324 replies to this topic

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

Babe Ruth, on 15 December 2012 - 03:10 PM, said:

Poor reasoning sir. Actually, the US does have gun control laws. Quite a few of them actually.

But wise men, or even intelligent men, understand that just as a 100 year old drug prohibition HAS NOT succeeded in "getting rid of" drugs, and has caused a litany of social pathologies and unintended consequences, so too would government efforts to "get rid of" guns through legislation.

And that is ignoring for the moment the existence of the Second Amendment.

that's fair enough, although do we know yet whether he did in fact own those guns- how many was it, four? legally, and whether this was planned in advance, in which case he could have got them through illegal means if necessary, or whether it was on impulse and so he was only able to get hold of them because they were ready to hand?

[Babe Ruth]

747400, on 15 December 2012 - 03:47 PM, said:

that's fair enough, although do we know yet whether he did in fact own those guns- how many was it, four? legally, and whether this was planned in advance, in which case he could have got them through illegal means if necessary, or whether it was on impulse and so he was only able to get hold of them because they were ready to hand?

The point is that it's over--what's done is done.

I was not trying to create some sort of law suit in my previous post.

Because the other point is that gun laws seldom work as designed to work.  Most laws have unintended consequences, and for that reason the repeal mechanism exists to get rid of bad law.

We have gun laws, some reasonable, and some unreasonable and stoopid.

Utopia is not an option.  We can only plan for the future, and the past is just that.  And to make matters worse, we have to live in the present.

[Michelle]

747400, on 15 December 2012 - 03:47 PM, said:

that's fair enough, although do we know yet whether he did in fact own those guns- how many was it, four? legally, and whether this was planned in advance, in which case he could have got them through illegal means if necessary, or whether it was on impulse and so he was only able to get hold of them because they were ready to hand?

From what I heard the guns were his mother's. They also said he tried to buy one a couple of days before, but didn't want to go through the waiting period. I don't know what news station that was...I've read too many.

[AliveInDeath7]

There are alot of true Americans that would riot if it truely happened..

[Obviousman]

Babe Ruth, on 15 December 2012 - 03:10 PM, said:

Actually, the US does have gun control laws.

Rubbish. How can you say that when people can have automatic weapons, armour piercing rounds, handguns? Where some states don't even require a permit? Where some states don't even record the sale?

That's not control - that is lack of control.

[Kafkaesque]

Obviousman, on 15 December 2012 - 10:40 PM, said:

Rubbish. How can you say that when people can have automatic weapons, armour piercing rounds, handguns? Where some states don't even require a permit? Where some states don't even record the sale?

That's not control - that is lack of control.

Since 1934, fully automatic weapons have been heavily regulated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.

The German Weapons Law of March 18, 1938 is the source of the U.S Gun Control Act of 1968..

[RaptorBites]

Obviousman, on 15 December 2012 - 10:40 PM, said:

Rubbish. How can you say that when people can have automatic weapons, armour piercing rounds, handguns? Where some states don't even require a permit? Where some states don't even record the sale?

That's not control - that is lack of control.

It is up to the state to regulate what sort weapons you can or cannot own, this is also including ammunition.  

It is not the Federal Government's jobs to regulate what the states are able to control on gun laws.  However, there are some federally mandated laws that the states have to abide by.

You know, there is that 2nd amendment.  It's not something that the Federal Government can cross off whenever they feel like it's not working so well....

[Obviousman]

RaptorBites, on 15 December 2012 - 11:32 PM, said:

You know, there is that 2nd amendment.  It's not something that the Federal Government can cross off whenever they feel like it's not working so well....

That old chestnut again. You don't think that it might just be possible that things aren't being applied as the framers of your constitution intended and it is time for a little - you know, common sense - to be brought into play?

Edited by Obviousman, 16 December 2012 - 12:58 AM.

[el midgetron]

Obviousman, on 16 December 2012 - 12:58 AM, said:

That old chestnut again. You don't think that it might just be possible that things aren't being applied as the framers of your constitution intended and it is time for a little - you know, common sense - to be brought into play?

No. If anything our founding fathers would be dispointed by what gun regulations we do have.

You are talking about a group of men who understood, both in theory and in practice, the value of an armed populous.

[with bells on]

el midgetron, on 16 December 2012 - 03:44 AM, said:

No. If anything our founding fathers would be dispointed by what gun regulations we do have.

You are talking about a group of men who understood, both in theory and in practice, the value of an armed populous.

hey.. can you explain what value there is in arming a populous with guns, please?? thanks..

[RaptorBites]

Obviousman, on 16 December 2012 - 12:58 AM, said:

That old chestnut again. You don't think that it might just be possible that things aren't being applied as the framers of your constitution intended and it is time for a little - you know, common sense - to be brought into play?

Common sense by whom?  By those who intend to do hard to others with the illegal use of firearms?

Or common sense to get rid of the 2nd amendment?

This is one of the few instances I will have to agree with Babe Ruth.

Babe Ruth, on 15 December 2012 - 03:10 PM, said:

Poor reasoning sir.  Actually, the US does have gun control laws.  Quite a few of them actually.

But wise men, or even intelligent men, understand that just as a 100 year old drug prohibition HAS NOT succeeded in "getting rid of" drugs, and has caused a litany of social pathologies and unintended consequences, so too would government efforts to "get rid of" guns through legislation.

And that is ignoring for the moment the existence of the Second Amendment.

Remember the time when the US went through alcohol prohibition?  

Exactly what is going to stop people from obtaining firearms illegally from out of country?  

People would like to think a strict ban on gun ownership is going to solve the issue.......well, its not.

[Obviousman]

I'm not suggesting banning guns; I'm saying you need to limit them, control them. It seems though that as soon as you suggest any form of control, of regulation, people think there is going to be a complete ban on them and start saying things like "You can have my gun when you pry it out of my cold, dead hand". Well, statements like are a really good indicator that the person is not a great candidate to possess a firearm.

[DONTEATUS]

I hear you Obviousman !  THe Old saying Guns dont Kill,People With Guns KIll ? Such A$$HOLES  that say that ! ITs IS the People that pull the trigger,ANd If there were even 50% less guns there would be A lot less deaths in this country.
IT gets me that Countries like Japan,THe U.K, Oz. ect,all have so few deaths each year due to automatic,and Hand gun deaths ITs THe Stupidity of the NRA `s and the Likes over here that Keep blamin it on the People ! Well Get the Guns off the market ! THe people dont need them! Im all for havine a simple hand gun to protect your own home,family Not a AR-what the Hell ever three thousand round weapon!
Most of the Time I think Americans are so Full of $#%TTT they need to be the ones lined up in front of those Idiots with Guns Like that ! Thats a start to change the problem!

[el midgetron]

with bells on, on 16 December 2012 - 04:11 AM, said:

hey.. can you explain what value there is in arming a populous with guns, please?? thanks..

The founding fathers were quite clear why they gave us the 2nd amendment. To insure our freedom by enabling us to protect ourselves from the government.

[Babe Ruth]

Obviousman, on 15 December 2012 - 10:40 PM, said:

Rubbish. How can you say that when people can have automatic weapons, armour piercing rounds, handguns? Where some states don't even require a permit? Where some states don't even record the sale?

That's not control - that is lack of control.

It seems as though you are equating "gun control" somehow with absence of guns?  Or, with some scheme where only the "right" people are allowed to have them, or some other utopian result.

I compare the idea you seem to advance with the idea advanced in drug policy--that somehow the government can write and enforce a law that will eliminate certain drugs and their usage.  Well, after nearly a century of such an effort, we have kids bringing the prohibited items to school, and/or selling them on street corners.

So if the government cannot stop drug use and eliminate drugs by legislation, how on earth do you suppose it can eliminate guns by legislation and enforcement?