SURVEY: Gun Control -- Is it time to curtail gun ownership in the US?

[iroc4life]

This is what there should be a law against lmao....

 

The United Kingdom government is opposed to the term “pregnant women” and, according to Sunday reports in the U.K’s Sunday Times, is encouraging the United Nations to use the more inclusive term “pregnant people,” instead of “pregnant women,” as verbiage in a new treaty.

[Scott]

I think for now we will stick to the issue of guns rather than pregnancy.  

[iroc4life]

Last thought. Laws only apply to law abiding citizenry. Criminals intent on causing harm will find the means to do so with or without a law in place. Just because some crazy person shoots people, does not mean I cannot protect myself or my home and family. Animals all over the world blow shit up and bombs are illegal. That doesnt stop bombs from going off. Guns are outlawed all over the world and in these places you still have mass killings with guns. Just you have people unable to defend themselves. Thailand has some of the strictest gun laws and there are guns in nearly every car on the highway, yes there arent mass shootings, at least none reported. Laws dont stop the lawless.

 In the US there are nearly as many guns as citizens, Id say almost all would fight to retain them. Even if congress tries to confiscate I highly doubt local Sheriffs would attempt to confiscate, I wouldnt.......  

[pegman]

7 hours ago, smotherb said:

Machine guns are not banned all over the US and I did not even mention machine guns;so it appears the s**t is all over you.

It's a federal ban so wrong again. If one type of weapon can be banned then any can.

[BudRight]

6 hours ago, bazza73 said:

Not at all. I've been playing golf for over 60 years now, so they are well exercised.

The reason for the limitation to the Koran is immutability. Christianity, Judaism and a number of other religions have changed over the centuries. The Koran and the Second Amendment have not.

Sorry, your attempt at the look over there distraction is pretty pathetic this time around. I expect better of you.

 The US Constitution specifies a political process for revision. That such a revision would fail is tough shit. Until it does get changed, legally, US citizens will have the rights so enumerated. That you do not like them or think they are scary is completely irrelevant. 

[Ruffian Dick]

3 minutes ago, BudRight said:

 The US Constitution specifies a political process for revision. That such a revision would fail is tough shit. Until it does get changed, legally, US citizens will have the rights so enumerated. That you do not like them or think they are scary is completely irrelevant. 

If you're talking about revising the second amendment, chances are - as we say - slim and none.

But that is and has been interpreted in a number of different ways over the years. I think there are plenty of ways to handle the gun situation that don't involve modifying the second amendment - some of which may actually be effective!!

[bazza73]

3 hours ago, BudRight said:

 The US Constitution specifies a political process for revision. That such a revision would fail is tough shit. Until it does get changed, legally, US citizens will have the rights so enumerated. That you do not like them or think they are scary is completely irrelevant. 

Your gun laws ( or lack of them ) do not affect me. I've been to the USA many times, and I won't be going there again. It's not a matter of liking them or thinking they are scary. It's more about pointing out the logical absurdities of the current situation. Australians are probably your best allies in terms of the military and political support we contribute. Most of us also think your gun laws are insane. What does that say to you?

[bazza73]

8 hours ago, smotherb said:

Never said I had to tote all 40 guns to my land in my pick-up. The collectables I rarely shoot; although all are in good working condition. I usually carry about ten guns. My lever action Marlin in 30-30, my bolt-action Winchester 70 in 30-06, my 16 gauge Savage 755a semi-auto, my Remington SPR94 over/under .22/410, my 50 cal black powder/percussion Hawkins,  my 7 1/2 in barrelled Ruger Vaguero in 44 magnum, my Glock 35 in .40 cal S&W, my trusty .22 Remington 550 semi-auto rifle, my Smith & Wesson 22A .22 semi-auto pistol. That covers my plinking and hunting needs. I really enjoy deer hunting with the Vaquero or 30-30, turkey and other fowl with the Savage 16, bear with the W70,  I set up targets out in my field in front of my cabin and plink away with the .22s, Hawkins, and Glock  --there is a mountain behind the field and it is my land too. Of course, that doesn't include my Kahr MK9 Elite in 9mm I use for my backup concealed carry. Bristling, well maybe just a little; because I can, you see.

I can see you don't have to worry about the bears or the deer shooting back at you.

[BudRight]

9 minutes ago, bazza73 said:

Most of us also think your gun laws are insane. What does that say to you?

It tells me that you don't know very much about US gun laws.

Edited October 24, 2017 by BudRight

[bazza73]

1 minute ago, BudRight said:

I don't think you actually know very much about US gun laws.

 

However, I do not care what you think about them. 

I know enough about them to safely predict you will have more gun massacres like Las Vegas, and the more guns Americans buy to "protect" themselves, the worse the problem will become.

Presumably you also don't care about the innocent people that get killed or permanently incapacitated by these events, as long as your right to bear arms is maintained.

[anon467367354]

22 hours ago, Grouse said:

I can tell from all the detail that this is a fetish for you. Do you sleep with a gun?

being knowledgeable and informed is to you a fetish. I don't think you actually try to be ignorant, I think you just are. Keep up the good work!

[inThailand]

These guns will come in handy when the Senate and Congress don't get their act together.

[boomerangutang]

8 hours ago, BudRight said:

Because it is a civil right to own a gun, not to drive a car.

By this standard they've also "gone mental" with gay rights, women's rights, freedom of the press, and voting rights for ethnic minorities.

If by this this you mean resurrect dead people, then please show us how. 

It's only deemed 'a civil right' by those who have twisted the original meaning of the 2nd Amendment to allow semi-automatic military weapons to be owned by nearly anyone.

 

Words and concepts are easy to twist.  Look at any religious text.  Any stanza can be twisted to mean several different things.  Same for much of the US Constitution or Bill of Rights. I take offense at the 2nd Amendment is twisted by gun-huggers to allow mentally deficient people to parade around with loaded guns.  Any one of those people can use a gun for any screwy reason they want to, and chances are better than 50-50 they'll be let off.  Even if they get caught, convicted and sent to jail, ....the damage has already been done.  

 

The NRA is known to contribute lots of money to attorneys of defendants who face charges of shooting innocents for no good reason.  They do it because they want all types of guns available for all types of people, with no restrictions. 

 

6 hours ago, iroc4life said:

Just you have people unable to defend themselves.

That's a soggy excuse.  There are many more innocents who get shot, each day, than criminals shot.   

[SEEDGER]

I wonder if Catalonia's had the right to bear arms would so many of them been beaten by the armed police? Catalonia's right now are  facing an armed Spanish force  hell bent to keep them from leaving. If they had firearm ownership I'm pretty sure the Spanish Government would be acting differently.

 

Those people who advocate for firearm restrictions  seem to have no knowledge of history.

 

 

[Grouse]

59 minutes ago, gr8fldanielle said:

being knowledgeable and informed is to you a fetish. I don't think you actually try to be ignorant, I think you just are. Keep up the good work!

I am certainly ignorant about guns and happy to remain that way. I don't need one; guns are for softies ?

[boomerangutang]

47 minutes ago, SEEDGER said:

I wonder if Catalonia's had the right to bear arms would so many of them been beaten by the armed police? Catalonia's right now are  facing an armed Spanish force  hell bent to keep them from leaving. If they had firearm ownership I'm pretty sure the Spanish Government would be acting differently.

Those people who advocate for firearm restrictions  seem to have no knowledge of history.

Hmmm, according to your thinking, there should be a gun-fueled riot going on there.  Shootings galore.  Blood flowing into storm sewers.   Dismembered people of all ages, including babies.  That's what gun-lovers like to see.   

[boomerangutang]

50 minutes ago, SEEDGER said:

Those people who advocate for firearm restrictions  seem to have no knowledge of history.

I'm sorry, but I had to quote you again, and respond.

 

You referenced Spain.  During the 1930's, Spain had a horrible civil war.   I resided in Spain during the 1960's.  All over the place, there were knots of elder women, all dressed in black.  They were the widows.  There must have been millions of them.  There were a lot of guns shot during that war (NRA and America's gun lovers would have loved that).   Even the Nazis got involved; they sided with Franco and were able to field-test their new war weapons, like the Stuka dive bomber.

 

What was needed, then as now, were people who think like today's Singaporean PM, who advocates 'dialog, not war.'   .....in contrast to people who think like NK's Kim or US's Trump, who are chomping at the bit to start a war.  No surprise that Trump loves the NRA.   For people like them:  any time they can find an excuse to fire guns, they'll take it, gladly.

 

 

[inThailand]

I vote to stop all the stupid polls.

[BudRight]

1 hour ago, boomerangutang said:

 

Edited October 24, 2017 by BudRight

[boomerangutang]

1 minute ago, BudRight said:

"Twisted by gun huggers?" You mean the US Supreme court?

I'll make this real simple for you. Your hated of my civil rights makes you a bigot. I don't mind bigots existing, but if you exert your bigotry against my life, liberty or property, I will defend myself as is my natural right. Go read Jean-Jacques Rousseau if you don't know what a natural right is.

I do not care about your bullshit conspiracy theories.

You want to talk about the US Supreme Court?  Alright.   listen to Chief Justice Warren....

 

 

[pizzachang]

On 10/22/2017 at 1:43 PM, Stefanix said:

Everyone supporting the current US gun laws is actually accessory to murder! If it would be banned to carry firearms in public, it would be also easier to disarm criminals. Maybe in some cases a gun in private hands could stop a robbery. But in how many cases those confrontations lead to deadly shootings? Wouldn't it be better to let the robbers go with their swag and let the police do their job?

A few exceptions might make sense. Firearms could be allowed on private land or inside your own apartment for self defence or in shooting clubs. But not in public.

This is the funniest comment I've seen to date.   Using this logic, everyone driving a car is an accessory to whatever mayhem is done by every drunk, reckless or deliberate (illegal) use of a car!

[boomerangutang]

5 minutes ago, BudRight said:

"Twisted by gun huggers?" You mean the US Supreme court?

I'll make this real simple for you. Your hated of my civil rights makes you a bigot. I don't mind bigots existing, but if you exert your bigotry against my life, liberty or property, I will defend myself as is my natural right. Go read Jean-Jacques Rousseau if you don't know what a natural right is.

I do not care about your bullshit conspiracy theories.

You wanna talk about 'civil rights'?   The most basic civil right is the right to live, to stay alive.  Gun huggers are violating that right - for about 38 Americans per day, on an average day. 

 

[boomerangutang]

11 minutes ago, pizzachang said:

This is the funniest comment I've seen to date.   Using this logic, everyone driving a car is an accessory to whatever mayhem is done by every drunk, reckless or deliberate (illegal) use of a car!

Cars are made for getting people from one place to another.   Military-style guns are made to kill people - as many and as quickly as possible.   Cars are regulated.  So too should guns be regulated. 

 

Nearly any item can potentially be deadly, even a plastic bag or a toothpick.  Don't get too shrill or illogical.

[Grouse]

1 hour ago, SEEDGER said:

I wonder if Catalonia's had the right to bear arms would so many of them been beaten by the armed police? Catalonia's right now are  facing an armed Spanish force  hell bent to keep them from leaving. If they had firearm ownership I'm pretty sure the Spanish Government would be acting differently.

 

Those people who advocate for firearm restrictions  seem to have no knowledge of history.

 

 

Try "The Life and Death of The Spanish Republic" Henry Buckley.

 

Then talk to me about the history. Which side was "right" in your opinion?

 

You would have opened fire on the police? Do you know what the issues actually are?

[pizzachang]

6 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

You wanna talk about 'civil rights'?   The most basic civil right is the right to live, to stay alive.  Gun huggers are violating that right - for about 38 Americans per day, on an average day. 

 

If there was a shred of logic in this statement, the abortion would be illegal and long before gun deaths statistics, people killed other people and took away their "most basic" right.  Actually, mass shootings is a rare event. And, the automobile is much more dangerous (statistically) than a gun.

[Becker]

17 minutes ago, pizzachang said:

If there was a shred of logic in this statement, the abortion would be illegal and long before gun deaths statistics, people killed other people and took away their "most basic" right.  Actually, mass shootings is a rare event. And, the automobile is much more dangerous (statistically) than a gun.

The car is vital to society and is heavily regulated and controlled. Guns are neither.

Please try to upgrade the level of your arguments to at least above 3rd grade.....

[Grouse]

2 hours ago, SEEDGER said:

I wonder if Catalonia's had the right to bear arms would so many of them been beaten by the armed police? Catalonia's right now are  facing an armed Spanish force  hell bent to keep them from leaving. If they had firearm ownership I'm pretty sure the Spanish Government would be acting differently.

 

Those people who advocate for firearm restrictions  seem to have no knowledge of history.

 

 

Was anyone shot?

 

Would it have been better if people were shot?

[smotherb]

11 hours ago, Craig krup said:

This is what philosophers call a category error. The claim I'm making is based on a [purported] observation. You wouldn't ask how someone "figured out" that there was a pink hippo in the room, would you? If they said they'd concluded that there was one, they'd be presumed to have seen it. 

 

Lock 'n load

Working parts

Rocky road

Punctured hearts

High earners

Slow learners

NRA?

Doesn't pay

Guns galore? 

Childish bore

Self-protection?

Failed erection

 

 

It was a facetious remark to your obvious conclusion.

[smotherb]

8 hours ago, pegman said:

It's a federal ban so wrong again. If one type of weapon can be banned then any can.

Only machine guns made after 19 May 1986 are banned by federal law. Pre-1986 machine guns may be registered with the ATF after a lengthy application, extensive background check, and a $200 fee.

http://constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/46hard.pdf

 

So yes, there have been laws written which in some views oppose the Constitution's 2nd amendment. The laws are few and are subject to appeal--which the 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act is undergoing today.  As I said under another thread in this forum, interpretation of the 2nd amendment is key; currently the pro-gun lobby and its proponents have the upper hand. Perhaps incidents such as the recent Las Vegas mass shootings will change the mindset, but I doubt it do much.

 

Additionally, you must understand that anyone who wants a full auto weapon in the US only has  to have the money. There is a lucrative black market for automatic weapons and for the conversion of semi-auto weapons to full auto; and there are also part-way attempts, such as the bump-stock. Many full auto weapons are in use in the US and I am sure they far exceed the less than 200k machine guns legally registered with the ATF. In some areas, the current laws are not even actively enforced; I have been to gun ranges where full auto weapons were in use and no one checked their registration. Besides, if you are going to kill people, do you think you would care if the weapon was legal?

[smotherb]

3 hours ago, bazza73 said:

I can see you don't have to worry about the bears or the deer shooting back at you.

Of course not, that is why it is called hunting and not warfare.