You should know why we went into Iraq and Afghanistan. Why not? It is the big cities that are the problem.
Actually, my war was the first gulf war... Bush's war is a mystery to everyone as far as I can tell. A city does not have any real tangible borders or customs checkpoints, so weapons can cross back and forth into and out of the "gun control" area. NATIONAL programs in other first-world countries are the only thing really comparable to a proposed NATIONAL program here.
I acn't help you then on this one. Oh yeah, the U.S. borders, especially the southern one, are so secure. Nothing gets through there.
"law abiding citizens" who can pass a background check perform straw purchases for criminals. "law abiding citizens" who purchase weapons but don't make serious attempts to secure them are responsible for "accidental" shootings; not to mention their negligence puts weapons into the hands of theives who have an easy time stealing them. Nancy Lanza was a "law abiding citizen".
lots of assumption there, lil' feller Since you're so fond of assumptions, you assuming that we should build walls around our cities as well..............now, there's pure genious at work here, folks............ ............and Nancy lanza paid for it with her life.....want more justice, go dig up her body and beat her to death one more time
Women are responsible for getting raped when their negligence puts them in a situation where they are alone with the guy who rapes them. Or maybe we should actually blame the criminal who stole the gun rather than the victim who had their property stolen. Straw purchasers are criminals, what they do is against the law and they can be punished under the current law (and even tracked down using the current system in place). Citizens who have their guns stolen are victims, not criminals, and shouldn't be punished for what a worthless piece of criminal trash did to them. Nancy Lanza was a victim who was murdered and robbed. Her son was a criminal, she was not.
So you don't know why we were there either...? Sounds pretty random to me. You're right. It'll be just as easy for the average gangbanger to get a gun over the border as it currently is in a country that has more licensed gun dealers than grocery stores...
False analogy. A gun is an inanimate object that can perform only one function: cause lethal wounds. Right, so if I purchase a gun and hand it to a friend of mine - and he commits a crime with it (effectively a straw purchase), I can just claim this friend of mine stole it and suddenly I'm the victim... Or, if he legitimately did steal it because I never bothered to secure it (never bought any hardware with which to lock it up), I'm not in any way responsible for providing access to the weapon that he used to rape, rob, murder, etc? I see, she has no responsibility for providing Adam access to firearms and failing to get him into psychiatric treatment, but you think that the government should somehow be able to identify the "crazies" of the world and prevent ONLY THEM from getting guns... Maybe they should fart glitter at the same time...
You can't stop everything, and you can't regulate stupid. People need to be more responsible with where they keep their guns, especially if their are known mentally ill folks living there.
Who cares how many gun dealers their are? What does that have to do with anything? The fact remains that guns will make it across the border if guns are ever banned here.
A typical foolish statement. Guns are far more often used to tear holes in paper than to cause wounds of any kind. Regardless you were talking about blaming victims and so was I. Either stand by your intent and blame ALL victims for crimes that they could have prevented, or stop trying blame people who's guns were stolen for what criminals did with those guns. For the first part, if multiple guns bought by one individual are found in criminal hands or used in crimes, it is very clear that individual was engaged in straw purchasing. Charges can easily be brought against that person and that person will see jail time. Hundreds of straw purchasers are convicted every year through exactly that method. As for the second part, if you have something stolen, you are not in any way responsible for what is done with that stolen item. If you are, then we need to start convicting victims for their money being used to buy illegal drugs, for their items being used in other crimes, for their items being illegally sold, etc. If a person has their car stolen, and that stolen car is used to get away from a robbery the same criminals do a few minutes later, would you hold the owner of the stolen car responsible for the robbery? You can't blame a victim for the actions of a criminal. If you do, you need to do so equally across the board. Either everyone is responsible for anything that is done with any property they have stolen from them, or only the criminals are responsible. She didn't "provide Adam access to firearms", he stole them from her. She did take him to a psychiatrist, but obviously we won't ever learn much about what came from that, since such records aren't public. Regardless, I don't expect the government to be able to keep guns out of the hands of such people. That is impossible to ever do. Even if every law-abiding citizen was disarmed, a few crazy people would still be able to get firearms. All the government should do is make it illegal to sell firearms to such people (which it already has) then try to maintain records on people who are disqualified from buying firearms for such reasons. This provides a good balance of freedom and safety.
he gets it, he wants everyone disarmed. Period. Gun registration has ALWAYS lead to confiscation. That is the only reason he supports this and any excuse to get it done. Any pathway to make us become subjects. Let's not forget, he'll be glad to kill you with his gun to get yours.
The fact is they are not designed for punching holes in paper. What you are referring to is "circumstancial evidence" and is not usually suitable (on its own) in securing a conviction. You cannot easily prove that the facilitator of a straw purchase is not a victim either... Besides, have you ever heard of "criminally negligent manslaughter"? How come other first-world democracies don't have mass shootings the way we do? Because they keep firearms away from crazies, which you claim is impossible... Fail. - - - Updated - - - Really? One inanimate object that can be bought and sold on the open market is not like another? Why, because you don't want it to be?
Most gun dealers are small one man operations. To compare them to grocery stores, would really require classifying convenience stores as grocery stores.
http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/home/home.shtml Say What??? I thought like you did, that the problem was guns coming FROM Mexico - - - Updated - - - http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/home/home.shtml Say What??? I thought like you did, that the problem was guns coming FROM Mexico - - - Updated - - - http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/home/home.shtml Say What??? I thought like you did, that the problem was guns coming FROM Mexico
spoken like a true subject.............cudos for reinforcing my belief that I need guns to protect me from people like you who don't think a Constitution is neccessary. Scotus has declared that ownership is considered private property thus we are cool to own. That's SCOTUS and thank God your not on the judges panel, you may appear to lack their wisdom
Hi all, First post but not a stranger to Forums so no need to go easy. I appreciate honest conversation and respect all opinions but I will ignore personal attacks. Been reading gun control posts for quite some time and several things puzzle me regarding the gun control citizens’ position. Let's start with the premise that there are web sites where we can retrieve statistics that support each of our positions and leave them out of the equation until later in the discussion. I will pose what I believe to be honest questions and you can freely respond with your belief, the equation of statistics will come in soon enough. So let’s start this discussion with the intent of the gun control advocate. Through my observations of the multiple forums I follow I believe that I can frame your intent as that of someone who is interested in ultimately reducing the violent deaths of innocent citizens by reducing the type and or availability of certain firearms and magazines. Your belief is that firearms, particularly those capable of firing large amounts of ammunition with one magazine in a semi-automatic fashion should be banned because: 1. There is no need for an average citizen to own a semi-automatic firearm that by sight appears to be a weapon of war. 2. There is no need for an average citizen to own a large capacity magazine. 3. By passing laws that make owning the above mentioned weapon and magazines illegal, the average citizen will be safer and less violence and deaths will occur because availability will drop. 4. You are not asking for a ban on other types of weapons including, handguns, shotguns, or non-military looking semiautomatic firearms. 5. The pro gun people are wrong and the second amendment is either completely or somewhat obsolete. These interpretations are a compilation of various forums and I understand there is no one size fits all to gun control beliefs. Many may fit you and some may not. I am just looking for honesty in the discussion. Please provide me answers to my questions before you ask me to respond to yours. Please be honest enough to say what you believe and not give me talking points or politically correct blather. I am pro gun, pro second amendment because I believe in what the framers intent was. The first 10 amendments were a collection on individual rights and all are apropos today, especially the second amendment. It seems to me that citizens honestly interested in reducing deaths and violence would be proponents of banning all sorts of instruments of death. It shouldn’t matter if the carnage happens all at once or over a period of time right? It seems insincere to me to say that we need to ban firearms when in fact there are many deaths caused by vehicles, alcohol, knives, clubs, and bare knuckles. I’ve read that a firearms only use is to kill and vehicles, alcohol, knives, and bare knuckles have primary uses other than killing. History seems to contradict that belief. If a firearms primary use is killing and there are 300 million plus weapons in the hands of citizens who supposedly will misuse them, population growth should be next to nothing. On the other hand since a vehicles primary use is transportation why are there so many vehicle deaths? Alcohol is not an instrument of death yet it has been linked to a high number of deaths so why is there no clamor to ban it once again? Knives have many uses yet they are used in an inordinate amount of domestic violence deaths, why no outcry? I submit the truth of the matter is that gun control advocates don’t think it is feasible to ban vehicles, alcohol, knives and bare knuckles because they have historical context to prove that those type of prohibition don’t work. In short my belief is that the gun control people aren’t clamoring for government control/banning of anything other than guns because it has more to do with the offensive nature guns present to them than the death of American citizens in everyday life. More to follow
What a dilemma StJames; and I had high hopes for you within this thread Unfortunately you have taken my post completely out of the context in which it was meant. If you read a previous post of mine here; perhaps all will become clear regarding my thinking. If not I'm quite happy to explain again.
First of all, Mayors Against Illegal Guns is so jaded I would not trust anything they say, and it should be renamed, Mayors Against Guns. Why is Obama worried about the border states, when his Administration was sending guns to Mexico through operation Fast & Furious?
