Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6
Karlis

The Global Gun Control Threat

326 posts in this topic

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.

He is suggesting that (hypothetically) if the British had shown up in 1775 with fully auto assault rifles, our Founding Fathers (a bunch of revolutionaries) would have only seen it fit to fight them with flint-lock rifles..... hog-wash....

If he is truly concerned about his "personal safety from maniacs and murderers" then he should look up the numbers for democide and then do some math.

Edited by el midgetron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 2nd was an ammendment. Not a truth?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael Williams in The Guardian:

The Founding Fathers did not write the Second Amendment to the US Constitution to underwrite the slaughter of children in school.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody cares what people are saying to attack the 2nd Amendment. Its up to them how far they want to ride the back of this tragedy to further an agenda. Nobodys taking away civil liberties. Were grown ups here and would rather die fast for something we believed in then live under a government that has no care for what this country was founded on.

Edited by AsteroidX
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody cares what people are saying to attack the 2nd Amendment. Its up to them how far they want to ride the back of this tragedy to further an agenda. Nobodys taking away civil liberties. Were grown ups here and would rather die fast for something we believed in then live under a government that has no care for what this country was founded on.

Huh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its ok. You dont understand. Nothing to see here.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody cares what people are saying to attack the 2nd Amendment. Its up to them how far they want to ride the back of this tragedy to further an agenda. Nobodys taking away civil liberties.

Not sure if this is directed at any specific person here, but I don't think that what has been posted so far in regards to the 2nd is an "attack" but rather a reminder that it was written in and for a different time, by a people with different values that aren't as prevalent or no longer apply in this modern day and age

Were grown ups here and would rather die fast for something we believed in then live under a government that has no care for what this country was founded on.

This sounds to me like you are saying that you are essentially ok with maintaining the status quo of rights and freedoms, based on vastly outdated values and sensibilities, at any / all cost.

I really hope I'm misinterpreting your intended message here.

Cz

Edited by Czero 101
4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its ok. You dont understand. Nothing to see here.

And nothing to understand from that post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Yes, but with limited ammo and restricted to only one gun, one wouldn't be able to cause so much slaughter in one go. If you were only allowed to own one gun, he wouldn't be able to grab a selection from his mother's extensive collection of assault weapons. Even if he had a number of spare magazines, he'd have to break off to reload, which might at least give a chance to either get away or overpower him.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not sure if this is directed at any specific person here, but I don't think that what has been posted so far in regards to the 2nd is an "attack" but rather a reminder that it was written in and for a different time, by a people with different values that aren't as prevalent or no longer apply in this modern day and age

So what I hear you saying is we shouldnt base our ideals or laws on long ago peoples values that are dead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody cares what people are saying to attack the 2nd Amendment. Its up to them how far they want to ride the back of this tragedy to further an agenda. Nobodys taking away civil liberties. Were grown ups here and would rather die fast for something we believed in then live under a government that has no care for what this country was founded on.

This "Civil Liberty"; are we just talking about this obsolete provision for a "Citizen's Militia"? That's what the country was Founded upon, was it? The right for its Citizens to be able to murder anyone at all in order to Express their Freedoms or whatever? Or is it that people see it as the thin end of the wedge, and that if this Right is taken away it might just be the first of many? I wonder how long it'll be before someone tries to start a conspiracy theory to the effect that outrages like this were provoked deliberately by the Govt. in order to give them an excuse for just that?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what I hear you saying is we shouldnt base our ideals or laws on long ago peoples values that are dead.

yes, obviously, if they're obsolete or outdated. Any rational law maker would be aware that circumstances and values change; that's what an Amendment was, after all, an amendment to the Constitution. Those who designed it realised that the same laws wouldn't be set in stone for ever, and would need adapting as circumstances changed. That's exactly what Biblical literalists do, insist that laws that were established 2000 years ago are still valid, only they do it more selectively.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now why would anyone go with the conspiracy theory. That would just be silly. I mean were only talking some of our basic rights. Lets keep it on topic. NO YOU CANT HAVE MY GUN.

I still have the right to say no dont I ? Or does no mean yes now ?

Edited by AsteroidX
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now why would anyone go with the conspiracy theory. That would just be silly. I mean were only talking some of our basic rights. Lets keep it on topic. NO YOU CANT HAVE MY GUN.

I still have the right to say no dont I ? Or does no mean yes now ?

You have the right to say it, but unless it forms part of some coherent arguments as to why this outdated legislation should still be in force, it isn't really going to add anything very constructive.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats just the way life is here I guess. There is good many Americans that are unhappy with the direction this country is headed. We need to work it out within our own borders.

I dont mind you dont share my view and dont attack your way of life. So I guess I only ask the same in return.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...?

We agree LG. :tu:

My position is that if everybody recognizes that there is no legislative solution to what happened in Newtown, and that the only POSSIBLE gun control law that might have been violated was keeping the weapons locked away, then what on earth are we talking about?

Passing more laws when the current laws were all complied with seems irrational to me.

MY SOLUTION to this particular case, and to many many others over the last decade or 2 is to NOT prescribe heavy psychoactive drugs to youngsters. Never. Ever.

This is only tangentially about guns. It is much more about irresponsible, what might should be CRIMINAL, use of prescription drugs.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We agree LG. :tu:

My position is that if everybody recognizes that there is no legislative solution to what happened in Newtown, and that the only POSSIBLE gun control law that might have been violated was keeping the weapons locked away, then what on earth are we talking about?

Passing more laws when the current laws were all complied with seems irrational to me.

MY SOLUTION to this particular case, and to many many others over the last decade or 2 is to NOT prescribe heavy psychoactive drugs to youngsters. Never. Ever.

This is only tangentially about guns. It is much more about irresponsible, what might should be CRIMINAL, use of prescription drugs.

Ha, well I'm happy we do agree on something BR!

I do have issues with your solution concerning prescription drugs, you are not a doctor and so your opinions on this should be taken with a huge grain of salt, by you included. You don't seem to be taking into account that the drugs given to people with mental illness do sometimes result in significant benefits to the patient. I'm assuming you are saying not to give youngsters heavy psychoactive drugs because of the effects they have, like it makes them more unstable or something; this ignores entirely the nature of their illness and how unstable that, left untreated, can make them. It seems like I've heard, don't remember specifics (maybe that Norway massacre?), where the problem was that the shooter was not taking their medication.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ha, well I'm happy we do agree on something BR!

I do have issues with your solution concerning prescription drugs, you are not a doctor and so your opinions on this should be taken with a huge grain of salt, by you included. You don't seem to be taking into account that the drugs given to people with mental illness do sometimes result in significant benefits to the patient. I'm assuming you are saying not to give youngsters heavy psychoactive drugs because of the effects they have, like it makes them more unstable or something; this ignores entirely the nature of their illness and how unstable that, left untreated, can make them. It seems like I've heard, don't remember specifics (maybe that Norway massacre?), where the problem was that the shooter was not taking their medication.

No, I'm not a doctor, but I stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night! :tu:

Actually, many specialists in the field have made this connection years ago. There has even been at least one Senate hearing on the matter, though more oriented to the use of the drugs by soldiers, not children.

If you check the FDA records on these SSRIs and other psychoactive drugs, you will find that they ARE NOT APPROVED for use on youngsters. There were no tests conducted on youngsters.

Prescribing "off label" is not approved. I think it is grounds for huge liability issues.

This matter will not be covered by the media, because they are beholden to Big Pharma, but the statistical relationship between these young shooters and the meds they are on is well established, and has been since at least Columbine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is it that when there's any talk of gun reform people automatically assume it means a complete ban on guns? Outlawing guns in the US is never going to happen. And yet this deep fear is what's stopping reforms that might actually help with gun crime. I mean up here in Canada we don't have much gun crime and have laws much harsher than the US. Heck our biggest gun problem is all the smuggling that comes up from the States. But we've got plenty of guns up here. Buddy of mine owns about a dozen of them. I've gone to his gun club and fired pistols, rifles, shotguns, and belt feed machine guns. If I wanted to I could go through the system and end up with guns of my own. There's nothing legally stoping me. So stronger gun laws do not equal no guns for anyone.

I think the real problem isn't so much as legal, but rather cultural. Guns are seen as a key part of being American to some people. That protecting the Second Amendment is worth any cost. Until there's some kind of social shift I think problems with gun crime in the US will continue.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just for the sake of indulging the logic of gun control advocates, I propose a solution to the dilemma of mass slayings committed by psychologically deranged individuals. According to you folks on the Left, guns are the cause of innocent people being murdered – humans are just incidental to the event. To listen to your myopic focus on guns, one would sense that in the absence of the existence of firearms, homicides and mass slayings would be virtually impossible. They would be justified in that illusion, but for some remarkable data that has turned up in my research.

Shocking as it might seem – and I apologize in advance for those who possess the cherished notion, I have discovered that people can and are killed by implements other than firearms. I realize how disconcerting such a revelation like that can be and that it can produce acute Cognitive Dissonance. Maybe, get up, step out to the kitchen and prepare yourself a soothing cup of Hot Cocoa. Alright, my progressive friends, feel a little better? Are your nerves stable enough to withstand evidence that demolishes your sense of reality?

Alright, for those of you who can handle the truth, here is what I discovered. Each of the following can be employed in the murder of a fellow human being:

  • Explosives – 1927 – Bath, Michigan School Massacre. 44 dead
  • Fire – Arson is the most common method of mass killings and the most prevalent. Countless victims
  • Commercial Airliners and Boxcutters – September 11, 2001. 3,000 dead
  • Gas – 125 killed in Moscow in 2002, by the Russian Government!
  • Weaponized nerve agents – 1995 Sarin attack on Tokyo Subway – 13 dead
  • Ammonium Nitrate (Garden Fertilizer) – 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. 186 dead
  • Improvised Explosive Devices
  • Swords
  • Machetes
  • Butcher Knives – 2010 in China; 6 Children and 2 Adults
  • Automobiles
  • Shoulder Fired Rockets
  • Grenades
  • Flamethrowers
  • Axes
  • Clubs
  • Baseball bats
  • Molotov cocktails
  • Bows and Crossbows
  • Chainsaws – Texas Chainsaw Massacre
  • Drones – capable of killing dozens of civilians instantly
  • Mines
  • Mason Jar Grenades

Any and all of the above have been used to kill multiple human beings. Some of the items on this list are legal to own and some are illegal. The common denominator here is that none of them are guns. So, now that you’ve decided to ‘control’ or ban guns, you’ll also need to enact legislation to eliminate access to lawn fertilizer, kitchen knives, Baseball bats, Chainsaws, Compound bows, Automobiles, Swords, Machetes, Commercial Jets (actually aircraft of any type), Gasoline, Solvents and matches.

But wait, let’s not stop here. We want to prevent tragedies of all kinds, don’t we? There are many man made inventions and activities that can cause murderous impulses or result in unintended deaths. Let’s not forget to ban:

  • Anti-depressants
  • Alcohol (didn’t we try to get rid of that once before?) How did that work out?
  • Video Games and Violent movies
  • Death Metal and Punk music
  • Dogs and other pets
  • Islam – instructs followers to kill other human beings
  • Smart phones
  • Gay sex
  • Rock Concerts – 1979, Riverfront Stadium, Cincinnati, OH. 11 dead from stampede.
  • Swimming
  • Bicycle riding
  • Windows
  • Stairs
  • Gasoline pumps
  • Skating
  • Elevators
  • Trains
  • Soccer venues – 15 modern disasters, 1.252 dead
  • Racing events (Auto, Boat, Off-road, Motorcycles)
  • Air Shows
  • Automobiles – 32,367 deaths in 2011. Nearly half a million in the past decade
  • Bull Stampedes
  • Horse Riding
  • Boxing matches
  • NFL Football games
  • Skydiving, Bungee Jumping
  • Amusement Parks
  • Black Friday and After Holiday Shopping events
  • Bus, Subway and Rail Transportation
  • Suspension Bridges
  • Cruise Ships
  • Nuclear and Fossil fueled energy production.
  • Skateboards
  • Bathtubs (that’s O.K., we need to reduce out ‘Water footprint’ anyway.

Well, I think I’ve covered all the things we have to remove from society in order to be confident that we’ll be completely safe. Oh, dogg-gonnitt – I almost forgot one. Crazy people and Crime. Oops, another one – Abortion. That’s going to be a tough one. Hmm

Edited by odiesbsc
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The gun is just the tool the shooter used. We didnt ban Kool Aid.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is it that when there's any talk of gun reform people automatically assume it means a complete ban on guns? Outlawing guns in the US is never going to happen. And yet this deep fear is what's stopping reforms that might actually help with gun crime. I mean up here in Canada we don't have much gun crime and have laws much harsher than the US. Heck our biggest gun problem is all the smuggling that comes up from the States. But we've got plenty of guns up here. Buddy of mine owns about a dozen of them. I've gone to his gun club and fired pistols, rifles, shotguns, and belt feed machine guns. If I wanted to I could go through the system and end up with guns of my own. There's nothing legally stoping me. So stronger gun laws do not equal no guns for anyone.

I think the real problem isn't so much as legal, but rather cultural. Guns are seen as a key part of being American to some people. That protecting the Second Amendment is worth any cost. Until there's some kind of social shift I think problems with gun crime in the US will continue.

Because if the government does actually move to confiscate guns, there wil be blood running in the streets.

Nobody actually WANTS blood to run in the streets, but history has shown quite a few times that it can happen.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because if the government does actually move to confiscate guns, there wil be blood running in the streets.

Nobody actually WANTS blood to run in the streets, but history has shown quite a few times that it can happen.

Its not the Federal Government's job to control gun ownership.

The 2nd allows that.

It is up to the state to set measures on what is legal and illegal. So no, there shouldn't be a repeal on the 2nd. It should be up to the state to decide on its firearm laws.

California is pretty strict when it comes to gun laws.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its not the Federal Government's job to control gun ownership.

The 2nd allows that.

It is up to the state to set measures on what is legal and illegal. So no, there shouldn't be a repeal on the 2nd. It should be up to the state to decide on its firearm laws.

California is pretty strict when it comes to gun laws.

I agree with your point, but I didn't specify federal government. Any government would qualify in my hypothetical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But no one is talking about a complete ban on guns. No one is talking around going around and rounding up all firearms. All that's being talked about is limitations and banning certain types of guns. As long as you have the paper work and use them properly the government isn't going to care about your handgun or rifle. Yet is seems whenever the subject of gun law reform is brought up people start screaming that all their guns will be taken away. Heck since Obama has taken office we've seen several claims that he was going to take people's guns, and yet gun ownership has actually increased because people freak out and buy a bunch before it's "too late".

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
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
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.