Every time someone has a lapse of judgment with a firearm in the US nowadays, the anti-guns people go insane. Piers Morgan was going uber gun control tonight on his program - wishing we were disarmed. Gun confiscation. I'm just sitting here listening to the re-run thinking 'wow'.
nfl is now in with the NWO programing [video=youtube;V28VRpeqLbk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V28VRpeqLbk[/video]
I am 100% against gun confiscation, however, I do think there is such a thing as reasonable gun control. It's a balance.
Let them take the guns, that's how you'll know it is time to build more, and use them. You don't need a gun to kill; knife, car, power outlet, poison, germs, garrot, hell, just a good old fist full of ROCK. Only tyrants and criminals fear an armed citizenry. How quickly the Left is turning to fascism and tyranny, and the fiscal collapse isn't even rolling yet. Hope and change and the socialist utopia, yeah... -
We don't need guns....only box cutters to cause terrorism. Take away the box cutters...now there...you could have something.
I don't think that taking away peoples' guns would actually help anything. I suppose there would be fewer accidental deaths, mostly of children, which is the most compelling case I can think of for gun control -- but I honestly believe that children will be worse off if their parents can't have firearms when they do need them. Everybody's got their line on gun control, I suppose. On one end of the spectrum you have people that feel that Muslims shouldn't have nukes, and that's the only restriction they would make. On the end, you have people that feel that no one should be allowed to own or carry anything built for the express purpose of killing humans. I think the debate over firearms is pointless and distracting from the real issues of higher-tech weaponry.
You don't need to get worked up about Costas' baloney. The USSC has already ensured the right to keep and bear handguns inside your homes everywhere that the US flag flies. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
The debate in the USA is actually over as far as handguns go. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf Handgun control is a dead issue. The USSC has seen to that. Whether gas operated magazine fed semiauto rifles will be "controlled" or not has not yet been decided -- it is a totally separate issue.
I'm not reading 150 pages, so I just read the first two. I have just a few contentions. 1) I said gun control, period. Not specifically handguns. 2) Gun control is not all about banning guns, which that specific case was about. Gun control addresses a variety of issues that the case you cited three times in a row (unnecessary imo) did not address that have nothing to do with banning guns. 3) Should the mentally handicapped be allowed to own guns? How about criminals who have not been rehabilitated?
The typical psycho is male and in his 20s and unpredictable. Ergo there is nothing that can be done about this problem. And x-con's would be violating their parole if they were caught possessing a firearm.
In both cases, I think it would depend on their record, and the advice of some sort of expert. And a judge. I'm not really sure how it actually works now.
Sorry, I'm not buying the notion that we should try to do nothing about the "problem". If we don't seek solutions, we'll never have them.
I think you're first person I've ever seen saying that. Specifically, confiscation of what, from whom?
Bull(*)(*)(*)(*). In almost every case of a mentally handicapped person losing it and hurting other people, there's always at least one person that says they saw signs that something wasn't right beforehand. The problem IS fixable, and it starts with taking proper care of the mentally disabled, something we do NOT do in this country. So clearly handgun control is not as dead as you originally claimed.
In other words, you want to give criminals and government (though why I separate the two is beyond me) the unchallenged ability to do whatever they want without law-abiding citizens having any defense against it. You are advocating disarming good people against tyranny.
That would make some places a lot more dangerous. Not uninhabitable, of course -- I believe humanity did get along without guns for a while -- but considerably more difficult to inhabit. You'll be turning a lot of people into supermarket-dependent city-folk.
And you sound like a transparant devil's advocate. You know full well you can't "rise against" jack (*)(*)(*)(*) without a gun.