Conservatives in favor of gun control

I'm a conservative who is in favor of gun control. While I understand that the right to bear arms in enshrined in the constitution, the original purpose was to prevent a foreign invasion of the US at a time when no national army existed. The necessity of an armed population has long since passed and we are at a point where guns are causing much more harm than good.

Any like-minded conservatives out there?

 

Your post suggests a left leaning limp wrist approach and belief. The right to arms is an individual right to protect oneself and above any government interference. Quit pretending to be a Conservative and admit that you like government controlling your life.

 

The "original purpose" was not to "prevent a foreign invasion of the US at a time when no national army existed." In fact, there was already a national army in 1791 when then 2nd Amendment was ratified, so I am not sure where you are getting your information.

Let me throw a question back at you. Why do you believe in gun control, when it has been proven time and time again to fail to yield any significant results in curbing violent crime?

 

ANY like minded Pro Choice ,open Borders, Pro Gay Marrage , Anti-2A ,Living Breathing Constitution, diversity & Social Justice at any cost Republicans

 

No you're not....

 

I agree with the tone the majority. You sound like a sheep in wolfs clothing [sic] ie a liberal posing as a conservative. However I will reserve judgement until you define your idea of the ideal gun control is. I have asked Reiver many times to describe what his idea of optimal gun control is. Of course he wiggles ducks and staggers around using statistical smoke and mirrors to completely avoid the question. I hope you can answer the question.

Rev A

 

There is no reason to assume that Conservatism cannot embrace rational policy. Whilst they are prone to supporting economic policy error, their support for individualism is a sufficient criteria to support well-being enhancing gun control

 

The Law is quite clear.

"Reasonable" gun control may involve certain restrictions on ammunition capacity, or certain mechanisms for instance. But outright bans for the purpose of public safety are illegal according to our Constitution and it will take an amendment to change that.

 

Indeed, despite tacitly suggested by the pro-gun lobby, the constitution isn't an enemy of individualism. A basic understanding of individual preferences and the allocative power of the market will be enough to inform us of the need to strengthen gun control

 

Is James Brady left-leaning and limp wrist?

Here are some statistics according to: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20571454

The US homicide rates were 6.9 times higher than rates in the other high-income countries, driven by firearm homicide rates that were 19.5 times higher. For 15-year olds to 24-year olds, firearm homicide rates in the United States were 42.7 times higher than in the other countries. For US males, firearm homicide rates were 22.0 times higher, and for US females, firearm homicide rates were 11.4 times higher. The US firearm suicide rates were 5.8 times higher than in the other countries, though overall suicide rates were 30% lower. The US unintentional firearm deaths were 5.2 times higher than in the other countries. Among these 23 countries, 80% of all firearm deaths occurred in the United States, 86% of women killed by firearms were US women, and 87% of all children aged 0 to 14 killed by firearms were US children.

It is a no-brainer that we would want to prevent what happened to people like JFK, John Lennon, Abraham Lincoln, William McKinley, Ronald Reagan, James Brady as well as so many others who have died or been injured senselessly by guns. US guns are also helping to fuel a drug war just south of our border in Mexico. Do you know how many deaths the illegal flow of guns in responsible for in Mexico? 70% of guns seized in the drug war are of US origin. Tell me that this is not helping to fuel illegal immigration.

To me it's common sense. One of the few true roles of government is to help protect the peoples' safety (military, police etc.). A sensible gun policy is one way to do it.

 

Actually, the continental army was all but disbanded in 1785 after the Revolution. What was left was hardly enough to call a national army.

LOL..how can you say it has yielded no results when there has never been any meaningful gun control in the US? We can compare the US to Canada, a country with a gun registry and stricter gun ownership laws:

Approximately 70 percent of the total murders in the U.S. are committed with firearms, versus about 30 percent in Canada.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Canada#United_States

 

I'm really tired of hearing people say the US doesn't stack up to other Countries rates of violence. Please make it easy on yourself and pack your bags and move to the Country you feel best reflects your desired violence rates.

This is the USA. People here live as individuals and not subjects of the government. Yes, there were over 1.2 million violent crimes in the US last year. That is not good and individuals need an effective means of self protection. If you like the individual freedoms provided in the US, find another Country with similar freedoms but lower violence rates. Oh, wait, there isn't one. Surprise.

In the American Revolutionary War, we needed to get guns from other Countries to fight back the British. That is right, the British. The founding fathers didn't want us to be unprepared again.

 

There is absolutely no way to eliminate firearms! So since that is a fact and of course in the USA its our god and supreme court given RIGHT to keep and bear arms, the gun control issue is meaningless. Then add to the silly mix that the gun control proponents who post at this site can not define what ideal gun control is. So we are discussing a issue that is meaninglessness and can not be defined. Wonderful.

Rev A

 

Lets try a Pro 2A, Pro Life,Pro Marrage as between a Man & Woman,Pro Deportation of criminal Illegals, Pro Border Security,... Democrat thread

 

Its actually very straightforward: given crime effects from gun prevalence, the internalisation of negative externalities. Given that analysis is straight forward market failure based on supply and demand analysis, there is no reason for it to be inconsistent with Conservative thought

 

THE Firearms Restrictions & laws on the books in 1974 were good enough for then & good enough for now ,littleown the Firearms Restrictions & laws since the late 1980's (There were plenty enough on the books then for now also.

 

I am against most gun control for law abiding citizens but if you have a tank in your garage I may be suspicious lol

 

Oh, you like Benchrest too ?

 

Not in terms of evidence-based policy-making. Whilst its difficult to support gun bans, there i common ground here: given externalities represent coercive costs independent of personal demand, gun control should be structured to eliminate market failure

 

Fact is,prior to 1968 when you could Buy firearms in every sporting goods store,back of magazines,no questions asked,the firearm death rate was LOWER......

 

Death Penalty & Aggressive Law Enforcement

 

And that would be an example of a spurious stat

 

But my High Lesbian Divorce Rate Stats are Sound !

 

Those lesbian stats are untouchable. Shame really. I'd love to have a go

 

No,It would be an example of a FACT...look it up