Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Obama reflects on gun control's failure


OverSword

Recommended Posts

What was he doing wrong exactly, if I may ask? He accurately described the situation without name-calling or using foul language.

I agree. Beany, you being a liberal may be personally offended by the viewpoint most of we conservative types have of your doctrine but that shouldn't preclude us from stating it.
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Confiscation can happen whether guns are registered or not.

.......

Youre against something that would work to reduce the number of guns and gun crimes on the streets, that would also, in and of itself, not infringe upon any of your rights,

just because youre afraid of the possibility that something else may happen (that could happen regardless of any registration) that may infringe upon your rights?

no it can't, not if you do not know where to look, not to mention this search warrant issue.

i'm against something that we know for a fact DOES NOT WORK, it has been tried and it failed everytime.

but that is what you are afraid, of possibility that someones legal gun will be used in crime, you are doing exaclty that, what you accuse us of doing.

and we actually have very real history of events that stated with regestration, and ended with confiscation, IT HAS HAPPENED MANY TIMES, so we see the pattern. so we are not afraid of possibility, we're afraid of certatnty.

Edited by aztek
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please keep comments within the forum guidelines of civility.

Caring about total crime is civil, Beany. You're quick to draw with that baton lately. What's up?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What was he doing wrong exactly, if I may ask? He accurately described the situation without name-calling or using foul language.

I re-read what I wrote too and with the remote possibility of "sitting on the toilet" I don't see what the boo boo was. I could have been more civil, I'll give her that. I don't think I said anything that isn't fit for 13+ year-old audiences to read which to my understanding is the guideline we're all under here, which is both fair and reasonable.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm happy with my assumption, it's pretty obvious. What assumption is that, btw?

Your assumption:

It's easier to kill someone with a gun. See how easy that is? But if that person also has a gun, it's harder to kill them even if you have a gun. See how easy that is? You're probably too obtuse to admit that people with guns are harder to kill. A circular argument going nowhere and you're ignoring the data to boot.

What I wrote:

I fully agree that it's easier to kill with a gun, and it's harder to kill someone with a gun, and it's even harder to kill someone with a gun when you don't have one.

Let's cut to the chase. Do you want less or the same gun control that we have now, or do you want more gun control than we have now? If the answer is more, what more do you want

I don't want anything from you. Its your country, I don't care what you do. What I think you should do is increase gun control --- in particular, institute a gun registry and enforce it so that guns can not make it to the black market as easily. Most guns used in crime are obtained from over-the-counter purchases. This would drastically reduce that. I also think that guns should be kept in an approved firearms cabinet or safe when not in use or youre not in control of your weapon. Although stolen guns only account for 10-15% of guns used in crime, this measure would reduce the number of available stolen guns. None of these measure would be an over-night solution, but as time goes on, less weapons would be making it to the black market than would be seized, resulting in a drop in guns available to criminals. Furthermore, none of these measures prevent you from owning a gun for use in self-defense.

Youre worried that a gun registration may lead to gun confiscation --- well, instead of fighting tooth-and-nail against gun registration, why don't you instead fight tooth-and-nail against gun confiscation if that is to happen?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I think you should do is increase gun control --- in particular, institute a gun registry and enforce it so that guns can not make it to the black market as easily.

Guns making it to the black market like they did in fast and furious? Wonder when someone will be held accountable for that?

The bureaucracy that did that is the same one that you think we should trust with registration. See where we might be coming from? Sad to say that one day our right to bear arms may be what saves us from a government so corrupt that it routinely pulls stunts such as this. Our founding fathers foresaw this and provided for us, God bless them.

Edited by OverSword
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Youre worried that a gun registration may lead to gun confiscation --- well, instead of fighting tooth-and-nail against gun registration, why don't you instead fight tooth-and-nail against gun confiscation if that is to happen?

Then wouldn't the logical proactive step to that be fighting against registration? Why give in on the first step?

Edited by F3SS
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guns making it to the black market like they did in fast and furious? Wonder when someone will be held accountable for that?

Well, hold them accountable for that too if you believe they need to be. Thats not an argument against gun control, thats an independent issue that also pertains to guns.

The bureaucracy that did that is the same one that you think we should trust with registration. See where we might be coming from? Sad to say that one day our right to bear arms may be what saves us from a government so corrupt that it routinely pulls stunts such as this. Our founding fathers foresaw this and provided for us, God bless them.

Its not a matter of trust as much as it is a matter of record keeping.

Then wouldn't the logical proactive step to that be fighting against registration? Why give in on the first step?

Because the first step doesn't infringe upon any rights, has real potential to be beneficial, and doesn't automatically lead to gun confiscation, so you're fighting something that has the real possibility of helping the situation at no cost to your freedom or ability to defend yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please with the tiny type. What's your deal with that lately? Anyway, registration doesn't automatically mean confiscation but confiscation always starts with registration.

Next, what's it really going to help? Handguns already get registered and account for all but a small percentage of gun crimes and incidences.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I re-read what I wrote too and with the remote possibility of "sitting on the toilet" I don't see what the boo boo was. I could have been more civil, I'll give her that. I don't think I said anything that isn't fit for 13+ year-old audiences to read which to my understanding is the guideline we're all under here, which is both fair and reasonable.

Sometimes these threads cross from discussing the issue at hand to discussing the relative worth or unworthiness of some of the posters. There was one I found particularly offensive, and I'm pretty tolerant. I did hide that post. I'll step in if I feel it's warranted, but prefer referring people to the guidelines instead of editing or hiding. The fact that I have to do so little of that is due to people like you who pretty much know where the line is, stay within it, and serve as a model for others; even so, there's always that oddball who feels free to insult and is totally unaware of any social boundaries; I'm not referring to the two of you.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please with the tiny type. What's your deal with that lately? Anyway, registration doesn't automatically mean confiscation but confiscation always starts with registration.

Next, what's it really going to help? Handguns already get registered and account for all but a small percentage of gun crimes and incidences.

What tiny type are you referring to?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because the first step doesn't infringe upon any rights, has real potential to be beneficial, and doesn't automatically lead to gun confiscation, so you're fighting something that has the real possibility of helping the situation at no cost to your freedom or ability to defend yourself.

If the anti-gun proponents didn't have so many people that are very vocal about their desire to have an all-out gun ban, maybe some compromise could be made. As it is, the assault on the 2nd amendment is only going to grow and grow in the coming generations, likely in the direction of the gun-control advocates, so not giving an inch is the only real option for pro-gun people.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Please with the tiny type. What's your deal with that lately? Anyway, registration doesn't automatically mean confiscation but confiscation always starts with registration.

Next, what's it really going to help? Handguns already get registered and account for all but a small percentage of gun crimes and incidences.

I don't know. Half the time I try to type a reply, my cursor randomly jumps all over the reply box, and when I hit reply, the font size gets all messed up. I'm not sure why.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the anti-gun proponents didn't have so many people that are very vocal about their desire to have an all-out gun ban, maybe some compromise could be made. As it is, the assault on the 2nd amendment is only going to grow and grow in the coming generations, likely in the direction of the gun-control advocates, so not giving an inch is the only real option for pro-gun people.

And if the anti-gun-control proponents didn't have so many vocal "hey **** you you're opinion is worthless, coward" people, maybe a compromise could be made...

I don't see too many gun-control people arguing for a gun ban here. Perhaps it's more the anti-gun-control people that are making assumptions as to what people thing? Sure seems like a lot of assumptions were made regarding my thoughts on gun control...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guns making it to the black market like they did in fast and furious? Wonder when someone will be held accountable for that?

The bureaucracy that did that is the same one that you think we should trust with registration. See where we might be coming from? Sad to say that one day our right to bear arms may be what saves us from a government so corrupt that it routinely pulls stunts such as this. Our founding fathers foresaw this and provided for us, God bless them.

The trouble is when the founding fathers wrote that document there were no drones,no missiles,helicopters,planes etc.Citizens wouldn't have a hope of an armed takeover of government unless the military were involved and then you could well end up with a military dictatorship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The trouble is when the founding fathers wrote that document there were no drones,no missiles,helicopters,planes etc.Citizens wouldn't have a hope of an armed takeover of government unless the military were involved and then you could well end up with a military dictatorship.

It is slightly more difficult than that, when the constitution was written the idea was that there would be no standing army but only a militia to be called on in time of need. But that soon was shown to be an illusion as armies were getting more and more technical (even then) and therefore required more and more training.

That this was changed later into a glorification of revolutions has something to do with the fact that nobody ever bothered to think what kind of fair system a democracy could be substituted with.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Youre worried that a gun registration may lead to gun confiscation --- well, instead of fighting tooth-and-nail against gun registration, why don't you instead fight tooth-and-nail against gun confiscation if that is to happen?

That's completely absurd. Why wait to fight against something unjust? Why give the government everything they want to get to their desired conclusion, THEN start fighting it?

If it's worth fighting for, don't budge an inch, fight from the beginning and to the end. If, as some say, registration is the first part of confiscation, then it's only right to stop it NOW. Not LATER.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your assumption:

What I wrote:

I don't want anything from you. Its your country, I don't care what you do. What I think you should do is increase gun control --- in particular, institute a gun registry and enforce it so that guns can not make it to the black market as easily. Most guns used in crime are obtained from over-the-counter purchases. This would drastically reduce that. I also think that guns should be kept in an approved firearms cabinet or safe when not in use or youre not in control of your weapon. Although stolen guns only account for 10-15% of guns used in crime, this measure would reduce the number of available stolen guns. None of these measure would be an over-night solution, but as time goes on, less weapons would be making it to the black market than would be seized, resulting in a drop in guns available to criminals. Furthermore, none of these measures prevent you from owning a gun for use in self-defense.

Youre worried that a gun registration may lead to gun confiscation --- well, instead of fighting tooth-and-nail against gun registration, why don't you instead fight tooth-and-nail against gun confiscation if that is to happen?

We already went full circle over the assumptions about you. You've now identified yourself as someone who wants more gun control as I assumed. So you've revealed that my assumption was correct if anything. Someone being harder to kill who has a gun doesn't seem to move your opinions on wanting more gun control. Yet having a gun making it easier to kill someone else does. That's a divergence of logic for political reasons I'm sorry to see.

How do you want to "enforce" a national database of privately owned guns? What's that look like? Who's going to do it? Another department? Who's going to pay for it?

And how are you going to "drastically reduce" purchases?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's completely absurd. Why wait to fight against something unjust? Why give the government everything they want to get to their desired conclusion, THEN start fighting it?

If it's worth fighting for, don't budge an inch, fight from the beginning and to the end. If, as some say, registration is the first part of confiscation, then it's only right to stop it NOW. Not LATER.

simple thing like "an ounce of prevention beats a pound of cure" is not for everyone to get. sad sht

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The trouble is when the founding fathers wrote that document there were no drones,no missiles,helicopters,planes etc.Citizens wouldn't have a hope of an armed takeover of government unless the military were involved and then you could well end up with a military dictatorship.

And if it got to that point I would gladly take that chance as I believe the military's ultimate goal would be to return us to the principles our republic was founded upon.
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And if it got to that point I would gladly take that chance as I believe the military's ultimate goal would be to return us to the principles our republic was founded upon.

Yes? Boy you really believe in the system, dontcha?

Experience shows that no military government ever has relinquished power under other circumstances than having run the country against a wall. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. And that also goes for the military.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes? Boy you really believe in the system, dontcha?

Experience shows that no military government ever has relinquished power under other circumstances than having run the country against a wall. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. And that also goes for the military.

As I recall after the war of independence the colonies were ready to appoint Washington king of America, and he had the army to back it up.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And if it got to that point I would gladly take that chance as I believe the military's ultimate goal would be to return us to the principles our republic was founded upon.

Never going to happen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I recall after the war of independence the colonies were ready to appoint Washington king of America, and he had the army to back it up.

And as I recall: There never was a military government in the USA, so hardly an example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.