mike omalley said:If you want to regulate guns in your community, I have no problem with that. Just don't force your regulation on my community. Ralph
This is what always happens--gun control absolutists won't allow any discussion of regulation.
mike omalley said:
...........If the number of people killed by fertilizer bombs ever got close to the number of people killed every day by guns, I’d be arguing for some iind of regualtion of fertlizer, absolutely
Mike, on a slightly lighter note, would that mean regulation of all the bulls…t, too?
I suppose it would have to!
As a side note - Obama has been endorsed by the American Hunters and Shooters Association (some less nutty gun nuts) - http://www.huntersandshooters.com/
-Brian
Quote:Pardon the shouting, but WHO'S ADVOCATING CONFISCATING GUNS???
... We have that already. And a national data base can be used to confiscate the weapons.
Here’s the Supreme Court’s decision on gun ownership.
http://media.npr.org/documents/2008/jun/scotus_dcguns.pdf
IF the government were to suddenly decide that guns were illegal and come for them, they would be violating the Constitution. Period. The above decision is pretty clear about that. Thus we would be at the point which the 2nd Amendment was designed to protect–the right of the citizenry to rise up against the government in armed conflict. You would be within your constitutional rights to fire as they came for the guns.
Yes, a national database would be able to keep track of guns and gun owners. That’s the whole point of a database. States already maintain them, so it’s not like the federal government can’t get the data if it wanted to. A nationalized criminal background database makes it so someone arrested in Virginia can’t cross the border into Maryland to buy a gun. As for background checks themselves, there are still loopholes (gun show sales, only required for certain kinds of guns, etc.). There’s plenty of room for improvement that would make it harder for criminals to get guns while preserving the rights of individuals to own whichever kinds of guns they wish.
Tighter regulations can be enacted at the local level to suit the specific needs of the community, but a broad-based registry when it comes to background checks and the like would go great lenghts to keep guns out of the potential serial killer living next door to you.
Later,
K
WE DON"T NEED MORE LAWS (not sorry for the shouting) We need the ones already in place to be FAIRLY enforced… When everybody just “goes through the motions”, THAT’s when it becomes a problem.
Registration is a hot button issue not so much because it is a problem in and of itself, but because it sets up a slippery slope like in the UK where they keep incrementally changing the laws to the detriment of honest citizens. And frankly it’s NONE of your, or the government’s business if I have a gun, or ten guns, or no guns.
I certainly won’t argue about enforcing what’s already on the books. (Gun laws are hardly the only arena for that wish.) But certain tools such as national databases of criminal backgrounds, etc. would make it easier for the laws to be followed–thus enforced.
As for the government’s knowledge of gun ownership, I look at it like owning a car. The law says they’ve got to be registered, so we register them. The government doesn’t care if or how many, they just want to keep a record of what’s out there to make sure they’re not going to those who shouldn’t have them–and if they do end up in those hands, they have a trail to try to find out who put them there. To my thinking, that’s not remotely intrusive. Certainly, it’s no more intrusive than the various directories that show where you live, how much you paid for your house, what your income is, where you’ve lived previously, etc. (And that kind of information is available openly to whoever wants to pay to find out, not just to law enforcement.)
Later,
K
This is the gun control debate in a nutshell–Kevin makes series of eminently reasonable and well argued posts, moderate in tone and intent, and Mik responds by shouting
Nobody here or in national politics has argued for “taking away the 2nd amendment.” But that’s always how the issue gets framed. As I said, I own a gun, I was taught to hunt by my grandfather, a retired state policemen who had five long guns and at least one handgun. I’d favor both different gun laws than we have and better enforcement of the laws we already have. I can’t get over the spectacle of those bloody classrooms at Virginia tech–it’s very personal to me, given what I do for a living
Arguments for gun control are not arguments for gun confiscation. We regulate all sorts of dangerous things. You take prescription medication? Distribution is limited A careful record is kept of amount dispense. As Kevin said, your car is regulated. Are those regulations irritating? Yes. Are they intrusive? Yes? Do they serve the general good? Yes.
In terms of intrusiveness, again as kevin said, the company you buy a gun from instantly knows far more about you, for more private detail, than the government, because it buys a record of your purchases and your credit history
Kevin Strong said:Quote:Pardon the shouting, but WHO'S ADVOCATING CONFISCATING GUNS???
... We have that already. And a national data base can be used to confiscate the weapons.Here’s the Supreme Court’s decision on gun ownership.
http://media.npr.org/documents/2008/jun/scotus_dcguns.pdfIF the government were to suddenly decide that guns were illegal and come for them, they would be violating the Constitution. Period. The above decision is pretty clear about that. Thus we would be at the point which the 2nd Amendment was designed to protect–the right of the citizenry to rise up against the government in armed conflict. You would be within your constitutional rights to fire as they came for the guns.
Yes, a national database would be able to keep track of guns and gun owners. That’s the whole point of a database. States already maintain them, so it’s not like the federal government can’t get the data if it wanted to. A nationalized criminal background database makes it so someone arrested in Virginia can’t cross the border into Maryland to buy a gun. As for background checks themselves, there are still loopholes (gun show sales, only required for certain kinds of guns, etc.). There’s plenty of room for improvement that would make it harder for criminals to get guns while preserving the rights of individuals to own whichever kinds of guns they wish.
Tighter regulations can be enacted at the local level to suit the specific needs of the community, but a broad-based registry when it comes to background checks and the like would go great lenghts to keep guns out of the potential serial killer living next door to you.
Later,
K
I fail to see where I said anything about you advocating the confiscation of guns, so why are you shouting?
I simply said a national data base could be (mis)used to confiscate guns.
As for a background check, we have that and I don’t have a problem with it.
Ralph
TonyWalsham said:
I know knives and spears can also kill, but that is not what they were originally designed for.We here in Australia are lucky in that we have pretty good gun control legislation that was enacted after a nutter in Tasmania set the World record for killing the largest number of people by a single hand.
Tony, knives and spears were invented for the specific purpose of killing something. A spear has no other use. A knife has found a multitude of uses (most frequently, removing excess skin from my fingers) but its primary purpose remains killing.
I find it very telling that you say that the killing was done by a hand, and not a gun. One has to wonder why hands are not banned.
Mikey, if you’re going to drag school shootings in, then I’m going to make a point. From what I have read MOST school shooters have been bullied social outcasts. As horrific as what they did IS, do you know what it is like to get tormented EVERY day just because you are “different”? Kids are quite often like piranha or wolves, they will gang up and attack those of the group least capable of defending themselves. BUT unlike these animals they often do it just for FUN. School authorities are often “too busy” to sort out what actually happened, so they punish the victim as well…leading the victim to think no-one gives a shit about them…and the anger starts to build… Some will find less destructive (or just self destructive) outlets, some will eventually strike back.
IMO If this is your issue, then time for ZERO TOLERANCE of bullying behavior before more gun laws.
Virginia Tech’s administrators, their mental health professionals and their law enforcement people knew that Seung-Hui Cho was insane and had angry, delusional and grand apocalyptic fantasies. He had been treated for a wide range of these conditions since he was in middle school.
A significant part of the tragedy is that none of those university administrators, nor his family members could be bothered to ensure that Cho was kept from actualizing his fantasies. That even after he had been accused of stalking two female students and was declared mentally ill by a Virginia special justice. All this information and concern appears to have just been put in a file cabinet and ignored.
As to gun control, we already have lots of controls on legal gun ownership. I doubt that most of you blindly advocating for increased gun control really know and understand the current restrictions and requirements to legally get a gun. Yet, the availability of illegal guns on the street continues unabated. The saying that ‘when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns’ appears to be true.
A federal gun ownership database is exactly at odds with libertarian concept that guns might be necessary to protect against an over-zealous government as well as the more local criminal. When the government knows who is armed and where that armed person resides, a basic right that is guaranteed by the 2nd amendment is trampled.
I’m certain that all who believe in the government’s right to control everything that every citizen thinks, says and does will object to the above, but there are still a significant number of us who believe that the government’s place is second to an individual’s rights and freedoms. The USSR was a prime example of a controlled society and it died, largely a victim of its own paranoia.
Happy (Live Free or Die) RRing,
Jerry
So both of you seem to be saying that it was the universities fault–Mik seems to think because the University allowed bullying, altbough there is no evidence for this, and Jerry because the university didn’t what–kick him out? Stop him from going to gun shows and buying guns?
No one here is “blindly advocating for increased gun control.” My eyes are wide open, and I’ve seen enough
Mik said:
Mikey, if you're going to drag school shootings in, then I'm going to make a point. From what I have read MOST school shooters have been bullied social outcasts. As horrific as what they did IS, do you know what it is like to get tormented EVERY day just because you are "different"? Kids are quite often like piranha or wolves, they will gang up and attack those of the group least capable of defending themselves. BUT unlike these animals they often do it just for FUN. School authorities are often "too busy" to sort out what actually happened, so they punish the victim as well...leading the victim to think no-one gives a shit about them...and the anger starts to build...................... Some will find less destructive (or just self destructive) outlets, some will eventually strike back.IMO If this is your issue, then time for ZERO TOLERANCE of bullying behavior before more gun laws.
Right Mike,
Victims do get punished in school today. It is not right and I can’t believe it is common practice. They have this policy in our middle school. Punish everyone involved equally. One student could randomly strike another and the innocent student receives the same punishment.
If someone is hell bent on killing people, they will find a way. They don’t need guns. I won’t go into the many ways it can be done with common ingredients purchased in any grocery store.
Let’s do something about the underlying cause. You have to treat the violence. Take away one type of weapon, they will just find another.
Ralph
The laws and guidelines needed to prevent the deaths at VT were already in place.
It was the state of Virginia that dropped the ball on this one and hopefully the realization of that will prevent it happening again. They had all they needed to prevent this tragedy from ever taking place but failed to be informed or misunderstood those guidelines.
Effectively using and understanding federal guidelines designed to prevent just this is whats needed instead of adding more beaurocratic confusion!
So many here advocate knowing the details of issues and separating the BS and knee jerk responses before casting a vote or forming an opinion. This is one topic that is in dire need of that informed opinion.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1731195,00.html?xid=feed-cnn-topics
My daddy taught me that knives were for “whittling” and guns were for “killing”, usually deer and only once cause he didn’t have the heart to do it again (I learned this much later, he just liked to go and hang out in the woods and feel “manly”) and the difference between right and wrong…my guns will never be confiscated, cause nobody knows I have them, cept of course you guys …I inherited them…the only knife I ever hope to have harm to my body would be the self inflicted X-acto knife whilst werkin on a model project…if you’re gonna take me lord, take me in my sleep…
Then there is the town here in Georgia that several years ago passed an ordinance that EVERY HOME IN MUST POSSESS A GUN…you shoulda heard that “flack”…sounded like the infamous Aflack Duck quacking…
And as for ALL the senseless, cold and calculating mindless shootings that take place on a daily basis, whatever happened to our “nuthouses”, cause I sure could use one right about now…I need a break…