Forum Post: Gun Control?
Posted 12 years ago on Dec. 13, 2011, 7 p.m. EST by REALamerican
(241)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Who thinks we should take away guns?
Public Forum
2 comments 1 month ago by gsw
1 comments 5 months ago by factsrfun
5 comments 1 year ago by agkaiser
6 comments 1 year ago by grapes
15 comments 1 year ago by gsw
12 comments 2 years ago by BrentWeirick81
30 comments 2 years ago by ChicagoCitizen
48 comments 2 years ago by factsrfun
16 comments 2 years ago by factsrfun
2 comments 2 years ago by ChicagoCitizen
2 comments 2 years ago by ChicagoCitizen
8 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
7 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
1 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
1 comments 2 years ago by grapes
6 comments 2 years ago by haightashbury98
51 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
5 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
14 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
7 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
1 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
1 comments 3 years ago by agkaiser
6 comments 3 years ago by agkaiser
I don't much care who thinks we should take them away -
I'm not giving mine up.
such talk just makes me think I want more firepower . . .
now if you wanna discuss sensible regulation . . .
or ending the sale of guns going south of the border .. .. .
that's different
That's pretty much what I was talking to RealAmerican about further up the thread; a way to set a reasonable national standard for firearm ownership that doesn't infringe on the Second Amendment.
I missed it. I figure the whole thing is a distraction to the main issues - but it does serve to set a line for tea party people who might be disillusioned by their representation thus far -
I would hope that not ending the bushite tax breaks is a bone of irritation with them. Not that I care for the rest of their platform, but hey.
Agreed; I've posted a lot of different things on fixing the tax code, and if we can convince the Tea Partiers that half of the other tax breaks and loopholes are no different than the Bush tax cuts then we might have a chance at getting things done more quickly.
the more the merrier
guns save lives. its proven science. allow the good citizens to carry and defend the sheep and murderers and rapists will think twice. after all, bullets really effing hurt
we should also take a page from Swedens book and subsidize ammunition. before basketball and baseball and football, marksmanship was americas number one sport. lets bring those times back
i meant switzerland
The world would be a better place without weapons. But it's not important enough to argue over. There are more pressing issue's. Issue's that could lead people to actually use those weapons on their fellow human beings if we don't solve them quickly enough.
The world might be a better place without weapons but there are weapons and no one is going to make them vanish soon. I say it's a natural right of persons that they be able to defend their own lives, and to confront illegitimate "authority."
Maybe take guns away from the cops...
Why?
nahh we should give them each 2 guns, a handful of rubber bullets, and point them towards the nearest occupy movement! :D
This is not funny. We have protesters with brain injuries because cops cannot control themselves. Shame on you.
This IS funny. Because they probably had those brain injuries before the cops got involved. That is why they are in Occupy :)
Haha agreed!
Not to preach, but BlueRose has a point. Rubber bullets and beanbag rounds and tear gas rounds and pepper spray being used indiscriminately by a police force that really seems to like breaking heads are in fact dangerous. There was no excuse for what happened to Scott Olsen or for what happened to the UC Davis students, and when we make jokes like that the general implication is that cops should be given free rein to beat the shit out of anyone you don't like.
His first comment I thought was pretty funny, I felt like he was treating in it a rather lighthearted way. The second comment was kinda uncalled for though.
Fuck. That. IEver heard of "guilty by association'? it may seem a little childish but why would you associate, or let your self be associated with people that have in some way caused the police to be armed to perform this act?
Because cops have a nasty habit of reacting badly to large groups of protesters even when such protesters are peaceful in intent and action. There needs to be a legal distinction between criminals and persons engaged in civil disobedience, with the latter group protected from police action against any member who is not engaged in use of unlawful physical force; active, willful destruction of property such as vandalism or arson; or felonies unrelated to the protest like assault, rape, drug dealing, etc.
Would you post me a link to this young mans story, that takes both sides into account, not just about how he was unjustly shot by an officer? If there is one... Not trying to be rude just trying to locate al of the facts
http://articles.sfgate.com/2011-10-28/news/30335416_1_protesters-canister-police-and-hundreds
Hate to be "that guy" but obviously, if tear gas and non lethal rounds were lready being fired, the demonstraters had already "provoked" the police, how could he stand in the middle of all that and not expec tto be fired on? this goes back to the "guilty by association"...
My point is that the police response to the protesters was in and of itself highly disproportionate. If you have a few people throwing rocks and bottles then the crowd should part from them to let police through and the police should arrest the provocateurs, be they part of the movement or otherwise. Responding to a few rocks and bottles with a barrage of tear gas and rubber bullets and bean bag rounds is an example of paranoid hysteria and poor judgement on the part of the police.
Well obviously, ya boy Scott Olsen did not part, neither did the rest of the crowd. And honestly throwing rocks and bottle is not an example of being "peaceful and intent and action". Maybe if at some point Olsen and the rest of the crowd thought, "hey these guys are starting to throw stuff, we dont want to be associated with violent action because we are peaceful in intent, and hey the police have shown up armed it might be safe for us and better for our organization to leave,let the law deal with the violent ones, and that way we are safe and not associated with violent people..." but they continued to demonstrate alongside with the troublemakers, and because of that they wereassociated with them and were dealt with like they were acting violent.
I believe in the right to bear arms!
Anyone who thinks differently is welcome to swing by my home and try, but I live in Texas and our law sides with homeowners who shoot to protect their assets within the home. I've got a real nice AR-15 .308, The Judge (.410 guage and .45 cal), Saiga-12 modified, Remington 700, M-1A Soccom, Sig Suaer P226, and a Glock-21
Guns are like drugs. The more the government tries to control them the more the streets will be flooded by them. All these people screaming for more gun control are not thinking about the implications of what they want. Its also important that its not a lawful citizen that is holding up a gas station or shooting some one else over something stupid.
Gun control is another area that the US has fallen way behind other countries. Sweden is a good example of how gun control could be better: http://www.guncite.com/swissgun-kopel.html
I do agree, and I feel like the best approach to gun safety is to offer target shooting as a PE course in high schools the same as at MIT and make gun responsibility and gun safety a part of the curriculum roughly on a par with driver's ed. Now to make this truly work you'd need universal military service (or at least some form thereof), which I am in favor of because I feel like it would reduce our involvement in stupid wars and strengthen our communities all at once.
That will work about as well as the war on drugs has.
haha! That is EXACTLY the point I always try to make. Laws only work on the law-abiding. And the law-abiding are not the ones you have to worry about. Oh, the irony.
I believe that everyone has the right to be trained in the use of weapons and to have access to them. To me this is a human right, regardless of whatever the ungrammatical second amendment was meant to say.
amen!
^ no one is going to try and sue me for my right to be religious and say amen right? ;)
Not unless you try to force the atheists to join in :trollface: All frivolity aside, I'd be in favor of replacing the current patchwork of shall-issue and may-issue and no-issue with a national shall-issue program where anyone who is determined by a background check not to fall under one of the prohibited classes in the Gun Control Act of 1968 (felons, mentally ill, wife-beaters, illegal aliens, etc.) would be able to get a dual permit for conceal and carry and open carry for all legal purposes.
So you prefer a simplification of the current situation basically?
Pretty much. One nation, one law, one process. I'm from NYC, which is de facto no-issue, so the first time I actually saw a gun (aside from in a cop's thigh holster) was when I got up to MIT and took an introductory shooting class. I got interested in the firearms issue then, and I looked up the rules from MA and if you live in the right town they're not that bad. Boston and Cambridge don't generally issue conceal-and-carry licenses unless you're either a crime victim or regularly making large cash deposits. The whole process takes a few weeks and costs some money but it's not that big a deal. Then a kid in my political science class mentioned that it was too damn hard to get a gun in Massachusetts, and when I asked him what he meant he replied "Dude, I'm from New Hampshire."
I think that's ridiculous; there should be a national process for obtaining and registering firearms that protects the government's duty to perform due diligence without imposing an undue restriction on the citizen attempting to apply. I was thinking about something like what MA (not Boston/Cambridge) has, only expedited and cheaper. Go to your local police precinct or sheriff's office, pay a $20-$30 issuance fee, get fingerprinted, get a background check done, come back in a couple of weeks, and walk out with a dual-carry permit.
I'm from Texas, which is probably the easiest state besides Arizona to be armed. I am only 20 and I can carry a loaded shotgun or rifle in my car. The law technically says you must be "traveling" but thanks to dumb politicians it doesn't in any way define what "traveling" is. So I agree. we need just something simple and straightforward.
In Texas, it is legal to shoot a robber in the back, in your yard, as they are leaving.
maybe they shouldnt break the law!
Gotcha; I have a friend from Illinois that used to plink a lot when he was a kid, and we've talked about the issue a few times.
My Sig 1911 shoots like a dream and if by chance someone does get by my two 105 pound dogs while breaking into my house, I would no doubt get to prove how easy it is to pull a 3 pound trigger.
[Removed]
If you signed up for welfare and if a free gun came with it, every OWS person would carry.