Seeking support for gun actions, Obama tears into gun lobby

[hawker9000]

For me, as a Brit, his proposals seem very reasonable and sensible: if anything, quite tame and mild. It's difficult to get my head around why pro-gun activists are getting so upset (I was going to use the phrase 'up in arms' ) about this. Is gun ownership really so out-of-control that a few small checks and balances are so controversial?

It is hard for a non-American to get their head around it. However, I must say it is hard for an American to get their (end even my) head around all the current gun control laws that are attempted to be followed by law abiding citizens. The problem is that those that do not follow the law will not follow any subsequent law period.

Bad and crazy people do bad and crazy things. That's, unfortunately, the way of the World. Restricting the tools to do bad and crazy things reduces bad and crazy incidents. Doesn't eliminate them, but it reduces them. Every statistic bears this out.

Your right to bear arms might make you feel safer, but more innocent people are dying because of it than would be with restrictions.

Actually, you can't demonstrate that. More to the point, neither can you demonstrate that disarming law-abiding citizens will also disarm criminals, which has got to be the mother of all silliness. Most Americans get that, and that's precisely why Americans in record numbers who never even thought about owning a gun before, are running out to buy them now while they still can.

BTW, also loved your comment about "not being interested in philosophical arguments". Lol. IOW, there's no real logic behind the anti-gun agenda, no rational argument or points that can stand up to any examination. It's just about eliminating individual liberties and the right to self-defense because you expect the absolute right to impose your will on others. Right. Got it. I think that point-of-view also had a rather strong appeal to the nazis and brutal tyrants like Stalin & Pol Pot. And N. Korea's KJU, and IS today. They weren't interested in "philosophical arguments" either.

Edited January 9, 2016 by hawker9000

[Publicus]

For me, as a Brit, his proposals seem very reasonable and sensible: if anything, quite tame and mild. It's difficult to get my head around why pro-gun activists are getting so upset (I was going to use the phrase 'up in arms' ) about this. Is gun ownership really so out-of-control that a few small checks and balances are so controversial?

I'm British too, so my understanding is also from a British perspective.

America was founded on the principles of freedom enshrined an a constitution, that isn't that old and not "out of date" as some like to portray. Americans enjoy, and take responsibility, for more personal freedoms than any other country in the world. Those freedoms need protecting as successive governments seek to erode them. Governments have been very successful in other countries like the UK, where we now have less freedoms than previous generations who ironically fought serious wars, first against the French, then the Germans to protect those freedoms.

American is a union of states, and as such, the powers of the federal government are more limited than some would like. Again, rather ironically, it's the party with the name of Democrats that seems to want to enforce more central federal controls, and restrict individual freedoms. Currently they seek to do this through creative use of laws and the justice system. Hilary Clinton, apparently, wants to make gun manufacturers and sellers liable for damages should one of their weapons be used by a criminal. The victim could sue the manufacturer and / or seller for damages! Can you imagine implications of that?

Gun ownership, the right to bear arms, the Second Amendment, was put their for good reasons. One being to stop exactly what's happening - an American government trying to take the rights enshrined in the constitution away from the people and become rulers rather than elected servants.

I've always envied my American friends' sense of freedoms, and what freedom really means; and the responsibility that goes with those freedoms.

Gun ownership, the right to bear arms, the Second Amendment, was put their for good reasons. One being to stop exactly what's happening - an American government trying to take the rights enshrined in the constitution away from the people and become rulers rather than elected servants.

That is a post-WW2 Era paranoia. An armed citizenry since 1790 to fight a tyrannic government of the United States is myth.

When the Constitution was adopted the USA had a standing army of practically zero. So the Second Amendment was written to provide for a citizenry in each of the 13 states that could become an integrated and aggregated armed force. This was how the Continental Army was created in 1776 and put under the command of General George Washington.

Read the facts please. The facts are easy to access because they're in a Playboy interview.

Arming America: when did we become a gun culture?

This past fall Michael Bellesiles, a professor of history at Emory University, published the groundbreaking book Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture.

Bellesiles' research calls into question the National Rifle Association's argument that guns are part of our heritage, that the founding fathers wanted a musket in every home, that the Second Amendment created a personal right to bear arms.

He went looking for evidence of gun use in early America and found that "when the brave patriot reached above the mantel, he pulled down a rusting, decaying, unusable musket, not a rifle, or he found no gun there at all."

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_bellesiles_plby.html

Edited January 9, 2016 by Publicus

[Khun Han]

For me, as a Brit, his proposals seem very reasonable and sensible: if anything, quite tame and mild. It's difficult to get my head around why pro-gun activists are getting so upset (I was going to use the phrase 'up in arms' ) about this. Is gun ownership really so out-of-control that a few small checks and balances are so controversial?

It is hard for a non-American to get their head around it. However, I must say it is hard for an American to get their (end even my) head around all the current gun control laws that are attempted to be followed by law abiding citizens. The problem is that those that do not follow the law will not follow any subsequent law period.

Bad and crazy people do bad and crazy things. That's, unfortunately, the way of the World. Restricting the tools to do bad and crazy things reduces bad and crazy incidents. Doesn't eliminate them, but it reduces them. Every statistic bears this out.

Your right to bear arms might make you feel safer, but more innocent people are dying because of it than would be with restrictions.

Actually, you can't demonstrate that. More to the point, neither can you demonstrate that disarming law-abiding citizens will also disarm criminals, which has got to be the mother of all silliness. Most Americans get that, and that's precisely why Americans in record numbers who never even thought about owning a gun before, are running out to buy them now while they still can.

BTW, also loved your comment about "not being interested in philosophical arguments". Lol. IOW, there's no real logic behind the anti-gun agenda, no rational argument or points that can stand up to any examination. It's just about eliminating individual liberties and the right to self-defense because you expect the absolute right to impose your will on others. Right. Got it. I think that point-of-view also had a rather strong appeal to the nazis and brutal tyrants like Stalin & Pol Pot. And N. Korea's KJU, and IS today. They weren't interested in "philosophical arguments" either.

First point: The less guns in public circulation, the less criminals have access to guns, and you have less gun crime. Countries with strict gun control laws have, per capita, less gun crime.

Second point: It's much the same as the first point. The less guns around, the less people get shot. I'm not interested in philosophical arguments because the pro-gun lobby use said arguments to obfuscate the bald fact in the first part of this point Just as you are doing in the quoted post..

Third point: Imposing your will on others. I'd say shooting them dead is about as bad as that one gets. Which leads back to points one and two. If there are less guns, less people get shot dead.

Fourth point: Oh dear, introducing tyrants into the debate, the ultimate in obfuscation. Godwin's law, I think it's called.

[arunsakda]

Right wing ideologues' absurd obsession with guns is a failure. Obama is showing his ability to become a great leader. If only we had 8 more years.

Sent via a series of tubes

[arjunadawn]

Exactly. The 2nd amendment was introduced in the 1790's when America was still fighting for its freedom on many fronts and every citizen was required to protect that freedom. This condition no longer exists. The NRA is very similar to the Klu Klux Klan, another organisation that continued fighting for outmoded policies. In countries like Australia, New Zealand, we just look on in disbelief at the lack of firearm control. It has become America's worse shame.

Posters removed for response:

Yes, correct premise, wrong conclusion. The Bill of Rights is quite old, and introduced during difficult times, as noted. The 2nd Amendment was not included in the Bill of Rights because it was only relative to the needs of the day; it was included in the Bill of Rights (near the top) because it was a fundamental right- with only the Right of Conscience being superior- 1st Amendment (then next the 2nd Amendment which protects mind, #1). After all, consider all the other Bill of Rights, do we suppose then from the above poster's assertion that these too were only opportunistic, relative to the times of struggle in the "1790's" when America was still fighting for its independence?" These days have passed. Should the other Rights from those times also be subject to government management? Yes? No?

This is the same fallacy as those who argue "the people" pertains to the "State." Everywhere else the State and "the people" are clearly described but only in the 2nd Amendment do some gun control proponents argue "the people" mean the "State." If so, "the people" would likewise be what the 1st Amendment describes, Freedom of Speech of the States. So, if the arrogant assertion is the Framers were not forward looking at all rather they embraced the 2nd Amendment relative to the troubled times they lived in we must also conclude that the other Rights also enumerated pertain to such times equally- they are not valid today. Gun control advocates will digress into personal attacks and appeals to emotion every time, right around this point in the debate. Their positions cannot be intellectually sustained and historical Papers reflect they are flat wrong.

The 2nd Amendment exists and always existed irrespective of its place in the Bill of Rights. It is a fundamental Right of Man to meet equal force in kind to preserve Life, Liberty, and Property. The hackneyed argument that the 2nd Amendment applies in time and space is such a false intellectual effort right up there with "the Constitution is a living, breathing document" rubbish. It is so topical as to be devoid of substance. Wanna argue against the 2nd Amendment? Find a position grounded in reality. The 2nd Amendment is a Natural Right self intuited, to be applicable in all times and places.

[Chicog]

extreme liberals see nothing wrong with puncturing the skull of a baby as it is being born at 9 months.

Typical right wing tosh, isn't it?

Allowing legal abortion becomes "nothing wrong with puncturing the skull of a baby as it is being born at 9 months" (!)

Expanding background checks becomes "Obama is trying to take away our guns".

Too stupid for rational debate really.

[arjunadawn]

extreme liberals see nothing wrong with puncturing the skull of a baby as it is being born at 9 months.

Typical right wing tosh, isn't it?

Allowing legal abortion becomes "nothing wrong with puncturing the skull of a baby as it is being born at 9 months" (!)

Expanding background checks becomes "Obama is trying to take away our guns".

Too stupid for rational debate really.

I am clearly a singular supporter of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms yet I do agree that background checks of some kind need to be in place; and so they are. Do these checks need to be considered again, extended, etc? Perhaps. Are there "loopholes?" I think so. However, I think it is a bridge too far to suggest that Mr Jones must have Dr Karr's background checked if he wants to sell him his dad's favorite varmint pistol, but this is where we are going with Obama's aim- insinuating the Federal Government into the anus of daily life.

Also, I think the only comparable example of limiting weapons based on mental defect can be found in Stalinist/Maoist/Marxist governments. That Obama has unelected apparatchiks placing citizens on Lists and now employing doctors as State Gatekeepers to label defective persons and place them on lists, and that this same Executor has suspended habeus corpus and has kill lists, should be very alarming. Give additional slippery slope authority in this current atmosphere... what could go wrong? (Remember, today it is Obama, tomorrow it could be a neo-con Bushesque executor. Do people on the Left really want this power to reside in someone like this who can choose who is an enemy or friend of the state by labeling, association, gatekeepers, secret panels, etc? This is so absurdly dangerous). Increasingly the freedoms of the innocent are being abridged under the premise of limiting the criminals. This is so self evidently the wrong approach.

Many people may not flatly state it but the fact is many of us are really afraid of those like HRC and Obama. Seriously, demagoguery aside: they have not demonstrated to those of us on the other side any real stewardship, certainly when it pertains to reaching across and embracing us equally as they do their leftist backers. They have repeatedly alienated large swaths of center and right America ("clinging to god and guns") and yes, we do not think they are coming for the guns because of recent developments. We think they have been coming for the guns for decades and have witnessed and inexorable march in this direction. It is false facts to think these indictments of Obama is a response to his recent fiat action ("stroke of a pen, law of the land. Pretty cool"). This is one more package of smothering gun control efforts atop previous useless packages. None of them have effectively reduced the problem the laws were ostensibly crafted to reduce. The real amazing thing would be if people were not concerned they were "coming for the guns." Of course they are coming for the guns. One does not need to presume motive. All that is necessary is to look at the actors behind gun control, their stated goals, and the legislative accomplishments to date. When seen objectively, and honestly, only a fool would argue they are not "coming for the guns."

For such "typical right wing" tosh the left affords them an exceptional amount of genius or clairvoyance. After all, the Right has repeatedly and constantly predicted nearly every single action Obama has taken so far with respect to guns; the recent internet history over x years is replete with all these "wingnuts" detailing pretty much how it would come to pass, and when. With such a published and constant track record the Left actually looks pretty silly stating the Right is wrong about [them] "coming for the guns."

[Khun Han]

The reality of the argument that freedom to bear arms makes people safer:

http://blogs-images.forbes.com/dandiamond/files/2015/08/GunDeaths.gif

[Publicus]

Exactly. The 2nd amendment was introduced in the 1790's when America was still fighting for its freedom on many fronts and every citizen was required to protect that freedom. This condition no longer exists. The NRA is very similar to the Klu Klux Klan, another organisation that continued fighting for outmoded policies. In countries like Australia, New Zealand, we just look on in disbelief at the lack of firearm control. It has become America's worse shame.

Posters removed for response:

Yes, correct premise, wrong conclusion. The Bill of Rights is quite old, and introduced during difficult times, as noted. The 2nd Amendment was not included in the Bill of Rights because it was only relative to the needs of the day; it was included in the Bill of Rights (near the top) because it was a fundamental right- with only the Right of Conscience being superior- 1st Amendment (then next the 2nd Amendment which protects mind, #1). After all, consider all the other Bill of Rights, do we suppose then from the above poster's assertion that these too were only opportunistic, relative to the times of struggle in the "1790's" when America was still fighting for its independence?" These days have passed. Should the other Rights from those times also be subject to government management? Yes? No?

This is the same fallacy as those who argue "the people" pertains to the "State." Everywhere else the State and "the people" are clearly described but only in the 2nd Amendment do some gun control proponents argue "the people" mean the "State." If so, "the people" would likewise be what the 1st Amendment describes, Freedom of Speech of the States. So, if the arrogant assertion is the Framers were not forward looking at all rather they embraced the 2nd Amendment relative to the troubled times they lived in we must also conclude that the other Rights also enumerated pertain to such times equally- they are not valid today. Gun control advocates will digress into personal attacks and appeals to emotion every time, right around this point in the debate. Their positions cannot be intellectually sustained and historical Papers reflect they are flat wrong.

The 2nd Amendment exists and always existed irrespective of its place in the Bill of Rights. It is a fundamental Right of Man to meet equal force in kind to preserve Life, Liberty, and Property. The hackneyed argument that the 2nd Amendment applies in time and space is such a false intellectual effort right up there with "the Constitution is a living, breathing document" rubbish. It is so topical as to be devoid of substance. Wanna argue against the 2nd Amendment? Find a position grounded in reality. The 2nd Amendment is a Natural Right self intuited, to be applicable in all times and places.

The 2nd Amendment was not included in the Bill of Rights because it was only relative to the needs of the day; it was included in the Bill of Rights (near the top) because it was a fundamental right. 1st Amendment (then next the 2nd Amendment which protects mind, #1)

Wrong again.

The original Bill of Rights submitted to the Congress contained 20 items. The Bill was pared down to 12 amendments. By the time it had been approved by the states, there were ten amendments. It is these ten amendments to the Constitution, amendments 1-10, that are called the Bill of Rights.

In the end, 12 of the 20 amendments survived the congressional approval process. Enough states approved 10 of those 12 amendments to make the Bill of Rights a reality on December 15, 1791.

http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2015/12/five-items-congress-deleted-from-madisons-original-bill-of-rights/

What ended up as the Second Amendment became the 2nd one because all but one of the several proposed amendments written in before it were stricken or voted down.

The first surviving proposed amendment became the First Amendment. The second surviving proposed amendment became the Second Amendment. And so on. Neither the First Amendment nor the Second Amendment had been originally submitted as the first one or the second one.

In fact, in the originally proposed Bill of Rights, all 20 of 'em, what became the First Amendment was listed fourth. The Second Amendment was originally listed in the proposed fourth amendment. Included in the proposed and unwieldy fourth amendment were numerous provisions that became separated from it to be written as separate amendments themselves. (In another instance, the proposed item listed 8th became the 10th Amendment in the final Bill of Rights.)

Listed and stricken or voted down from the list before what became the First and then the Second Amendment respectively were for example, proposed amendments to guarantee the right to reform the government; a proposal concerning the number of representatives elected to the House, an item that a pay rise could only be implemented after the term of office had expired (finally adopted in 1992).

Here is how the Second Amendment appeared in the originally drafted Bill of proposed 20 items first written and as submitted (by the future 4th POTUS James Madison of Virginia):

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

Wanna argue against the 2nd Amendment? Find a position grounded in reality. The 2nd Amendment is a Natural Right self intuited, to be applicable in all times and places.

Thanks for the challenge. I myself as a handgun owner in the USA do not argue against the Second Amendment. I do say the rights protecting citizens (later all residents) are guaranteed in the Constitution as a matter of law, each civil law or criminal law.

In other words, the Bill of Rights and the Constitution overall say nothing about "Natural Rights," or a "Natural Law." That is a later claim assigned to both the Bill and to the Constitution. After all, anyone can say the Constitution was "divinely inspired" as some have said. However, nowhere in the Constitution to include the Bill is this stated either.

Anyone then, now, or between then and now can claim anything not stated in the document. It can be "natural law" or "unnatural law." It can be "divinely inspired." It can be that the Constitution was written based on corn as a crop or or because (Pennsylvania) delegate Benjamin Franklin invented gin with tonic added to it to improve the taste. In this respect, one can claim the Constitution was inspired by secret conversations with aliens visiting from Alpha Centauri. Nothing changes the fact or reality the Constitution says nothing about "natural law," or any of the other blah blah blah of ideationists.

http://www.constitution.org/bor/amd_jmad.htm

[Chicog]

The clue is in the word "Amendment".

There will never be one as long as the gun lobby is powerful enough to pay off or threaten politicians who could do something meaningful.

[LarryBird]

Blame capitalism. Blame guns. Blame rich people. Blame the white man. Blame patriarchy.

[chuckd]

The clue is in the word "Amendment".

There will never be one as long as the gun lobby is powerful enough to pay off or threaten politicians who could do something meaningful.

Nonsense.

The clue is in the Constitution where it calls for ratification of changes to the constitution be approved by 75% of the States.

You give the "gun lobby" entirely too much credit.

States Rights rule the day here.

[Chicog]

The clue is in the word "Amendment".

There will never be one as long as the gun lobby is powerful enough to pay off or threaten politicians who could do something meaningful.

Nonsense.

The clue is in the Constitution where it calls for ratification of changes to the constitution be approved by 75% of the States.

You give the "gun lobby" entirely too much credit.

States Rights rule the day here.

Wow Chuck and there was me thinking the States actually have politicians.

:rollseyes:

[Credo]

At this point in time there is little chance of the 2nd amendment being repealed. The basic problem isn't the amendment, it is how it is interpreted by the Supreme Court. Over time, how it is interpreted may change. Right now, it most likely won't.

[mopar71]

For me, as a Brit, his proposals seem very reasonable and sensible: if anything, quite tame and mild. It's difficult to get my head around why pro-gun activists are getting so upset (I was going to use the phrase 'up in arms' ) about this. Is gun ownership really so out-of-control that a few small checks and balances are so controversial?

It is hard for a non-American to get their head around it. However, I must say it is hard for an American to get their (end even my) head around all the current gun control laws that are attempted to be followed by law abiding citizens. The problem is that those that do not follow the law will not follow any subsequent law period.

Bad and crazy people do bad and crazy things. That's, unfortunately, the way of the World. Restricting the tools to do bad and crazy things reduces bad and crazy incidents. Doesn't eliminate them, but it reduces them. Every statistic bears this out.

Your right to bear arms might make you feel safer, but more innocent people are dying because of it than would be with restrictions.

Then why are just about all these gun deaths and mass shootings (however you define them) happening in cities and states with the most restrictive gun laws?

It may be difficult for liberals and non-Americans to wrap their heads around but leaving only criminals with access to guns is only going to increase gun crime.

[mopar71]

The clue is in the word "Amendment".

There will never be one as long as the gun lobby is powerful enough to pay off or threaten politicians who could do something meaningful.

Nonsense.

The clue is in the Constitution where it calls for ratification of changes to the constitution be approved by 75% of the States.

You give the "gun lobby" entirely too much credit.

States Rights rule the day here.

Wow Chuck and there was me thinking the States actually have politicians.

:rollseyes:

Go to opensecrets.org, the website that has tracked political donations for over 25 years and see if you can find where the gun lobby is spreading that much money around. You can't, because they don't.

Edited January 10, 2016 by mopar71

[chuckd]

The clue is in the word "Amendment".

There will never be one as long as the gun lobby is powerful enough to pay off or threaten politicians who could do something meaningful.

Nonsense.

The clue is in the Constitution where it calls for ratification of changes to the constitution be approved by 75% of the States.

You give the "gun lobby" entirely too much credit.

States Rights rule the day here.

Wow Chuck and there was me thinking the States actually have politicians.

:rollseyes:

And how many of those States politicians will put the interests of the White House over the interests of their own electorate?

I think we can safely assume there won't be very many States' Governors that are worried about Obama's legacy which is the driving force behind this thread.

[boomerangutang]

For me, as a Brit, his proposals seem very reasonable and sensible: if anything, quite tame and mild. It's difficult to get my head around why pro-gun activists are getting so upset (I was going to use the phrase 'up in arms' ) about this. Is gun ownership really so out-of-control that a few small checks and balances are so controversial?

I grew up in the US and Europe, back and forth, so I can see both sides and the subtleties. The US produces more wanna-be tough guys a.k.a. bullies than probably anywhere else except the dune countries. Just one tiny example (of billions): I was on a two lane country road in California. I needed to back up and turn around. I just needed to back in to a dirt driveway one length of the car in order to do so. As I was there about to take off (a half second after backing in), a very heavy and angry man, 30-something, came out of the little house nearby with a gun and told me I was trespassing, and never to do it again. That's just the tiniest tip of the iceberg of rampant red-neckism in the US. I could relate hundreds of other similar stories. There's a certain segment of Americans, perhaps 6% to 8%, who are to the right of Attila the Hun's mentally-challenged bodyguard.

As for the 2nd Amendment. Obama or someone else in authority should explain what the law says and what prompted it to be written: It was written at a time when the US needed 'Minutemen' on a minute's notice if hostilities broke out. For examples against red indians or redcoats. It has nothing to do with the types of weapons which exist today, and which wouldn't even be invented for one to 200 years in the future. The 2nd Amendment mentions a 'well-armed militia' but says nothing about homes.

[Chicog]

The National Rifle Association has taken center stage as the main opponent of the White House's plan to enact new gun control mechanisms at the federal level.

But the real battle the NRA fights is at the state level, where they have been extremely successful at loosening gun laws over the past decade.

A review of the NRA legislation news page has shown that the organization has had at least 230 full legislative victories on the state level in the past ten years alone.

http://www.businessinsider.com/state-laws-nra-right-to-carry-gun-control-2013-4?IR=T

[mopar71]

extreme liberals see nothing wrong with puncturing the skull of a baby as it is being born at 9 months.

Typical right wing tosh, isn't it?

Allowing legal abortion becomes "nothing wrong with puncturing the skull of a baby as it is being born at 9 months" (!)

Expanding background checks becomes "Obama is trying to take away our guns".

Too stupid for rational debate really.

You misunderstood what I wrote.

[Chicog]

Maybe you didn't explain it properly.

[chuckd]

The National Rifle Association has taken center stage as the main opponent of the White House's plan to enact new gun control mechanisms at the federal level.

But the real battle the NRA fights is at the state level, where they have been extremely successful at loosening gun laws over the past decade.

A review of the NRA legislation news page has shown that the organization has had at least 230 full legislative victories on the state level in the past ten years alone.

http://www.businessinsider.com/state-laws-nra-right-to-carry-gun-control-2013-4?IR=T

Thank you for proving my point. The State level is where the will of the people comes into play.

If you think the cares of the citizens are entertained by our federal bureaucrats and politicians, then you know as little about the American people as I have always suspected.

[Chicog]

I was talking about NRA and gun lobby influence Chuck. Not that Politicians need much excuse to ignore their constituents' wishes.

[LarryBird]

I'm curious, were there a lot of gun deaths during prohibition? What happened after prohibition?

[Khun Han]

For me, as a Brit, his proposals seem very reasonable and sensible: if anything, quite tame and mild. It's difficult to get my head around why pro-gun activists are getting so upset (I was going to use the phrase 'up in arms' ) about this. Is gun ownership really so out-of-control that a few small checks and balances are so controversial?

It is hard for a non-American to get their head around it. However, I must say it is hard for an American to get their (end even my) head around all the current gun control laws that are attempted to be followed by law abiding citizens. The problem is that those that do not follow the law will not follow any subsequent law period.

Bad and crazy people do bad and crazy things. That's, unfortunately, the way of the World. Restricting the tools to do bad and crazy things reduces bad and crazy incidents. Doesn't eliminate them, but it reduces them. Every statistic bears this out.

Your right to bear arms might make you feel safer, but more innocent people are dying because of it than would be with restrictions.

Then why are just about all these gun deaths and mass shootings (however you define them) happening in cities and states with the most restrictive gun laws?

It may be difficult for liberals and non-Americans to wrap their heads around but leaving only criminals with access to guns is only going to increase gun crime.

Again:

http://blogs-images.forbes.com/dandiamond/files/2015/08/GunDeaths.gif

Your idea of restrictive gun laws is very different to mine, and produces the USA figure in the above chart. My idea of restrictive gun laws produces the England and Wales figure in the same chart.

Cutting the number of guns in circulation means more gun homicides by criminals? You're kidding me, right? The difference between the USA figure and England & Wales figure is so stark as to be almost the difference between black and white!

[boomerangutang]

When a gun-worshiper's 6 year old daughter gets shot downtown as 'collateral damage' of a gunfight between two rival gangs, he can grin, feel warm and fuzzy inside, and chalk it up to the gang members' 'right to bear arms.'

[casualbiker]

The National Rifle Association has taken center stage as the main opponent of the White House's plan to enact new gun control mechanisms at the federal level.

But the real battle the NRA fights is at the state level, where they have been extremely successful at loosening gun laws over the past decade.

A review of the NRA legislation news page has shown that the organization has had at least 230 full legislative victories on the state level in the past ten years alone.

http://www.businessinsider.com/state-laws-nra-right-to-carry-gun-control-2013-4?IR=T

Thank you for proving my point. The State level is where the will of the people comes into play.

If you think the cares of the citizens are entertained by our federal bureaucrats and politicians, then you know as little about the American people as I have always suspected.

. So you are suggesting that State politicians listen to the "people" but federal politicians don't. Am I correct?

[chuckd]

The National Rifle Association has taken center stage as the main opponent of the White House's plan to enact new gun control mechanisms at the federal level.

But the real battle the NRA fights is at the state level, where they have been extremely successful at loosening gun laws over the past decade.

A review of the NRA legislation news page has shown that the organization has had at least 230 full legislative victories on the state level in the past ten years alone.

http://www.businessinsider.com/state-laws-nra-right-to-carry-gun-control-2013-4?IR=T

Thank you for proving my point. The State level is where the will of the people comes into play.

If you think the cares of the citizens are entertained by our federal bureaucrats and politicians, then you know as little about the American people as I have always suspected.

. So you are suggesting that State politicians listen to the "people" but federal politicians don't. Am I correct?

Basically.

[William C F Pierce]

If all Americans are so free and responsible. Why don't they terminate all Sheriffs, Marshals and police forces? Then see how quickly all Americans would want to change their 2nd amendment. After all it is the growth of gun supply on a worldwide basis, largely through America and Russia/Soviet Union, that the world is such a much more dangerous place. Just as charity begins at home; so does gun control. The frontiers of the Wild West no longer exist, that the 2nd amendment is now so out of date, that it needs a rewrite to suit the needs of the 21st century. Not the needs the Wild West!!!

Edited January 12, 2016 by Scott
Font

[howto]

If all Americans are so free and responsible. Why don't they terminate all Sheriffs, Marshals and police forces? Then see how quickly all Americans would want to change their 2nd amendment. After all it is the growth of gun supply on a worldwide basis, largely through America and Russia/Soviet Union, that the world is such a much more dangerous place. Just as charity begins at home; so does gun control. The frontiers of the Wild West no longer exist, that the 2nd amendment is now so out of date, that it needs a rewrite to suit the needs of the 21st century. Not the needs the Wild West!!!

err, I suggest that you do not drink and post.

"terminate all Sheriffs, Marshals and police forces? Then see how quickly all Americans would want to change their 2nd amendment."

Again you are mistaken, because the opposit will happen,

(while not a chance that would happen)

"The frontiers of the Wild West no longer exist, that the 2nd amendment is now so out of date, that it needs a rewrite to suit the needs of the 21st century. Not the needs the Wild West!!!"

You watch too many "B" grade spaghetti western hollywood movies.

Every town had an elected sherrif, whom appointed deptuties.

The states appointed (several) marshals, with far reaching powers.

(NEVER MESS WITH A FED MARSHALL)

Every town has an ordinace, posted at the entrance...

NO FIREARMS, one must turn them unto the sheriff during their stay.

Yeah, go get a hot bath, a shave, poke the hoes, a hot meal, drink a bit,

maybe play some cards. Then leave.

Now some locals did had some firearms, usually business locals,

and were not encumbered by the sheriff...

whom had mostly double barrell 12 gauge shotgun.

Why? Cause any firearm + ammo was expensive.

A pistol, usually a 45 long colt was 2+ monthly income,

A rifle, usually a spenser or a buffalo springfield was 3+ month income

"The frontiers of the Wild West no longer exist, that the 2nd amendment is now so out of date, that it needs a rewrite to suit the needs of the 21st century. Not the needs the Wild West!!!"

The "frontiers of the Wild West" had their place, however

the 2nd amendment WAS not from that period.

It was never there to supplant any "needs of the wild west".

It does not need a re-write,

(especially considering whats been happening).

HOWEVER, we, as americans, DO have the right to arm oneself.

YOU DON'T, get over it.

Go away you Anti-American Basher, whom has no say there.

Go back to your Europa fantasy.