Pissed off almost an entire class today

[epterry]

mcveighr
Because if you take away the so called "assault rifles" then you step on a slippery slope and the government is good at over stepping the limits and falling. Now I am not an anarchist but I know that not every government in history has been all roses. Moreover, in the words of some Chinese politician (can’t remember his name) during/after WW2, "The power of a government comes out of the barrel of a gun." We have a government for and by the people as long as the people have that power.

[SlartyBartFast]

Slippery slope my back-end. I guess not allowing evyerone to have fully automatic weapons and ballistic missiles means we're already going down that slope then.

Sure governments aren't all roses. Nobody claime dthey were. But government is there to help protect people's rights. The right of you to have your toys needs to be balanced with other people's rights to safety.

Licensing, training, policing, and control. It's good for cars, it's good for guns.

[PyRo]

Do you know what a socialist is?


I'm all for keeping guns in moderation, I don't see exactly why people need things like assault rifles, the only reason I've heard is because its in the constitution. And that was written quite some time ago.

So what? Everything was established a long time ago, does that mean we should throw it all out the window? I want you to tell me why we cannot have "assault rifles" because I and others have explained time and time again why it is our right to have them, and that they are no more dangerous then other guns, they just look more like military style weapons. Why ban guns that look scary? Why ban bayonets? When was the last time you heard of a drive by bayoneting? How do you propose banning these rifles? Just taking away everyone’s guns and telling them it's their loss? Spending billions buying them all up? Ban the production of new ones and grandfather in the old? Their are more than enough "assault weapons" to go around for the next hundred years.
All these bans do is keep guns out of law abiding citizen’s hands. If I wanted to buy a hand gun without a license I know a few people I could ask who would point me in the right direction and could probably have one in a few days. Even fully automatic weapons aren’t terribly hard to come by, I’ve had an automatic AK47 offered to me for $600, and the guy had two of them for sale. These weapons will stay out of my hands because they are illegal hence I do not want them. But if I did want them ban or no ban I could obtain them.

[SlartyBartFast]

But if I did want them ban or no ban I could obtain them.

But, the flip side of the stale argument of "New laws just makes honest citizens into criminals" is that "no laws allow the criminals to get away with crime".

[PyRo]

Slippery slope my back-end. I guess not allowing evyerone to have fully automatic weapons and ballistic missiles means we're already going down that slope then.

Sure governments aren't all roses. Nobody claime they were. But government is there to help protect people's rights. The right of you to have your toys needs to be balanced with other people's rights to safety.

Licensing, training, policing, and control. It's good for cars, it's good for guns.

This is what has been imbedded into your brain; once it has been imbedded it is nearly impossible for any amount of reason to remove it.
Simply put gun control DOES NOT work for the most part. It is extremely easy to purchase a hand gun without a license, it is a little harder but not impossible to purchase a fully automatic weapon. How long has their been a ban on that? What guns do you want to ban? You want to ban all guns? How many guns are out there now, you think everyone is going to turn their gun in, you think more guns won't be smuggled into the country. The criminals will still have their guns to commit crimes. You want to ban guns that hold more than one round? How many guns is out there now that hold more than one round? You intend to tell someone that if need be they only have one shot to defend their family? You want to tell people they can not have black rifles? Please come back with some facts. Tell us what guns you want banned, why they should be banned, how you intended on removing them from the hands of criminals (introducing a ban is not a reason).

How about we increase penalties for illegal position and sale of firearms. How about we hole people responsible when they have guns stolen if they were found to be negligent. Require gun stores to have greater security and revoke licenses from stores that are regularly robbed. Getting guns away from criminals is what must be accomplished banning things left and right does nothing. How many lives did that bayonet ban save? NONE.

[SlartyBartFast]

Rubbish.

It's easy to steal, it's easy to speed, it's easy to embezzle, it's easy to rape

Hell, the scary thing is virtually every crime is easy to commit and virtually every banned substance or product can be obtained.

Except in your case, and "This is what has been imbedded into your brain; once it has been imbedded it is nearly impossible for any amount of reason to remove it." guns are somehow different and should be treated with more lenienecy or with different considerations.

Or are you some kind of loon that thinks ALL laws should just be abolished and we should all shack up in our homes with as much firepower as possible and each family fend for themselves?

No matter what your political leanings claiming that your position is "reason" and the other is not is a poor pathetic excuse for debate. It shows that you don't have the strength of your convictions becasue what you believe, you opinion, is a matter of faith and you don't want to admit it. Opposing matters of faith or conscience are not the difference between right and wrong, logic and illogic.

Saying that my reasoning is flawed or "embedded and impossible to remove" is like a fundamentalist Christian complaining about the indoctrination of a orthadox Jew. Both are legitimate faiths and belief systems, both are a result of upbringing and environment.

[HoppysMag]

How many lives did that bayonet ban save? NONE.

it really cuts down on the inner city, drive by bayonetings.

we need to stop making new rules and enforce the ones we have. and all those that say that the 2nd amendment refers to muskets and such. then i guese the 1st amendment refers to quils and block presses right?

[SlartyBartFast]

[/URL]

What a bunch of Maroons.

All in favor of creating a state controlled intelligence agency and allowing the government to spy on and detain citizens on suspiscion of being enemies of the state raise your right hand.

Funny how the governments most supported by the guns, religion, and individual freedoms groups are the ones that end up taking the most freedoms away. Hitler was extreme RIGHT wing, fought the communist enemies of the state, protected Germany from the evil outsiders, and expanded to create space and freedom for his countrymen. Bush has created the largest ever bureaucracy in US history to spy on and control the population, has enacted more laws "for the protection of the people", and is now in wars to spread American values.

If you're going to invoke an evil despised leader from the past, at least invoke the right ones.

Now all of you ignorant about history repeat after me: STALIN is LEFT wing, HITLER is RIGHT wing.

Hitler has NOTHING in common with left wing politics, although he did have some progressive social policies. But, then again many right and left wing parties agree on social policy and get hung up on simple implementation. If the two sides shut up for a minute and listened to what each other were saying (when not spouting rhetric) they'd probably come to some fundamental agreements.

In fact, remove all Hitler's evil deeds and he's the perfect republican candidate. If a sufficiently charismatic right wing leader to emerge with a Hitler like hate for Muslims (what Pat B. upto these days?) I fear we might repeat some of the horrors from the past.

[drg]

The problem with the NRA and most gun groups is that they are literally single-issue groups which have such a narrow political agenda that their endorsements and campaigns often run counter to the interests of many of its constituents. In the end, the efforts of these groups play into broader agendae which get many other things done that have nothing to do with the issues they represent.

Being a liberal is not synonymous with an advocacy of the revocation of the 2nd amendment. That very amendment makes certain that no group will ever successfully get guns banned in America. Regulation of firearms, however, is not at odds with the 2nd amendment. In fact the 2nd amendment itself enshrines the regulation of the arms-bearing populace in its third word, even before affirming the right to bear arms.

So think a little more deeply before you shoot off your mouths bashing liberals. Liberalism is responsible for a lot of what makes America great, relatively equal and ultimately free. The great majority of Americans, and likely the great number here, would be better served by liberal policy. It is thanks to these groups with divisive, rather myopic foci that conservative policy is made palatable and even desirable to many people who are actually poorly served by it.

[BlackVCG]

The problem with the NRA and most gun groups is that they are literally single-issue groups which have such a narrow political agenda that their endorsements and campaigns often run counter to the interests of many of its constituents. In the end, the efforts of these groups play into broader agendae which get many other things done that have nothing to do with the issues they represent.

Like the EPA, NAACP, PETA, Unions, etc?

People will vote for what is in their best interest, not the nation. This works the same way on the left and right.

Please don't come back and tell me those groups are not "single-issue groups," because the NRA isn't a single-issue group in itself. They are involved in a whole lot more than just the protection of the 2nd Amendment.

[PyRo]

Rubbish.
It's easy to steal, it's easy to speed, it's easy to embezzle, it's easy to rape

Hell, the scary thing is virtually every crime is easy to commit and virtually every banned substance or product can be obtained.

Except in your case, and "This is what has been imbedded into your brain; once it has been imbedded it is nearly impossible for any amount of reason to remove it." guns are somehow different and should be treated with more lenienecy or with different considerations.

Or are you some kind of loon that thinks ALL laws should just be abolished and we should all shack up in our homes with as much firepower as possible and each family fend for themselves?

No matter what your political leanings claiming that your position is "reason" and the other is not is a poor pathetic excuse for debate. It shows that you don't have the strength of your convictions becasue what you believe, you opinion, is a matter of faith and you don't want to admit it. Opposing matters of faith or conscience are not the difference between right and wrong, logic and illogic.

Saying that my reasoning is flawed or "embedded and impossible to remove" is like a fundamentalist Christian complaining about the indoctrination of a orthadox Jew. Both are legitimate faiths and belief systems, both are a result of upbringing and environment.

I'm still waiting to here your argument in favor of such bans....
You are completely missing my point, where did I ever say that guns should be treated with more leniencies? I'm saying that the bans for the most part keep guns out of the hands of the people who want to use them legally and fail to keep them out of the hands of those who want to use them for illicit purposes.
When did I ever say laws should be abolished? And yes I do believe that one should be allowed to posses a firearm to protect themselves and their family.
You're just bashing me; I’m still waiting to here your argument.

[ScatterPlot]

I want to reiterate what has been said before. All that further gun control will do is keep people that would NEED the guns- honest, law abiding citizens- from getting them. Just because something is banned doesn't keep criminals from having them. If they were going to commit a crime with a gun in the first place, do you think they would even hesitate at illegally obtaining a gun? Some things we don't need. Grenades, rockets, etc., well, duh, we don't need those. Full-autos are another thing. While it's agreed they are dangerous, you can modify tons of things into full-auto with a drill and a file pretty much. Limiting them does keep their overall numbers down, but again if you want one you can go and get it.


And what ^^^ a few posts said earlier about liberalism is definately better and that conservativeness is something that is only desired out of vengeance or dislike of government- well don't you think that it's possible that the conservative side is better, and that people want liberalism out of hatred for the government? The issue here is that liberalism teaches acceptance of others and for a whatever goes kind of society. Conservatives want others to have their views because they believe that they are the best for both worlds. Why do you think conservative churches will not accept others? Now I'll give you that many of the people do it from hate, but that doesn't mean all. I'm sick of people telling others to just do whatever. In the church example, people don't accept others because of what they believe to be right. If you don't disagree with what others say, then why be convicted in what you believe? It's not as horrible as most people think.

Being politically correct seems to be right; everyone is happy, a good "agree to disagree" system for keeping the peace. The problem is that sometimes you gotta say something that makes others mad. You just do. Think of the original settlers- do you think it was PC of them to say bad things about Catholicism? About the king? No! If nobody stood for something then when someone came along with enough gusto they could rule the world. Some movie or something had a good quote, can't remember where it's from:
If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.
If you really stop to think about it you can see that it's true. Think about it. The basic philosophy for many Americans is to let others do whatever they want to do. Then when someone says something that they don't like, suddenly it's all about them. "They're not allowed to say that! That keeps someone else from doing what they want to be doing!" Their whole philosophy is flawed from the get-go.

OK, enough of that.
[/rant]

[drg]

Like the EPA, NAACP, PETA, Unions, etc?

People will vote for what is in their best interest, not the nation. This works the same way on the left and right.

While that is quite a scattershot response (widely off the mark with EPA and unions, but pretty close to the mark with PETA), we seem to be closing in on the same page at least -- that hyperfocused interest groups that lack broader vision are more harmful than helpful to the American political process.

In the end many end up voting against their interests, thanks to an overweighting of such groups' messages.

[drg]

I'm saying that the bans for the most part keep guns out of the hands of the people who want to use them legally and fail to keep them out of the hands of those who want to use them for illicit purposes.

One one hand this is true in a relative sense, but on the other hand, strict firearms regulation can lower a nation's gun violence overall so dramatically the point becomes rather moot.

[PyRo]

How?
Violent crime in Austraila went up after they went gun ban crazy.