The Global Gun Control Threat

[Czero 101]

Found in this Daily Mail article

Cz

[AsteroidX]

I believe we fought a war in 1776 that settled this issue. Why would we run back to the UN to protect us from us. Oh I lol's.

On a creepy note wtf is the UN gonna do in America. Pro gun is pro gun and that aint gettin taken away but from cold dead hands. We are Americans for a reason.

While I do regret the recent events and have the utmost sympathy for those that were touched this is not a 2nd Amendment issue. Frontdoor or Backdoor.

[Obviousman]

I believe we fought a war in 1776 that settled this issue. Why would we run back to the UN to protect us from us. Oh I lol's.

On a creepy note wtf is the UN gonna do in America. Pro gun is pro gun and that aint gettin taken away but from cold dead hands. We are Americans for a reason.

While I do regret the recent events and have the utmost sympathy for those that were touched this is not a 2nd Amendment issue. Frontdoor or Backdoor.

Another strawman. The UN is not going to ban guns.

Americans themselves should exercise restraint and regulate their own weapons. And here's a good hint to help you on the way: this is NOT 1776 and the world has changed since then.

[AsteroidX]

Have fun in the NWO then. I have no fears of guns being banned in America. If they choose the road of resistence then thats what it is. Straw man. Listening Post. Whatever.

We do regulate our own weapons 99.9% of the time. We even keep our own Low Level Engagement ongoing in this country via Gang wars and Hunting accidents. We support Most of South and Central America through our sheeple drug habits.

What we dont want is to have to buy our guns from Mexican drug cartels.

[Space Commander Travis]

I believe we fought a war in 1776 that settled this issue. Why would we run back to the UN to protect us from us. Oh I lol's.

On a creepy note wtf is the UN gonna do in America. Pro gun is pro gun and that aint gettin taken away but from cold dead hands. We are Americans for a reason.

Ah, the ol' "we need guns 'cos the Guvmint [and/or now the UN] wants to take away our Guns, so we might need to stop them taking away our Guns". So does that also apply to elementary schools, does it? Should kids below the age of 10 be armed in order to defend themselves, in case someone else comes bursting in with a Gun? or should the teachers all carry a Gun, in case someone does?

We are Americans for a reason.

So that is what defines being (pauses to wave Flag) American, does it? Carrying a Gun is what defines one as being American? That's what Liberty means, does it? The right (or as some argue, necessity) to carry a Gun, in case someone else one meets on the street might also have one, and be deranged enough to want to shoot one? Or alternatively to defend oneself against one's Government, in case they suddenly become despotic? That doesn't very much like Freedom to me; that sounds like a nightmarish kind of society quite frankly.

[AsteroidX]

The right (or as some argue, necessity) to carry a Gun, in case someone else one meets on the street might also have one, and be deranged enough to want to shoot one? Or alternatively to defend oneself against one's Government, in case they suddenly become despotic? That doesn't very much like Freedom to me; that sounds like a nightmarish kind of society quite frankly.

If you choose to live in a desportic government Im sure theres plenty out there that are looking for conspiracy theory bloggers. Personally I dont even own a gun. But I have read the Dec of Indepence and the Constitution and I will not give up those ideals yet. The people that founded this country were persecuted often in there homelands and we dont really go to that place easily. I live in the West which is a whole nother I dont want to b controlled by your stinkin rules land. The Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave. Yes We Are.

*SNIP*

Edited December 17, 2012 by Lilly
removed drug reference

[Space Commander Travis]

If you choose to live in a desportic government Im sure theres plenty out there that are looking for conspiracy theory bloggers. Personally I dont even own a gun. But I have read the Dec of Indepence and the Constitution and I will not give up those ideals yet. The people that founded this country were persecuted often in there homelands and we dont really go to that place easily.

the puritans, you mean? I think most people in England were glad to be rid of the bunch of sour-faced Bible-bashers.

[AsteroidX]

By your location it appears Russian to me. Im not sayin but except the writing appears akin.

There was many more Irish, Italians, Amish and many others that left to avoid poverty/oppression and came to America. Chinese, and most recently Hispanic. Oh and Jewish...damn we are a melting pot. No wonder we have isssues

[Babe Ruth]

Slightly off topic but related, after the horrible shootings in Connecticut, for those advocating a new round of anti-gun legislation, IMO a better course might be a new round of legislation PROHIBITING the treatment of youngsters with powerful psychoactive drugs.

Early reports say the boy had been treated with some sort of psychoactive drugs, and if that turns out to be true, his behavior follows that of many other youngsters in the decade before. Many, if not all of those drugs, cause serious behavioral issues, even though they may be unintended.

[AsteroidX]

Other Forums I have been on seem to agree that the Big Pharm has a dog in this fight.

They have a lot too lose with medical marijuana gaining popularity and now the legalization of it in 2 states is going to move that trend forward faster. A big loss of revenue for Big Pharm. I am not certain they are not attacking the NRA by using these dangerous drugs on now 20+ year olds since if it was a teenager the outcry would be as bad as it against gun control atm.

There does seem to be "something" going on and that this not just some random act of madness. Theres alotta dots to and tees to cross. But the information is out there and when put all together this is looking more like a clandestine terror attack. If you believe Hinkley may have been a Patsy for the JFK killing then dont think that this kid could not been handled into this situation by powers that be.

Regardless of all else Big Pharm Holds alotta guilt for pushing drugs that are this dangerous.

[Corp]

I believe we fought a war in 1776 that settled this issue. Why would we run back to the UN to protect us from us. Oh I lol's.

On a creepy note wtf is the UN gonna do in America. Pro gun is pro gun and that aint gettin taken away but from cold dead hands. We are Americans for a reason.

While I do regret the recent events and have the utmost sympathy for those that were touched this is not a 2nd Amendment issue. Frontdoor or Backdoor.

No you fought a war in 1776 on the issue of representation in government, not gun control. And the UN isn't doing anything. The article in the OP is baseless fear mongering, same as the last three times it's come up.

And I would think that the fact that the US has a lot of mass shooting and that it has a cultural obsession over guns is an issue that should at least be looked at. If you want to solve the problem you should look at the whole picture, not just the parts that fit your personal worldview.

[DONTEATUS]

People kill people.

Regardless if its with or without a gun.

Unfortunately your logic is not sound.

Your the one with a un-sound mind . Try Looking into a childs eyes and think about pointing a AR-15 at that face? If we get rid of the Guns we get rid of a great many deaths !

Belly up to the Bar and admit the fact that a 20 year old with a knife or stick would not of Killed 26 people !

Why dont you put your address and phone number up ! I`ll give you a call !

Edited December 18, 2012 by DONTEATUS

[RaptorBites]

Your the one with a un-sound mind .

Negative, I am looking at the situation objectively not subjectively.

The fact is the gun was a tool, still needs an operator behind it to pull the trigger. The problem here is not guns but the person behind it.

Try Looking into a childs eyes and think about pointing a AR-15 at that face?

This in itself is a very morbid way to look at the situation. What a horrible thing to even bring up.

If we get rid of the Guns we get rid of a great many deaths !

That maybe the case, but again, the fact that many people are placing guns as the problem are not even bothering to talk about the person pulling the trigger. Does that make every legal gun owner a potential killing machine? No.

There are responsible gun owners.

Belly up to the Bar and admit the fact that a 20 year old with a knife or stick would not of Killed 26 people !

http://www.china.org...nt_27444828.htm

http://www.thedailyb...fe-attacks.html

Although the assailant didn't mass murder those kids, the potential was there with *drum roll please* a KNIFE!

Why dont you put your address and phone number up ! I`ll give you a call !

Relax don't, this is a pretty civil discussion on a very horrible tragedy. I understand emotions can get in the way.

Edited December 18, 2012 by RaptorBites

[flyingswan]

The fact is the gun was a tool, still needs an operator behind it to pull the trigger. The problem here is not guns but the person behind it.

Cars are tools too, it's generally the driver who causes a deadly accident. That hasn't stopped governments, including the US, introducing a whole set of safety laws that have successfully reduced road death rates. Similarly, the governments around the world who have introduced stricter gun control have also seen a big reduction in gun-related deaths. People still use cars, people still use guns, but in both cases, a lot less death.

[Babe Ruth]

Your the one with a un-sound mind . Try Looking into a childs eyes and think about pointing a AR-15 at that face? If we get rid of the Guns we get rid of a great many deaths !

Belly up to the Bar and admit the fact that a 20 year old with a knife or stick would not of Killed 26 people !

Why dont you put your address and phone number up ! I`ll give you a call !

Perhaps you could belly up to the bar and understand that the law is not omnipotent. It was already illegal to kill those children, and the kid knew it.

As with other matters Don, many of your posts suggest that you are living in a different reality than others.

Considering the relatively plain language of the Second Amendment, and that a century of drug prohibition has resulted in drugs being sold by children and being inside of prisons, just who are you kidding about there being a legislative solution to this?

Yourself, that's who.

[Space Commander Travis]

Perhaps you could belly up to the bar and understand that the law is not omnipotent. It was already illegal to kill those children, and the kid knew it.

As with other matters Don, many of your posts suggest that you are living in a different reality than others.

Considering the relatively plain language of the Second Amendment, and that a century of drug prohibition has resulted in drugs being sold by children and being inside of prisons, just who are you kidding about there being a legislative solution to this?

Yourself, that's who.

Perhaps, then, considering that the rate of murder by Gunfire in the U of S is approximately 100 times that of the UK, just possibly it might be time to take a look at that sacred cow the Second Amendment, being based as it was on the desirability of having an organised militia as a kind of reserve military force, rather than being designed as a license for free-for-all mayhem. Those who drew up the Constiution did, after all, realise that laws were not sacred things written on tablets of stone and would need to be amended and changed as time went on; that's what amendments are, after all.

[AsteroidX]

http://concealed.wordpress.com/2007/11/22/second-amendment-primer/

Alot of this would point we are going the opposite direction. Our Forfathers were not just typical politicians.

[Babe Ruth]

Perhaps, then, considering that the rate of murder by Gunfire in the U of S is approximately 100 times that of the UK, just possibly it might be time to take a look at that sacred cow the Second Amendment, being based as it was on the desirability of having an organised militia as a kind of reserve military force, rather than being designed as a license for free-for-all mayhem. Those who drew up the Constiution did, after all, realise that laws were not sacred things written on tablets of stone and would need to be amended and changed as time went on; that's what amendments are, after all.

You are absolutely right about that, but have you any specific proposals as to how this tragedy might have been averted by a gun law?

Let's create a hypothetical, and YOU are in charge of what laws shall be in place for the day. What law would you create, and how would you go about enforcing it?

[+Liquid Gardens]

Considering the relatively plain language of the Second Amendment, and that a century of drug prohibition has resulted in drugs being sold by children and being inside of prisons, just who are you kidding about there being a legislative solution to this?

I think whatever legislative solution to this would not be something that changed anything for perhaps decades,. I hear similar sentiments from people arguing the pro-gun position, that there is no legislative solution, and it's not like they don't have a point, but I don't think it's particularly consistent to say that more regulation on guns will be totally ineffective while simultaneously believing that our current laws that are supposed to keep guns out of the hands of people who are mentally ill can be effective.

[Space Commander Travis]

You are absolutely right about that, but have you any specific proposals as to how this tragedy might have been averted by a gun law?

Let's create a hypothetical, and YOU are in charge of what laws shall be in place for the day. What law would you create, and how would you go about enforcing it?

restrict private ownership to rifles for hunting purposes, with appropriate licenses, and, if it's really necessary to allow people to carry handguns for self defense, (if that isn't in itself a self-feeding paranoia, i.e. I need one because someone else i meet might have one and they might be a psychopath), to handguns with limited capacity magazines, perhaps? Even if one decides to go on a Spree and goes tooled up with two or more handguns about their person, they could only get off so many shots before they'd have to reload or switch to the other gun. Just as a start, anyway. But allowing handguns to be carried by just about anyone is a recipe for trouble in itself, if you ask me. Really, the idea of the citizen Militia that this Amendment was designed to allow for is obsolete now anyway, isn't it, really I think the whole principle needs rethinking.

[AsteroidX]

Its a moot point what Law you want. It will be decided by the Politicians or if not then comes EO from the President.

Its there move where they decide to land on this issue. Politicians are in office for a reason. They know how to play the public. They all came out abhorred and fist waving after the shooting. Now that a few days have passed theres talk about wether there is enough support for a Draconian Bill to pass. Something watered down maybe. Regardless there so concerned there not even introducing anything on the table until after the beginning of next year.

[Babe Ruth]

I think whatever legislative solution to this would not be something that changed anything for perhaps decades,. I hear similar sentiments from people arguing the pro-gun position, that there is no legislative solution, and it's not like they don't have a point, but I don't think it's particularly consistent to say that more regulation on guns will be totally ineffective while simultaneously believing that our current laws that are supposed to keep guns out of the hands of people who are mentally ill can be effective.

I'm wondering if you are more interested in efficient government, or a warm and fuzzy feeling?

[+Liquid Gardens]

I'm wondering if you are more interested in efficient government, or a warm and fuzzy feeling?

I'm wondering what point you are trying to make, if you are actually trying to make one, and what part of that responds to anything I said. I could guess what you are getting at, but I think you should try and make your own arguments or points. Here's mine. People, usually pro-gun, say that legislation won't change anything. If more legislation won't change anything, then we shouldn't expect the existing laws attempting to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill to be effective either. Yet that is clearly a problem that must be addressed, no? I'm just noting it, not saying it's specifically your position. Your effective alternative to legislation is...?

[Czero 101]

Found this on Facebook... and its an interesting perspective that those shouting about the 2nd Amendment and "Cold Dead Hands" etc. probably haven't thought of...

Here's what the text says, if for whatever reason you can't see / read it...

This is what "arms" looked like when the second amendment was written. It takes nearly a minute to load with a single shot. If the CT shooter had used one of these, he might have been able to murder one child before a teacher hit him over the head with a chair while he was trying to reload. The Founding Fathers had no knowledge of semi-automatic rifles, high-capacity ammo clips, plastic explosives, or atomic bombs. If they had, I'm certain they would have included exceptions as to what private citizens could posses. Even now, there are few who would argue that the right to bear arms includes *all* arms. So if we can ban nerve gas and land mines, why not other things? A line must be drawn somewhere. I say we draw it a little closer to the side that protects my personal safety from maniacs and murderers, and a little farther from the side that protects someone's right to own more firepower than an entire army regiment had in 1787.

Cz

Edited December 18, 2012 by Czero 101

[Professor Buzzkill]

I don't live in the US. I have a gun license and 1 gun. The restrictions in my country are; seven round capacity max, no military style pistol grips, no bayonet lugs, not less than 7600mm long, must be in a gun safe or lockable storage rack with ammo stored separately, under no circumstances are you to use your firearm for self defense (this is not entirely true, but its in the rules).

However, this does not stop me owning a military style rifle (Russian SKS) which has been modified to hold only 7 rounds with the bayonet lug cut off. If a criminal got his hands on it (and some ammo) he could cause major damage. How would a law change in the US stop people using legal guns which have the same amount of fire power as illegal guns?