Gun Control Discussion :D

We also have a higher population than most of Europe. Russia is a police state already. It's hard to compare us to others. I think there's some middle ground. Super-special licenses for non-handgun and non-hunting weapons should exist with the addition of intense background checks and mental health.

Indeed, we can't really be compared as closely to other societies and other cultures, and crime rates with weapons other than guns are even more of a problem in those areas.

And re-read the requirements I listed that we already have to go through to buy guns in the first place. We jump through enough hoops as it is, there are already tests, certificates, licenses that need to be renewed, different licenses for fully automatic weapons. There's not much more wiggle room us law abiding citizens can afford to give.

The shortcoming is in the mental health field, drugging kids from an early age on up with extremely serious medications, lack of discipline, lack of consequences.


For the number of felons who actually did attempt to pull a fast one and obtain a firearm through the usual means, hardly any of those cases were even prosecuted to the fullest extent of already existing laws. What was Biden's answer to this when it was pointed out by the NRA in that waste of a "meeting" they had before those 23 wanna-be-executive-orders were signed? Basically, they don't have the time or resources to enforce ALREADY EXISTING LAWS.

But they have all the time and resources in the world to shove these ridiculous gun control laws down our throats....

Using terms like "liberal fog" isn't going to help you get through the "name calling, ridiculing, and thick thick media bias". ;D


But we're talking about an archaic, outmoded right that's leading to multiple murders every year.


Please tell me you know I'm not doing that. I'm pointing out that the reason for the inclusion of "the right to keep and bear arms in order to form militias" is no longer relevant.


;D OH NO YOO DIDENT!!

Using terms like "liberal fog" isn't going to help you get through the "name calling, ridiculing, and thick thick media bias"

The term liberal fog is NOTHING compared to what liberals casually call conservatives. I've flat out been called racist because I vehemently oppose Obama's politics, and that's nothing compared to what other outspoken conservatives are subjected to, especially conservative women. So no, until the venom with which liberals consistently attack conservatives tones down considerably, I don't really have a lot of heartache with such a comparably tame phrase like "liberal fog."

But don't worry, even Max says I'm a Tea Party nutcase.



But we're talking about an archaic, outmoded right that's leading to multiple murders every year.

It is not an archaic, outmoded right. When the founders included the 2nd amendment, it wasn't intended to have an expiration date. And my personal ownership of guns has contributed to exactly 0 murders, ever. Criminal scumbags are the ones who rack up our murder count--not law abiding, gun owning people. And concealed carriers have in FACT contributed to STOPPING some criminals in their tracks. That is a FACT.




Please tell me you know I'm not doing that. I'm pointing out that the reason for the inclusion of "the right to keep and bear arms in order to form militias" is no longer relevant.

My comment was all inclusive, not just targeting your comments in particular--however, you in fact said yourself in this thread a couple of times, the second amendment is an "archaic, outmoded right," and that it's "no longer relevant." To me, that's downplaying, that's disregarding it. Am I misunderstanding what you mean by "no longer relevant"?

I just don't see how the ability to protect and defend yourself isn't relevant. If someone points a gun at you, and you choose not to arm yourself, you can hide in a closet if you like, that's as much your right as owning a gun. As for me, I prefer not to be a victim. And I get incensed when someone else tells me THEY think I would be better off as a victim, because we supposedly don't "need" guns.



OH NO YOO DIDENT!!


OOH GURL!





You'll be able to buy guns for a very, very long time to come. There is no total ban on guns coming. The most likely event is that someone will point out which weapons are used most often in the worst types of crimes, and they will be partially banned in the hopes to, eventually, over many years, reduce their overall numbers.


False sense of security, there. There is already a HUGE misconception and mislabeling of what actually constitutes a real life "ASSAULT WEAPON", for one. The grabbers aren't targeting the most commonly used guns in the worst kinds of crimes. The AR15's have constantly been mislabeled and demonized by folks who just flat out have no clue what they're talking about.

The AR does not stand for Assault Rifle, it stands for Armalite Rifle. It is not an assault weapon, it is a semi-automatic. One round is expelled each time you pull the trigger, just like about every gun you could possibly want. Fully automatic, military grade assault weapons are indeed not available to joe blow off the street.

The 223 round is not a terribly large caliber, and the AR itself IS frequently used for hunting certain game. I'm not a hunter, myself, but I get a huge kick out of target shooting with my dad's AR.

Hell, my bolt action sniper rifle that shoots 308 rounds I would think should be considered more dangerous than a shorter range, less powerful gun. I don't see anyone on the "ban Remington rifles!" bandwagon... yet--because the AR's are first on the list. Just wait till they realize, hey, these competitive target shooters can hit a target the size of a dime from over 200 yards away. OMG.

So, why the mislabeling? Makes for an easy target to start with, because it's easy to say, look, see, this gun looks mean and nasty--and to folks who aren't familiar with or educated on the subject, any gun looks nasty and intimidating.

Gun control advocates are PURPOSEFULLY misleading the general public about these features and completely unrelated statistics, to push their agenda through.

There is no such thing as "partially" banning something. Do, or do not, there is no try. When they say, this type of "assault weapon" which isn't really an assault weapon at all is no longer a legal weapon to possess in this state, if you're caught with it, you'll be charged with a felony and the weapon will be confiscated and destroyed. If you're caught with a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds here in California (7 in New York, now), you will be prosecuted. Ask that vet who inadvertently had one flippin' bullet in his back pack in DC, and now has a criminal record because of it.

Folks like Quomo and Feinstein are ON RECORD as saying they're ok with the confiscation of ALL guns. There are no grandfather clauses in NY's new laws, and there won't be in the newest pile of crap Feinstein's shoveling through, either. And if you don't think the guns you already have can't be confiscated, take a looksee, some time, at what happened in New Orleans after Katrina.

Now now, don't use the exuce "they were mean to me first". If you want to get through the "name calling, ridicule, and thick thick media bias", you've got to bring your words to life yourself.

Sometimes, some folks don't respond to rational argument. So sometimes, you gotta throw it back in some folks' faces. The ones who are the most vicious in their own attacks are often the most butthurt when they get it crammed back down their own throats. They can get away with it all they like--liberals can call Ann Coulter a cunt and a whore, they can say NRA members should all be shot, they can make their cute little internet games where you get to shoot Wayne La Pierre in the head, but Rush Limbaugh insinuates that Sandra Fluke is a slut because she testifies in front of the world that she's entitled to free birth control pills, and they want his head on a platter. "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." Fits some of the most hypocritical of the bunch.





Yes it is. Militias are not necessary to the security of nations anymore, they all have standing armies now.



To preserve liberty.

No, it is not an archaic, outmoded right. There will ALWAYS be people who believe some people are born to rule, others to BE ruled. We simply can't keep pussyfooting around the fact that history can, and DOES repeat itself if we aren't vigilant enough to nip it in the bud.



I'm saying it's out of date. Nations do not depend on militias for their defence anymore. I don't see how that's either downplaying or disregarding it.


I'm going to say, see above. When you're faced with an immediate threat, see how long it takes for law enforcement to respond. When you find yourself neck deep in a natural disaster like Katrina, and looters are running rampant, see how long it takes the national guard to restore order.

The second amendment is simply not negotiable, and I will not be convinced that it is in any way unnecessary.




It's not false. Nobody's going to ban all your guns. You'll still be able to heavily arm yourselves. Some forms of firearms might end up being banned, and if that ban lasts long enough, eventually the numbers of that type of firearm will drop -- but until that time comes, there will be plenty of them out there.




And the minute she thinks she DOES have the momentum and votes to pull it off? The only thing keeping it from happening are folks who realize the threat people like Feinstein pose to our rights.








Edit: Whew, keepin' me on my toes here. I should be in bed right now.

Oh dear.

Can we pick just about any female for president other than the one responsible for our Ambassador's death in Benghazi?

This might need a whole 'nuther thread:

LOL nuking your own back yard would make sense...


Oh, and it's a lot easier to get your driver's license than to get a gun here in California.