Gun Control

[jcueckert13]

an example of why you dont want the government to know what you have is california. in the mid 80's the californian government made all the people who owned a semi auto rifle called the sks register their guns. guess what gun was the first for california to ban? it was the sks. for most law abiding gun owners these guns are only tools, just like a chainsaw or a hammer. it is true that there are people who will use guns to commit crimes but there are also many other things used that dont get the same attention. when was the last time you saw the government try to ban pocket knifes because someone got stabbed(the exception is colorado where there are size restrictions)? or even better when was the last time the government tried to ban penisius because of the amount of rapes? just like anything else the criminal needs to deal with the consiquences of his/her actions instead of blaming the crime on a object. like i said earlier look at australia where guns have been removed from the picture and you have people using swords instead

 

[heyjoeo]

I never proposed a ban on guns. Did I say that? I'm pretty sure I said knowing who has what guns and making sure the responsibility of that gun is the owner's and if that gun is used for a crime, it's as much as their fault as it is the criminal who used it. (Of course there would be circumstances where this wouldn't apply). I NEVER proposed a ban. And because stop the incorrect conclusions you come across. Think before you type. Please.

 

[jcueckert13]

you didnt say anything about baning guns but you did suggest gun registration and i gave you an example of where the government used a list of people who owned sks's to ban the sks. if you would read my entire post instead of only reading select portions you might be able to understand what i am saying

 

[heyjoeo]

I understand that. I'm saying the government SHOULDN'T use those lists to ban guns. They should use those lists to monitor the number and the location of guns are around the state. ESPECIALLY ones used as "people-killers."

Also, if you formatted your typing, maybe I'd be more inclined to read it.

 

[Pacridge]

I never proposed a ban on guns. Did I say that? I'm pretty sure I said knowing who has what guns and making sure the responsibility of that gun is the owner's and if that gun is used for a crime, it's as much as their fault as it is the criminal who used it. (Of course there would be circumstances where this wouldn't apply). I NEVER proposed a ban. And because stop the incorrect conclusions you come across. Think before you type. Please.

It's an all or nothing issue to some. You'll never convince some members of society that any gun laws are appropriate or needed. And when you propose any- they'll scream you're trying to take away all guns from everyone. There was a time when the NRA fought gun laws that kept convicted felons from purchasing hand guns (I honestly don't know if they still take that position). With that type of reasoning and logic at work, you'll never win.

BTW- Your ability to convey your point through written text is commendable. Thank-you for taking the time to proof read what you post.

 

[CSA_TX]

heyjoeo per your post regarding the kid killing himself if he finds the gun. Perhaps you were refering to this stat.

Those who oppose the use of firearms for self-defense have for fourteen years quoted a study by Arthur Kellermann and Donald Reay published in the June 12, 1986 issue of New England Journal of Medicine (v. 314, n. 24, p. 1557-60) which concluded that a firearm in the home is "43 times more likely" to be used to kill a member of the household than to kill a criminal intruder. This "statistic" is used regularly by anti self-protection groups which surely know better, and was even published recently without question in a letter to the Ann Arbor News. Representative Liz Brater cited this "43 times" number in a House committee hearing just a year ago. Thus the original study and its conclusion deserve careful analysis. If nothing else, the repeated use of this "statistic" demonstrates how a grossly inaccurate statement can become a "truth" with sufficient repetition by the compliant and non-critical media.
​

Yikes 43 times more likely we better ban them and control them now. However as I continue down the article I find this.

In conclusion a firearm kept in a home is at least 167 times more likely to deter criminal attack than to harm a person in the home. This number is some 7000 times more positive than the "43 times" negative figure so often quoted. Should groups and individuals that knowingly perpetuate a figure that is at least 7000 times too large be given any credence at all?
​

With two million defensive uses of firearms each year, both inside and outside the home, the value of protection against criminal assault provided by firearms vastly exceeds any dangers that they might present.
​

So my conclusion is leave my damn guns alone. What I own is no ones business but mine. Gun registation and control do not work.

source http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=2331

 

[Fantasea]

Irrespective of all else, what's the plan to get many millions of firearms out of the hands of the criminal element?

 

[Rhadamanthus]

Apart from resting firearms from the hands of criminal the manufacture and distribution of assault style weapons should be made illigal.

 

[Mr.America]

Gun Control is suposed to keep chriminals from getting ahold of firearms, but the only people that you are keeping guns from are law abiding citizens.

No one can deny the ineluctable fact that guns were created to take lives, but you also can't deny the fact that a chriminal with a gun wouldn't attempt to assult you if he saw you had a gun.

 

[Rhadamanthus]

do the law abiding citizens nead assault type weapons?

 

[jcueckert13]

do the law abiding citizens nead assault type weapons?

yes they do. if you read the statements made by the founding fathers reguarding the creation and purpose of the second amendment it was created to insure that the government remained acountable to the citizens. also define an assault weapon. i will give you a hint there is only one gun that is an assault weapon and it was made in germany towards the end of ww2 and its name translates to assault weapon.

 

[Fantasea]

yes they do. if you read the statements made by the founding fathers reguarding the creation and purpose of the second amendment it was created to insure that the government remained acountable to the citizens. also define an assault weapon. i will give you a hint there is only one gun that is an assault weapon and it was made in germany towards the end of ww2 and its name translates to assault weapon.

Are you expecting that the citizens will have to rise up in armed revolt to defend themselves against troops enforcing the Patriot Act?

If so, what sort of arsenal would you prescribe for each household?

If not, wouldn't sporting guns for those who target, skeet, and hunt suffice?

 

[Fantasea]

Gun Control is suposed to keep chriminals from getting ahold of firearms, but the only people that you are keeping guns from are law abiding citizens.

No one can deny the ineluctable fact that guns were created to take lives, but you also can't deny the fact that a chriminal with a gun wouldn't attempt to assult you if he saw you had a gun.

As the saying goes, "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

 

[Rhadamanthus]

yes they do. if you read the statements made by the founding fathers reguarding the creation and purpose of the second amendment it was created to insure that the government remained acountable to the citizens. also define an assault weapon. i will give you a hint there is only one gun that is an assault weapon and it was made in germany towards the end of ww2 and its name translates to assault weapon.

The age of revolution in America by might of arms is over. The battles now must be won on an intalectual front. There is no way the common people can compete with the govornment in military might.

 

[Fantasea]

yes they do. if you read the statements made by the founding fathers reguarding the creation and purpose of the second amendment it was created to insure that the government remained acountable to the citizens. also define an assault weapon. i will give you a hint there is only one gun that is an assault weapon and it was made in germany towards the end of ww2 and its name translates to assault weapon.

Excepting hunting and target practice, the one and only purpose of any firearm is to kill people. Since killing someone is, without a doubt, the epitome of assault upon his person, tell me, please, what kind of firearms are not 'assault weapons'?

 

[jcueckert13]

Excepting hunting and target practice, the one and only purpose of any firearm is to kill people. Since killing someone is, without a doubt, the epitome of assault upon his person, tell me, please, what kind of firearms are not 'assault weapons'?

so by your definition couldent a knife also be consitered a assault weapon? or what about a club? my point is that it is impossible to use the term assault weapon to define a certain firearm or group of firearms because if you take the literal meaning of assault weapon it can be applied to a variaty of objects ranging from knifes to axes to crow bars to guns.

the purpose of my statement was to point out that (and my point has been proven by the fact that Rhadamanthus has not answered my question of what an assault weapon is) certain people lack the ability to think for themselves and turn to terms that have been created to make people be afraid of an object. the nazis created one of the first small semi auto rifles and named it the strum gewehr which translated is assault weapon. the idea was to strike fear in to the enemy. today the mostly liberal media uses this same term to scare the citizens of the united states into beliving that there is a need for tougher restrictions.

Rhadamanthus you are incorrect in assuming that we can use intelectual warfare to regain control of the government. just like in stalins russia if the intilectuals try to take control of the government they are out numbered and if unarmed can be removed without any problems. there is only one way to insure that a government answers to the people and that is if the people are armed. the us military may have superior weaponry but there are very few people serving in the military that would follow orders to fight against american citizens on american soil.

 

[Rhadamanthus]

In my mind an assault weapon is (in the case of guns) on of the many automatic weapon that makes it possible to hold down the trigger and kill many many people in an exeptionaly short time. One man with a knife could not kill say, a hundred unarmed individuals, but one man armed with an automatic weapon would probably have no problem dispatching that many people. What would happen if a certain large number of you 'armed citizens' with assault style weaponery decided to masacre a large number of unarmed citizens or maybe a large number of just not so well armed people? What would happen then? Do you think that the police force armed with there small semi automatic pistols would ever be able to quell them? The govornment would never be able to help. Controle if the govornment is possible by intelectuals. That is indeed the only way to take ones govornment over. And what makes you believe that all of the solders would feel that the govornment neads controle? You certainly arn't going to be shooting at senators. It is the police officers, the national gaurd, those are the people that will be killed. And see how happy they are to except your 'armed populace' when they are being shot at. Any one who entertains the idea of controle of the govornment is living in the past.

And my opinion. Sigmund Freud is a Sex ubsorbed idiot.

 

[Fantasea]

so by your definition couldent a knife also be consitered a assault weapon? or what about a club? my point is that it is impossible to use the term assault weapon to define a certain firearm or group of firearms because if you take the literal meaning of assault weapon it can be applied to a variaty of objects ranging from knifes to axes to crow bars to guns.

the purpose of my statement was to point out that (and my point has been proven by the fact that Rhadamanthus has not answered my question of what an assault weapon is) certain people lack the ability to think for themselves and turn to terms that have been created to make people be afraid of an object. the nazis created one of the first small semi auto rifles and named it the strum gewehr which translated is assault weapon. the idea was to strike fear in to the enemy. today the mostly liberal media uses this same term to scare the citizens of the united states into beliving that there is a need for tougher restrictions.

Rhadamanthus you are incorrect in assuming that we can use intelectual warfare to regain control of the government. just like in stalins russia if the intilectuals try to take control of the government they are out numbered and if unarmed can be removed without any problems. there is only one way to insure that a government answers to the people and that is if the people are armed. the us military may have superior weaponry but there are very few people serving in the military that would follow orders to fight against american citizens on american soil.

I was going on the understanding that the subject being discussed was firearms.

I'm not sure what you are advocating, but are you suggesting that individuals arm themselves in preparation for an uprising?

 

[jcueckert13]

Rhadamanthus your definition of an assault weapon is of somthing that has been illegal in the us since 1934. the only way you can own a full auto firearm is to have a class 3 ffl(federal firearms licence) which is not only hard to get but extremly expensive. the cheapest full auto guns start at about 10 grand and the licence as i recall has a 500 dollar a year cost per gun.

Rhadamanthus you seem to make the case that more guns on the street will raise crime . if that is true why is it that every state that has passed concealed carry laws has seen a drop in crime?

what i am advocating is not a revolution(at least not yet) but american citizens need to remain armed and be prepaired if the situation arises. today you hear people complain that the government is controled by the corperations, of the wealthy. why is this? it is because our representitives have no reason to fear the people and becase they can get re-elected by making the same promices they made 4 years ago. the promices work because most voters dont pay attention to what goes on in government and only begin to pay attention at the start of the election season.

 

[Fantasea]

what i am advocating is not a revolution(at least not yet) but american citizens need to remain armed and be prepaired if the situation arises. today you hear people complain that the government is controled by the corperations, of the wealthy. why is this? it is because our representitives have no reason to fear the people and becase they can get re-elected by making the same promices they made 4 years ago. the promices work because most voters dont pay attention to what goes on in government and only begin to pay attention at the start of the election season.

Rather than give corporations credit for building the US to its present state of greatness, those folks who are moaning and groaning are, for the most part the malcontents and ner-do-wells who have reached middle age and find that they match the description Henry David Thoreau laid out when he observed, "The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation. ... "

Having allowed opportunities to slip by, failing to equip themselves to keep up with advances; assumed a too frivolous, instead of a sufficiently serious stance; they realize that the chance to improve their station in life has faded. Rather than admit to the possibility that it was not the cards they were dealt, but the way they played the hand is what separates them from the more successful, they seek to place the blame on everyone and everything else -- mostly corporations and politicians.

So, do you think it would help to nationalize all the corporations, tax the wealth from those who have it for redistribution to those who lack it? Would that placate all those complainers to whom you refer? Would they then feel less inclined to arm themselves against a government that exercised complete control over their lives?

 

[jcueckert13]

i think a perfect example of how the government is no longer accountable to the people is that politicians care more about what the world thinks than the voters and american taxpayers. personally i belive that redistribution of wealth is the last thing a government should ever do. and that it is not the governments place to insure that a 700lb woman on welfare is built a house with doors large enough for her 6 foot wide ass to fit through. or even better why should american citizens foot the bill for an organization like the un when the un does not have our best interests in mind.

 

[Fantasea]

i think a perfect example of how the government is no longer accountable to the people is that politicians care more about what the world thinks than the voters and american taxpayers. personally i belive that redistribution of wealth is the last thing a government should ever do. and that it is not the governments place to insure that a 700lb woman on welfare is built a house with doors large enough for her 6 foot wide ass to fit through. or even better why should american citizens foot the bill for an organization like the un when the un does not have our best interests in mind.

I like the way it is expressed in the following quote:

Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.
H. L. Mencken
US editor (1880 - 1956)

So you see, what we are discussing is not a new phenomenon.

 

[Rhadamanthus]

i think a perfect example of how the government is no longer accountable to the people is that politicians care more about what the world thinks than the voters and american taxpayers. personally i belive that redistribution of wealth is the last thing a government should ever do. and that it is not the governments place to insure that a 700lb woman on welfare is built a house with doors large enough for her 6 foot wide ass to fit through. or even better why should american citizens foot the bill for an organization like the un when the un does not have our best interests in mind.

The fact that you deem everyone on welfare to be undeserving disturbes me. Surely a few people abuse the govornment help but all and all I think that there are a lot of people out there who are able to live because of welfare.

The UN is the only way that anything will ever happen on a global leval. The balance of power shifts back and fourth and without the UN it would be easy for more people like Hitler to arise. The fact the UN does not acomplish as much as we would wish is partly because it is not enabled. Untell it gets more power it will only ever acomplish a fraction of what it would if it had more assets at its command.

And the politiciand do care more about what the world thinks than the voters, or at least 51 percent of the voters.

 

[jcueckert13]

there are a few people that need help but overall there is way to much abuse of the system.
and the un is a completly useless orginization. when the world was pissed at the us over the abu graib pictures they over looked the fact that un peace keepers in africa were raping women and children. in 12 years of resolutions to deal with saddam the un did create another hitler. saddam was murdering his own people while certain people in the where reciving bribes to be alies with saddam. the un is a good idea but a majority of its funding comes from the us taxpayers.

 

[Kenneth T. Cornelius]

Now maybe if Jew's had owned guns...

If the Jews had tried to use any sort of force they would have been slaughtered much more openly that was actually the case. The Nazis would have been gleeful.