotesque fiasco should be fired and in some cases prosecuted. Not sure what your argument here is.

What was your point about loughner?

That he was completely out of his mind and never should have been allowed to purchase a gun. If he was able to, the gun laws are too lax.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Why do people use polls as a last ditch effort to win a losing battle? Why do they only use a poll that is worded to suit thier argument?

Well in the interest of pissing off lefties. I just bought my grandson his first red ryder. Took him shooting, taught him firearm safety. Just picked up an AMT 22 auto so he could participate with more then pellets and BB's

That reminds me, I have found me a pretty good deal Smith and Wesson mp 15 5.56 for 800.00 brand new out of the box

 

[JoeB131]

I'm a liberal who likes my guns...have a lot of them...stockpiles ammunition...and thinks there should limits to what kind of gun I can own, how big the clip is and what TYPE of ammunition I can use.

Why can there be no middle ground?

Good question.

Here's my own theory. I think the people who advocate these laws are pretty open about the fact that if they had their way, NO ONE would be able to own a gun except the government.

And the NRA has gotten so knee-jerk in opposing these people in whatever they propose that they oppose it because those are the guys advocating it.

So even when a sensible person says, "A clinically insane man should not be able to walk into a gun store, buy a AR-15 which can be easily converted into an M-16, along with a couple boxes of hollow-points and some extra-capatcity clips" the gun nuts start screaming about how the jackbooted thugs are coming for their freedom.

And it gets so nutty that they make a character like David Koresh ( a whacked out cult leader who was molesting children) into a hero.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I'm a liberal who likes my guns...have a lot of them...stockpiles ammunition...and thinks there should limits to what kind of gun I can own, how big the clip is and what TYPE of ammunition I can use.

Why can there be no middle ground?

ok give your guns up for your liberal cause. Show liberals you are willing to take one for the home team.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The FBI just approved the transfer of weapons to known felons. Through this administration. The knowledge of said transfers goes all the way to the white house.

And everyone involved in that grotesque fiasco should be fired and in some cases prosecuted. Not sure what your argument here is.

What was your point about loughner?

That he was completely out of his mind and never should have been allowed to purchase a gun. If he was able to, the gun laws are too lax.

Here's a twist everybody should be armed if we have another jaread take him out.

 

[hjmick]

Who made David Koresh a hero? I must have been absent that day...

 

[Full-Auto]

The FBI just approved the transfer of weapons to known felons. Through this administration. The knowledge of said transfers goes all the way to the white house.

And everyone involved in that grotesque fiasco should be fired and in some cases prosecuted. Not sure what your argument here is.

What was your point about loughner?

That he was completely out of his mind and never should have been allowed to purchase a gun. If he was able to, the gun laws are too lax.

To lax? They are not even enforced.

So I will not support stricter laws. There are laws on the books that prevent those mentally disturbed from obtaining firearms. Your issue is not gun laws but with what constitutes being legally insane. Focus your efforts there and leave us alone.

 

[Full-Auto]

Lets touch on one other subject.

A WELL REGULATED A MILITIA BEING NECESSARY TO A FREE STATE.

The call to arms as not gone out, so no militia has been formed.

Thanks for playing.

You misunderstand the meaning of 'militia.'

Let me help:

George Mason, Father of the Bill of Rights:"I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." (Jonathan Elliot, The Debates of the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, [NY: Burt Franklin,1888] p.425-6)

The Constitution gave Congress the power to raise and support a national army, and to organize “the Militia.” This is because an army didn’t naturally exist, while “the Militia” only had to be organized: it always existed. (See enumerated powers in Article 1,Section 8.)

The Supreme Court, in US v. Miller, (1939) “…militia system…implied the general obligation of all adult male inhabitants to possess arms, and, with certain exceptions, to cooperate in the work of defence.” It concluded that the militia was primarily civilians.

Today, federal law defines “the militia of the United States” to include all able-bodied males from 17 to 45 and members of the National Guard up to age 64, but excluding those who have no intention of becoming citizens, and active military personnel. (US Code Title 10, sect. 311-313)

Totally changes your perspective, eh?

Thanks that was useful, Where would that put us non militia types above 45 and not in the guard?

 

[The T]

ANY gun law flies in the face of the Second. /Story.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Simple.