Gun control

[Eric_8]

Well that's good to hear. Local communities, such as Los Angeles and other communities, are doing just that, buying back guns. What I think should also be bought back not only guns, but licences of those who've been diagnosed with mental disorders, who have gun licences.

Where are you getting this information about buybacks? To me, I see nothing of the sort.

Gun Confiscation Bill Proposed in California: ‘We Can Save Lives’ | TheBlaze.com

This is FAR, FAR beyond a buyback program. It is grossly unconstitutional.

 

[redneckgymrat]

Where are you getting this information about buybacks? To me, I see nothing of the sort.

Gun Confiscation Bill Proposed in California: ‘We Can Save Lives’ | TheBlaze.com

This is FAR, FAR beyond a buyback program. It is grossly unconstitutional.

Actually, I'm going to have to back up AM on this one. Los Angeles, as well as many other California cities, have regular gun buyback events, the most recent of which was last month, if memory serves.

I have no problems, whatsoever, with a buyback program since it's voluntary.

A question, though. You're basically selling your gun to the city, or maybe the local sheriff. Would he, or the city, have to go through an FBI background check, as the purchaser of the gun?

 

[Eric_8]

Actually, I'm going to have to back up AM on this one. Los Angeles, as well as many other California cities, have regular gun buyback events, the most recent of which was last month, if memory serves.

I have no problems, whatsoever, with a buyback program since it's voluntary.

A question, though. You're basically selling your gun to the city, or maybe the local sheriff. Would he, or the city, have to go through an FBI background check, as the purchaser of the gun?

Ok, I admittedly hadn't done much research, as I have nothing whatsoever against VOLUNTARY buybacks, which are nothing like the bill being proposed by CA state senators.

 

[Fuzzy_]

Just out of curiosity, do you carry a spare tire in your trunk? Same basic logic. It's not fear, it's the realization that bad things *do* happen, occasionally.

Fuzzy has blown a tire four times. Fuzzy has been shot zero times.

As for this "rationalize owning a gun" nonsense...I don't have to rationalize it. I have that right. And I may or may not choose to exercise it, that is the freedom we each have.

Then what is this all about? Why debate the issue? You have the right to shoot anybody who enters your home without permission. Does that truly make you feel safe?

The US and Yemen are the only developed countries that have constitutional assurance for a citizen to own a gun. How the hell are all the other developed countries surviving without this individual right? There must be blood in the streets in England, Australia and Canada.

Your side of the argument (and you, personally) are arguing that gun rights should be restricted and even taken from law abiding citizens. Notice...law abiding citizens. That's an important detail.

In some cases taken. In most cases restricted. Do you think that a home is safer with 100 rather than 2 guns? Do you think that an M21 is better for defense in the home than a 9mm handgun? Do you think that a high-capacity semi-auto rifle in your home makes your community safer? Yes, there should be restrictions. It's common sense.

That guy out hunting cops has 30 guns.

Your position places the requirement of arguing your beliefs, upon you.

If you shoot somebody and face a charge of assault/homicide, and you please any kind of self-defense (Castle, stand-your-ground), the evidential burden of proof shifts to you.

Actually, nothing could be further from the truth. I have nothing but the utmost respect for anyone who chooses to serve, whether they be military or law enforcement.

Honestly, regarding law enforcement, this is not apparent. Fuzzy will leave it at that.

But I'm a realist. Police can not, and should not, be everywhere, all the time. Unless they are physically in your house during an attack, there *will* be some measurable response time...and that response time is usually between 10 and 30 minutes.

I'm not badmouthing the police. I'm stating fact. Unless they're already in your house, they have to get in their squad cars and TRAVEL there, which creates a delay. And, during that delay, you are at the greatest risk.

So you get the fuck out of there. As a realist, this must make some sense to you -- distancing yourself from danger.

If you have the ability to defend yourself, it places you in a stronger position, and provides you more options.

Why is there no poison control thread? Or fire safety threads? Eric touched on this a few days ago. The concern over guns is disproportionate, and Americans seem to go to much more trouble to acquire guns than to fireproof their home and protect their families against real dangers.

I touched on this earlier, when I mentioned the fight or flight response.

Flight is not always an option. Being prepared for *both* choices would seem the most prudent course of action.

Unnecessarily removing any option from the table is ultimately self-defeating.

Why is somebody a hero when she has a baby in one arm and a shotgun in the other arm, watching the door while speaking to a dispatcher and asking if she can legally shoot the person breaking into her home? How is keeping a baby in harm's way heroic? What if she missed? What if he just wanted drugs (which appeared to be the case). She could have ran at any time during that lengthy call to the police dispatcher.

The "fight or flight" has been conditioned out of people and turned into "find an excuse to legally shoot 'em 'cause this is my house and those fuckers ain't gonna steal my TV."

Just because one has the right to stand their ground or not flee from their home, doesn't mean that it's the best option. Many tragedies could have been prevented if people just avoided trouble.

 

[redneckgymrat]

Then what is this all about? Why debate the issue? You have the right to shoot anybody who enters your home without permission. Does that truly make you feel safe?

You ask what is this about? Put plainly, vigilance. The defense of rights from those who seek to restrict or remove them. And to counter their emotional and irrational arguments.

That's what it is all about.

A right undefended is a right lost.

There must be blood in the streets in England, Australia and Canada.

There are large movements in both England and Australia, protesting and claiming that their gun restrictions are the stupidest move they ever made. And, some are even issuing warnings to America, to resist the "gun grabbers."

So, yes, there are a statistically significant number of people in those countries you mentioned, who are very unhappy with the current state of affairs.

If you shoot somebody and face a charge of assault/homicide, and you please any kind of self-defense (Castle, stand-your-ground), the evidential burden of proof shifts to you.

And, what does this possibly have to do with what I said?

I said that I have the right to own and use guns. That right is affirmed and protected by our Constitution. And whether or not I choose to avail myself of that right is my business.

I said, further, that your desire to curtail my rights places you in a position where you need to defend your position...mine is self evident.

So you get the fuck out of there. As a realist, this must make some sense to you -- distancing yourself from danger.

Of course it makes sense. That is the flight response.

And, as I said earlier, flight is not always possible or prudent. The fight response is sometimes necessary.

Being prepared for *both* options seems the most prudent approach.

You are not unintelligent, Fuzzy. Surely you understand this.

The "fight or flight" has been conditioned out of people and turned into "find an excuse to legally shoot 'em 'cause this is my house and those fuckers ain't gonna steal my TV."

If this is truly what you believe, then I hope that you do not own firearms.

But, I would not seek to remove that right from all, simply because I view you to be dangerously out of touch.

Just because one has the right to stand their ground or not flee from their home, doesn't mean that it's the best option. Many tragedies could have been prevented if people just avoided trouble.

We're in full agreement on this. That's why I worded it the way I did. Fight OR flight. Preparing for both, and choosing the appropriate option.

Why are you so adamant that the fight option not be permitted to ordinary citizens? What has the citizenry done to earn your mistrust and contempt?

 

[Eric_8]

What if he just wanted drugs

Fuzzy, how can you possibly say this?!?! I understand your stance that it might not be the most prudent to stand and fire, but are you actually saying one (the woman in this case) would NOT be justified in shooting an intruder simply he was just a junkie?

You can't mean this.

 

[Fuzzy_]

You ask what is this about? Put plainly, vigilance. The defense of rights from those who seek to restrict or remove them. And to counter their emotional and irrational arguments.

That's what it is all about.

A right undefended is a right lost.

Vigilance against something that is almost certainly not going to happen? There is a big, wonderful world out there to enjoy, yet so many people prefer to cocoon and sleep with their guns.

There are large movements in both England and Australia, protesting and claiming that their gun restrictions are the stupidest move they ever made. And, some are even issuing warnings to America, to resist the "gun grabbers."

So, yes, there are a statistically significant number of people in those countries you mentioned, who are very unhappy with the current state of affairs.

Those weren't the statistics that Fuzzy was referring to. Fuzzy was referring to gun-relate deaths. Those in Australia, the UK and Canada don't have much gun access and yet they are much less likely to be shot to death.

And, what does this possibly have to do with what I said?

I said that I have the right to own and use guns. That right is affirmed and protected by our Constitution. And whether or not I choose to avail myself of that right is my business.

Would you want to live beside somebody who has a Waco-style compound with thousands of guns and tons of ammo and seems a bit disturbed? It isn't just about the gun owner. It's about everyone around that owner/carrier who wants to avoid the danger of being around a gun -- especially a loaded gun.

It's their business too.

I said, further, that your desire to curtail my rights places you in a position where you need to defend your position...mine is self evident.



Of course it makes sense. That is the flight response.

And, as I said earlier, flight is not always possible or prudent. The fight response is sometimes necessary.

Being prepared for *both* options seems the most prudent approach.

You are not unintelligent, Fuzzy. Surely you understand this.

Fuzzy doesn't understand why a sane, rational person would rather stay in their home and shoot somebody than just run. Ask any non-American which option they'd choose. This truly is a cultural phenomenon.

If this is truly what you believe, then I hope that you do not own firearms.

Fuzzy is trained and certified with firearms (due to his former occupation) but does not own any kind of firearm, and never will... barring a zombie Apocalypse.

But, I would not seek to remove that right from all, simply because I view you to be dangerously out of touch.

Here is what is dangerous: vigilantism. This is a subtle theme in our last few exchanges. Remember the Gun Appreciation Day a few weeks back where four or so gun owners at gun shows got shot? Have you ever heard of people going postal in their own homes and killing their entire family in murder suicides - using the same guns they bought to protect their family? Have you ever hear of children getting their hands on their parent's gun and blowing their brains out? Fuzzy not not out of touch in the least. Fuzzy is just keeping it real. It's this reality that has convinced Fuzzy that he doesn't need to own or carry a gun.

We're in full agreement on this. That's why I worded it the way I did. Fight OR flight. Preparing for both, and choosing the appropriate option.

Why are you so adamant that the fight option not be permitted to ordinary citizens? What has the citizenry done to earn your mistrust and contempt?

In most states, it's the law. You must try to flee before you kill somebody in self-defence. In Castle/Stand ground states, you don't have this obligation, but why not try to run? Why keep yourself in a dangerous situation? Why try to shoot at all costs just because it's legally permissible?

 

[redneckgymrat]

Vigilance against something that is almost certainly not going to happen?

The cost of freedom is eternal vigilance.

If it is your belief that it "almost certainly not going to happen," then why are *you* debating it? You've been at least as active in this thread as I.

It isn't just about the gun owner. It's about everyone around that owner/carrier who wants to avoid the danger of being around a gun -- especially a loaded gun.

It's their business too.

So, we're back to the guilty until proven innocent argument? I'd call it wrong, but that fails to do it justice.

There is an old saying that your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose. In other words, if the gun owner is not "misbehaving" or in any way infringing on his neighbors' rights, then no, it is *none* of their business. And, vice versa.

Feel free to be afraid of those who own guns. You can be as scared as you want. But, do NOT try to infringe upon their rights...and they won't infringe upon yours.

In most states, it's the law. You must try to flee before you kill somebody in self-defence. In Castle/Stand ground states, you don't have this obligation, but why not try to run? Why keep yourself in a dangerous situation? Why try to shoot at all costs just because it's legally permissible?

The underlying goal is not to shoot the intruder...the goal is to eliminate the danger.

If running away eliminates the danger, then that is the proper course of action. If shooting the intruder eliminates the danger, then that is the proper course of action.

When have I ever claimed that "shoot first and ask questions later" was the proper approach? And, even if it was, when I did claim it would be correct in all circumstances?

I asked you, before, Fuzzy...what has the citizenry done to earn your contempt and mistrust? It's obvious that you have a very low opinion of others.

 

[Fuzzy_]

The cost of freedom is eternal vigilance.

If it is your belief that it "almost certainly not going to happen," then why are *you* debating it? You've been at least as active in this thread as I.

32,000 gun-related murders per year. That's why. It's just just about the ban, it's about control, regulation, responsibility and culture.

But some people want to distill it down to a silly, antiquated amendment that does more harm than good.

So, we're back to the guilty until proven innocent argument? I'd call it wrong, but that fails to do it justice.

There is an old saying that your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose. In other words, if the gun owner is not "misbehaving" or in any way infringing on his neighbors' rights, then no, it is *none* of their business. And, vice versa.

If you are guilty of bringing an armed gun close to Fuzzy, then Fuzzy won't be happy. It infringes on Fuzzy's right to life, liberty and happiness. These are inalienable rights. If Fuzzy gets shot and survives, there will be hell to pay.

Feel free to be afraid of those who own guns. You can be as scared as you want. But, do NOT try to infringe upon their rights...and they won't infringe upon yours.

Fuzzy has been to over 30 US States and nowhere did Fuzzy find it socially acceptable to carry in parks, restaurants, department stores or other places where people go out and about. In fact, Fuzzy has rarely seen anyone carrying (just twice outside of a few protests). Just because it's legal doesn't mean that it's socially acceptable.


Having worked with victims of violent crime for the past few years, Fuzzy has seen first-hand the devastating emotional, financial and social effects of horrible violence. This is reality, not just hypothetical situations or academic discourse. The OVC has helped a great deal. Victims are getting more compensation than ever. In Vermont, judges can not only impose criminal sentences, but also civil restitution at the same time (it's much harder to get restitution after a conviction). We need more help to reduce violent crime and give some power to victims, including legal standing in the courtroom and parole hearings.

Fuzzy works with these people, face to face, eye to eye. They aren't just stats. Feel free to quibble about rights as women are raped at gunpoint, children are slaughtered and idiots accidentally shoot themselves.

The underlying goal is not to shoot the intruder...the goal is to eliminate the danger.

If running away eliminates the danger, then that is the proper course of action. If shooting the intruder eliminates the danger, then that is the proper course of action.

When have I ever claimed that "shoot first and ask questions later" was the proper approach? And, even if it was, when I did claim it would be correct in all circumstances?

We seem to mostly agree on this, although it seems as if fleeing might be the obvious first choice.

One problem with vigilantism is that it doesn't solve crimes, although it may prevent a crime. Law enforcement both prevents crimes and solves crimes. If they are able to apprehend a criminal without killing them, they can get access to a wealth of information that they just can't get from a dead body. Fuzzy was in a Forensics Identification lab last week and, in a way, rooms and corpses do 'talk', but an investigator can get far more information from a confession, and an attorney can get far more information from a plea bargain.

I asked you, before, Fuzzy...what has the citizenry done to earn your contempt and mistrust? It's obvious that you have a very low opinion of others.

It's not the citizenry. It's the 32,000 dead from gun violence who have no voice. Fuzzy has a very low opinion of those who want to do nothing prevent these deaths because of their paranoia, selfishness or immaturity.

Apparently, a parent needing an assault weapon in their home to protect their children from imaginary dangers justifies the real possibility of such guns killing children in the real world.

 

[redneckgymrat]

But some people want to distill it down to a silly, antiquated amendment that does more harm than good.

And this is the crux of the matter. There are 2 issues involved.

1) It is an Amendment, which makes it legally part of the Constitution. If you want to change it or even rescind it, then there is in place an amendment process through which it would have to be done.

2) More harm than good. I wholeheartedly believe that the 2nd Amendment has done far more good than harm, through the 200+ years of our history.

If you are guilty of bringing an armed gun close to Fuzzy, then Fuzzy won't be happy. It infringes on Fuzzy's right to life, liberty and happiness. These are inalienable rights. If Fuzzy gets shot and survives, there will be hell to pay.

So, if I have a gun and shoot you, then your rights are infringed. Okay. We're in agreement on that one.

But, if I merely have a gun on my person, probably concealed due to the concealed carry laws in most states, and I do not shoot it at you, then in what way has this infringed on your right to life or liberty? (And happiness is not a right, only its pursuit) In fact, if my gun is properly concealed, you'll never know I had it.

Your fear of the mere existence of a gun (which I would call irrational) does not negate my right to be armed.

Fuzzy has been to over 30 US States

I'm guessing Texas was not on your list.

and nowhere did Fuzzy find it socially acceptable to carry in parks, restaurants, department stores or other places where people go out and about. In fact, Fuzzy has rarely seen anyone carrying (just twice outside of a few protests). Just because it's legal doesn't mean that it's socially acceptable.

Are you even familiar with the term concealed? If you do it right, then the people around you can't see the gun. That's the point of concealing it.

If you visit the area where I live, which is a rural community, almost everyone is armed. Probably at least 3 out of every 4 adults has a gun on them. Guns are a tool that we see and which are used, daily. And it's not a problem.

In fact, it is surprising when, in casual conversation, you discover that someone isn't armed.

I took my dad with me to a store the other day, and it had a gun counter. An elderly man struck up a conversation with my dad while I was shopping. My dad is only now getting interested in the whole "concealed carry" thing, so this tiny old man showed him his IWB holster and gun...my dad was amazed at the ease and comfort he had in showing him the full sized 1911 he had tucked in the small of his back, which my dad was unaware was even there.

That's the point.

It was just guy talk...I was looking at a 9mm CZ while this whole thing was going on.

Legal gun owners are polite, lovely, honest, wonderful people. The extraordinarily tiny number of nutjobs should not ruin it for everyone, and the insane approach being taken by our elected officials will do absolutely nothing to ensure that guns will not be obtained by these nutjobs.

Having worked with victims of violent crime for the past few years,

What an amazing career choice. You get to help people in a very vulnerable state. I applaud you, good sir.

It's not the citizenry. It's the 32,000 dead from gun violence who have no voice. Fuzzy has a very low opinion of those who want to do nothing prevent these deaths because of their paranoia, selfishness or immaturity.

Prevention of these deaths is a laudable goal. I wholeheartedly agree with this goal, and support you in that effort.

But be aware that I absolutely disagree with your approach. And, are you implying that those who disagree with your approach are in some way paranoid, selfish, or immature?

Not to change the subject, but I have a question for you about those 32,000 deaths. How many of them were involved in, and died as a victim of crime? Remember, I live in Texas. The vast majority of "gun violence" here is not simply because someone who happens to own a gun is being violent. It's related to criminal activities, especially the drug trade that crosses the border, etc.

I suspect, and given your job you might be in an ideal position to get me the real numbers, that the amount of gun violence that is unrelated to criminal activity is miniscule. Could you find out that statistic for me, please?

 

[StormfrontFL]

Again, where am I saying that they should be invalidated? I don't say it. Quit putting words in my mouth.

Quit trying to play the victim. In my original post I stated that you regularly post that criminals ignore the laws so new laws would also be ignored. Instead of accepting what was the truth you came back with the idea that I claimed you wanted to do away with all laws.

Just once be honest. You continuously post that criminals would still break the law to obtain guns so making new laws would be pointless so why argue when someone piggy backs on your argument and states that since murders would still happen despite it being against the law we should then just do away with that law? You believe that since laws would be ignored they are useless so that would also apply to all laws.

Now where did I say that you wanted to abolish all laws? Did you miss the part where I stated that it is ridiculous for you to argue when someone uses yYou continuously post that criminals would still break the law to obour "criminals ignore the law" argument and they then take it to the point that since laws are ignored they are not needed?

 

[JTalbain]

Look at Fast and Furious, gun running scheme by Holder and Obama. They forced dealers to sell to people they knew were straw purchasers.

Are you referring to this? The plan they put in place to try to fight illegal arms trafficking and drug trade between the US and Mexico? How does that equate to anything like what you claimed it is?

You're assuming that more stringent measures would stop people from obtaining guns. Look at Fast and Furious again. Look at black markets. Look at how many drugs cross the border.

Look at the measures being taken to beef up enforcement. That's a rather inconvenient truth.

Don't put words in my mouth. There are laws against murder. Murders still occur. Criminals mock society's laws.

Where did I say that those laws should be struck from the books?

Sorry Storm, though I could well be wrong, since I haven't really followed your dialogue all that closely, I'm inclined to side with HM again here. Don't see where he stated/implied what you're accusing him of?

Please feel free to correct me, as there's a likely chance I'm wrong in my defense.

Again, where am I saying that they should be invalidated? I don't say it. Quit putting words in my mouth.

Okay, let's run it down here:

1) You oppose any increased legislative gun control, on the grounds that legislation is ineffective at controlling criminal action.
2) You say criminals do not obey laws, going so far as to say they mock them, so no laws restricting gun ownership will actually control them.
3) You do not say that this stops at gun control laws, even pointing out that laws have not stopped criminals from raping, stealing, or murdering.
4) Therefore, you feel all such laws are ineffective, and YOU lump them together.
5) Your proposal is that gun control laws should not be on the books, having no effect on criminal activity.
6) Conclusion: you feel all laws regarding murder, rape, and theft should be stricken from the books, since they do not affect criminal activity.

 

[JTalbain]

Fuzzy, you're certainly entitled to your opinion, but are you kidding me? Why would any person flee their home when they could easily (one would hope) protect themselves from intrusion. To me, retreating in the hypothetical you raised is spineless. If someone is trying to break into my home, I will not care about his or her intentions. My personal domain is being grossly violated, and you expect me to scatter like roaches when a light is flicked on? No sir, that is insanity to me.

I think that this is a fundamental disconnect here. The stance that Fuzzy argues from is very basic; the value of your possessions, privacy, etc. pale in comparison to the value of a human life. This is a view that you clearly don't share. If the situation is as Fuzzy said, and it is a junkie picking the lock on your front door to try stealing a couple hundred dollars or so of pharmaceuticals from your medicine cabinet before leaving without attempting to attack anyone, you seem to feel that the value of those pharmaceuticals outweighs the criminal's right to life. Just to be clear, YOUR SAFETY is not a consideration in this belief, because when given an equivalent action to preserve your safety (leaving the area), you call the act "spineless" and deem it unworthy of consideration.

Have you ever worked for a retail chain by chance? There is something that they pretty much all have in common: their stance on what to do in case of a robbery. Just give the person what they want so they'll leave, remember any physical details you can in order to aid law enforcement, and contact the police as soon as possible. Why do they take this stance? They surely don't want to get robbed, and they want you to take measures to get their stuff back, but in the end, life is more important than stuff.

Not saying that I agree with everything Fuzzy says 100%, but I think that I see where he is coming from. As for one other thing that has been stated by you:

They COULD, there's the key! Would you stake your life on it? There's been a decent amount of instances just this week where armed intruders (guns and knives) were kept at bay by gun wielding owners. It's possible cops might have arrived in time. It's also possible they would have been slaughtered by the intruders.

FBI — Expanded Homicide Data Table 10
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc.../crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl15.xls
According to the crime tables from 2011 from the FBI, 1,816 people were killed by firearms due to another felony being comminted. That's robberies, rapes, burglaries, all felonies combined. Additonally, adding all justifiable homicides from all weapon types together for the five year stretch of 2006-2010 is still only 1304. Meanwhile, 3,282 people were killed in 2011 alone due to an escalation from an argument. That is what Fuzzy is talking about when he says guns being there can cause more harm than good. Yes, if your family is being cornered by a crazed gunman, there is the possibility that having a gun there could save everyone by allowing you to kill the gunman. There is also the possibility that you could fail and cause the gunman to kill everybody, when there was a perfectly viable option to escape instead. Meanwhile, despite all of the possibilities of what could happen in these very unusual situations, about 9 people die daily in the US alone from gunfire during the very common circumstance of having a heated argument. At some point it needs to be asked, where do we draw the line? As Fuzzy asked, at what point are we just trying

to distill it down to a silly, antiquated amendment that does more harm than good

?

 

[AtomicMouse1950]

Ok, I admittedly hadn't done much research, as I have nothing whatsoever against VOLUNTARY buybacks, which are nothing like the bill being proposed by CA state senators.

So you hadn't done much in the way of research, but you were willing to call me out on what I wrote about buy backs? Once someone from your side of the argument agrees with what I wrote, now, to you, it becomes reasonable??? Really???!!!! :tool::tool::asshole::nana::nana::nana::spank::spank::spank::wtf2::wtf2::wtf2::loser:

 

[redneckgymrat]

So you hadn't done much in the way of research, but you were willing to call me out on what I wrote about buy backs? Once someone from your side of the argument agrees with what I wrote, now, to you, it becomes reasonable??? Really???!!!! :tool::tool::asshole::nana::nana::nana::spank::spank::spank::wtf2::wtf2::wtf2::loser:

Just as there are sore losers, there are sore winners as well. Please, show some level of good sportsmanship.

You were discussing apples and oranges. You mentioned a buyback program, he mentioned a "gun grab" currently being debated by the California legislature.

No one can know truly 100% of everything about a subject. This is a subject dear to my heart...so when someone a little better informed about the California buybacks, for whom he obviously has at least a little respect (thanks for the compliment, Eric8!) pointed out the fallacy, he adjusted his position.

This is a Conservative trait...a willingness to listen, and reconsider if appropriate.

Please, take notice of that.

 

[JTalbain]

This is a Conservative trait...a willingness to listen, and reconsider if appropriate.

Please... don't try to tie that trait to a political ideology. I can name about 40 Conservatives in the Senate from 2009 to 2011 who weren't exactly exhibiting it.

 

[AtomicMouse1950]

it seems to me... most responsible gun owners, would agree that military styled weapons are over the top, and the Gov't isn't out to confiscate all guns. Buy backs is the likely solution. But some, pro-gun folks on this message board, do seem to have a disconnect, when reasoned arguments are brought forward. They tend to ignore the facts provided. They tend to point fingers at those of us who are anti-gun, saying we're emotional in our arguments, and yet... It seems to me, that they are the emotional ones. To say that they really haven't done the proper research... that I believe is correct by some. And yet there has been ample information provided, if the pro-gun folks would only look at the articles provided. There has to be some sort or reasonable responsible guns laws put in place. We're over the top here, on the types of weapons available to the general public, and yet, the Military and Cops, have to learn to train( 6 weeks) on the very same weapons that civilians can get a hold of. Don't the pro-gun people on this message board not understand how "whack"(=)"crazy" that is??? Military/Cops have to train, civilians don't? Yes we're guaranteed the Rights of free speech...but there have been amendments to that Right... In regards to "slander" and "libel" which does occur in "free Speech". The Framers to the Constitution knew that, they couldn't forecast for every contingency to the Bill of Rights, that's why they gave Congress the powers that it has, now. They knew there would be amendments that would have to be put in place. The NRA wants gun owners to believe that the "Right to bear arms" cannot nor should not be amended. That's bull! It seems even more clear now, in the wake of Sandy Hook and the 1,000+ related gun deaths since then, that amendments to that Right need to be put in place... in order to "assure domestic tranquility" of it's people. It is, to me, reasonable that most gun owners would like to see changes made to the Second Amendment, especially since Sandy Hook. Violence is out of hand. Shouldn't be be able to feel safe in our surroundings? Domestic Tranquility??

 

[AtomicMouse1950]

This isn't about who wins and who loses, in this argument. It's about safety, real safety. If you can live your life, with the assurance that, your safe from harm for you and your family isn't that worth, looking into amendments that could further that aim? Once again you've missed the point entirely.

Just as there are sore losers, there are sore winners as well. Please, show some level of good sportsmanship.

You were discussing apples and oranges. You mentioned a buyback program, he mentioned a "gun grab" currently being debated by the California legislature.

No one can know truly 100% of everything about a subject. This is a subject dear to my heart...so when someone a little better informed about the California buybacks, for whom he obviously has at least a little respect (thanks for the compliment, Eric8!) pointed out the fallacy, he adjusted his position.

This is a Conservative trait...a willingness to listen, and reconsider if appropriate.

Please, take notice of that.

 

[redneckgymrat]

This isn't about who wins and who loses, in this argument. It's about safety, real safety.
...
Once again you've missed the point entirely.

Actually, my comment was about, specifically, your little outburst with all the emoticons.

Very bad form.

If my opponents score a point, I congratulate them on a job well done. That is the essence of good sportsmanship.

I understood your point. I also understand the implications of how you expressed it. It seems to me that you are the one who missed my point.

 

[Eric_8]

Are you referring to this? The plan they put in place to try to fight illegal arms trafficking and drug trade between the US and Mexico? How does that equate to anything like what you claimed it is?

Look at the measures being taken to beef up enforcement. That's a rather inconvenient truth.





Okay, let's run it down here:

1) You oppose any increased legislative gun control, on the grounds that legislation is ineffective at controlling criminal action.
2) You say criminals do not obey laws, going so far as to say they mock them, so no laws restricting gun ownership will actually control them.
3) You do not say that this stops at gun control laws, even pointing out that laws have not stopped criminals from raping, stealing, or murdering.
4) Therefore, you feel all such laws are ineffective, and YOU lump them together.
5) Your proposal is that gun control laws should not be on the books, having no effect on criminal activity.
6) Conclusion: you feel all laws regarding murder, rape, and theft should be stricken from the books, since they do not affect criminal activity.

The key difference: nowhere in our Constitution is raping, stealing, or murdering a right. Regardless of those laws effectiveness (or lack thereof), the acts in and of themselves are wrong...bearing arms is not.