Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Current Events  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 LoonyTunz
Joined: 8/11/2006
Msg: 351
view profile
History
gun control in the usaPage 5 of 102    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41)
Just try popping 32 students before you get taken down if you are using rocks, knives and bats . Or a bunch of Amish kids. If you believe that guns aren't the problem and it is people (which actually is mostly accurate), then why do so many of you have a problem with making it harder for the WRONG people to keep getting them so easily? It seems like those that don't believe in reasonable controls tend to throw their hands up in the air and just guve up "bad people will find a way to get them anyway". Which is bull, we all know several people that we wouldn't trust with a gun and several people we would, but only a few actually manage to get illegal guns.
 angelheart3
Joined: 2/3/2007
Msg: 354
gun control in the usa
Posted: 5/5/2007 9:43:11 PM
Msg369: NO gun control is going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals when they want to get them - period. And...because of HIPPA and Privacy Act and a few other regulations, it would be next to impossible to keep guns out of the hands of unstable individuals. Most unstable individuals, like the kid referenced in the VA Tech incident are ticking time bombs nobody has even noticed before they explode nor would there be a record of instability to deny the purchase of a gun. So pray tell, then, how is gun control really going to keep the public safer?

I'll keep my right to bear arms, thank you.

While I am thinking about it - do we next control cell phones and hairsprays since someone can make a bomb out of them? Sorry but this while thread reminds me of going through the airport recently with less than 3 oz of basic stuff.
 GREENEYES269
Joined: 7/30/2006
Msg: 355
gun control in the usa
Posted: 5/6/2007 4:48:42 AM
And Proud of it. I will protect what is mine till the end and Proud I have the right to in this great COUNTRY

And I have done it in Uniform as well as a Civilian.
 angelheart3
Joined: 2/3/2007
Msg: 356
gun control in the usa
Posted: 5/6/2007 5:59:40 AM
Charles - think about our American culture and lifestyle compared to other countries and I think you will answer your own question.

Personally, I am more concerned about gun control than I am of dying in a homicide from the use of a firearm. Mind you this is my opinion. There is a pervasive mentality in our country that if something is broke - let's get government to fix it instead of taking personal responsibility for the problem. Whether it be guns, cigarette smoking, alcohol and a myriad of other things I could name: we leave it to government to fix the problem. The problem with that as I see it is that the more we rely on government to fix what we think is broken, we in effect compromise the very freedoms upon which our great country was founded.

We live in a society inundated with the message if it feels good, do it. We leave computers and IPODS to name a couple to babysit our children and teach them values, then wonder why people like the young man that went ballistic at VA Tech killed so many people. The problem wasn't the weapon he used or even that he was able to obtain one - the problem with that individual (for example) began long before he ever got his hands on a weapon. That is the piece that many seem to overlook.

In today's environment, the concept of personal responsibility seems to pervasively escape the general population. It far easier to hop on the blame train and say the solution to homicide by firearms is to control firearms. That isn't a solution - it's avoidance. Just as the parents of that young man, for example, ignored ALL the warning signs that their son was in trouble - long before he ever conceived the notion to blow away all of those students. We've become so distracted with ourselves that we in general don't pay attention to what is happening right in front of us until there is a tragedy. Using the VA Tech example once again, even if he had not been able to obtain a firearm - clearly the young man was determined to take out lives and with that determination - he could have just as easily built a home-made bomb and potentially taken out more lives. So how in God's green earth would gun control have prevented the inevitable conclusion in that situation? Do we start controlling basic household products simply because there are nuts out there who can make a home-made bomb and kill people?

The ability of criminals and mentally unstable individuals to purchase a firearm is a SYMPTOM - not the problem.

Other cultures have a much tighter family unit and it appears to me that in the US - we seem to have lost sight of that concept for the most part. And we wonder why we have incidents such as VA Tech. Ask his parents 6 months from now when they have analyzed and finally noticed all the warning signs that were there all along that they were too busy to notice while they were caught up in whatever it was that was more important than focusing on their son - ask them then what the problem was as they beat themselves up for not paying attention to what was right in front of them all along.
 LoonyTunz
Joined: 8/11/2006
Msg: 359
view profile
History
gun control in the usa
Posted: 5/6/2007 11:57:41 AM

Most unstable individuals, like the kid referenced in the VA Tech incident are ticking time bombs nobody has even noticed before they explode nor would there be a record of instability to deny the purchase of a gun. So pray tell, then, how is gun control really going to keep the public safer?

You mean the three times the cops showed up to question him about stalking that girl, or the required visits with a therapist for his problems. Given the nature of his problems, here that alone would have denied him any legal sale of firearms here(and could have notified local authorities that the problem with him was growing).
At 5 school shootings this school year alone in the US, to be comparable on a population basis we'd need to have one every other year, yet I can only recall 3 in my LIFETIME (Ecole PolyTechnique, Taber and Dawson).
Canada and the US have far more similarities than differences with the small exception of the US having a higher rate of "religousity". I will give you kudos though angelheart because you are most definately right in one respect. There are sociological factors, whether they be poverty, lack of family cohesiveness, or simple respect for your fellow person. However we face those very same issues and still at the end of the day have a safer environment to work in, raise families and so on. Part of the reason is we DO make an effort to prevent the wrong people from obtainning the fire power to do alot of serious damage. This is something that you will never achieve until all of the continental states get on the same page and co-operate to prevent sales to the wrong people. Which is why New York gets a thumbs up for suing out of state gun vendors participating in strawman purchases . This won't affect any law-abiding citizens ability to procure or keep firearms but will put out of business some of the fools making this problem bigger than it needs to be.
 LoonyTunz
Joined: 8/11/2006
Msg: 361
view profile
History
gun control in the usa
Posted: 5/6/2007 12:20:31 PM
K you are a classic example of a fear-mongerring neo-con.
Ohhh and learn to spell. While you are at it back up a statement with a fact.

Kanada already has gun control,

Yes we do but contrary to your claim they infact do seem to be working.

Your entire post is so full of holes I can't even begin on where to tear it apart.


I think idiots should be limited as to what they say

Yeah, but if that were the case your post would have auto-deleted.
 idohaveaphd
Joined: 2/9/2007
Msg: 366
gun control in the usa
Posted: 5/6/2007 3:23:19 PM
guns dont kill people people kill people
 LoonyTunz
Joined: 8/11/2006
Msg: 367
view profile
History
gun control in the usa
Posted: 5/6/2007 3:29:32 PM

Guns don't kill people, people that abuse guns and violent people kill people....

Well Duh master of the obvious. The point is why give THOSE people such easy access.


I'm wondering why anybody in any other country would be so concerned about gun control here in the USA when they don't even live here?

Again go read the entire thread, you will find that 50% of the illegal guns in MY country come from sales in YOUR country. Which is also why I am laughing my bag off now that NY is suing disreputable dealers that are making illegal sales out of state. It's about time. And just because it is a different counrty is no excuse for lack of concern ...... sort of like pretending Iraq had WMD's. Hey it is another country so why are ya all worked up about them having those arms?
 LoonyTunz
Joined: 8/11/2006
Msg: 372
view profile
History
gun control in the usa
Posted: 5/6/2007 4:49:25 PM

Response 2) We should implament stringent firearms regulation that disallows anyone legal access to firearms.

Is where you get off track.
The purpose of controls are not to stop "anyone" but to stop people with a violent history or mental stability issues. As you said "better background checks" that is a huge start. Even then a few will slip through the system but far less than currently do.

I'll have to double check the stats but I don't think the US has ahd a homicide rate of 1.2/100000 in my lifetime. Florida's alone was well over that even in the 60's.
 woobytoodsday
Joined: 12/13/2006
Msg: 373
gun control in the usa
Posted: 5/6/2007 10:15:33 PM
In clinical work, family physicians have the opportunity to educate patients on the dangers of owning a handgun. Well-designed studies have shown that, contrary to popular belief, it is not safer to have a gun in the house. A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a family member or friend than it is to kill in self-defense.[22] Kellerman found "the presence of one or more guns in the home was associated with an increased risk of suicide (adjusted odds ration (OR) 4.8; 95% CI 2.7-8.5)."[23] Kellermann and other researchers have similarly found an increased risk of gun death by homicide when a gun is in the home.[22,24] In contrast, guns are rarely used for self-protection[22,25,26] even though 75% of persons who own a handgun give protection as their reason for owning the gun.[27] Perhaps many would rethink gun ownership if a physician presented them with these statistics. Outcomes research can evaluate the impact of physician counseling regarding the relative risks of having a gun in the home.


http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/405837_4

.
 angelheart3
Joined: 2/3/2007
Msg: 375
gun control in the usa
Posted: 5/7/2007 2:40:38 PM
Very good point, givsarip. Not only where do you start, but where do you stop? And what about the person(s) wrongly convicted of a crime and later it's determined they never committed the act in the first place - it does happen, after all - what about that person?

Look at all of the opinions in this thread and all make valid arguments on this topic - but whose argument is more valid than the others? Whose rights are more valid than the others? And who makes that decision?

Take it one step further here in FL, as I actually investigate this type of case. What about the individual who is wrongly Baker Acted? It does happen. And as a result, there is a record of hospitalization as well as record of a court order. Should that individual be denied the right bear arms because a particular statute was abused in that event? Doesn't matter that it was determined to be an error - the fact that it happened at all creates a record as it involves a court order.

So who is going to make that decision as to who can purchase a firearm, and who cannot? Who is going to sift through the valid reasons not to issue a firearm and the invalid reasons to deny the purchase of a firearm?

It's real easy for us all to sit back and voice our respective opinions with our own agendas - but we best think very carefully on this matter and see the big picture. One can prove anything with statistics which is one reason I don't put much stock in them. For one thing, statistics are only as valid as the record of reported cases and can easily be slanted to portray what the statistician wants to portray. In other words, they are not absolute values - merely a representation of aggregated available data.
 capegardengirl
Joined: 4/29/2006
Msg: 377
gun control in the usa
Posted: 5/7/2007 5:59:50 PM
"I believe people who have mental illness and are prone to violence should not be allowed to own guns"..The vast majority of mentally ill arent violent, JUST like the rest of the population...What makes you think singling them out is gonna solve the problem??...How are you gonna "predict" someone who is mentally ill will be violent, without violating THEIR rights....Many people who are violent in this country exhibit no sign of "mental illness"...Emotional immaturity, low self esteem , and anger management problems?.. Absolutely yes...Mental illness?.....NO
 angelheart3
Joined: 2/3/2007
Msg: 378
gun control in the usa
Posted: 5/8/2007 2:20:18 AM
Msgs 398 & 399: I agree with both of you. Case in point. Take the mentally ill. My ex-husband always had firearms in the home and even taught me how to use them. He is mentally ill. Actually, I had more to fear from his fists than I ever did from the firearms. Even after I fled that situation, he used to follow me around with my daughter and a .357 Magnum in the front seat of his car (this was 25+ years ago). He never discharged that weapon against me AND he was mentally ill as well as violent.

I do think on the issue of gun control that any individual purchasing one should be required to have firearms training and show evidence thereof at the time of purchase, either via a certificate of training OR former military or law enforcement verification. There's a lot of responsibility that comes with owning a firearm and it's not unreasonable to require formal training. But to categorize a portion of the population on the basis of what might happen is pure ignorance. As far as convicted felons? No, I don't believe they should retain their right to bear arms as they lost that and other rights when they made the choice to commit the crime. However, I would even consider reinstatement of a felon's rights if that felon is reintegrated into society and demonstrates sustained and consistent ability to comply with established laws and statutes without incident - 5-10 years would not be an unreasonable time frame.

Just as when one obtains their first driver's license, one is required to demonstrate the skills to operate a motor vehicle. A car is, after all, also a weapon. It is therefore not unreasonable to implement similar requirements when purchasing a firearm.

Frankly, if someone who is armed with a firearm breaks into my home - by virtue of the fact that the individual is armed is evidence of his/her intent to do me bodily harm and I would much rather have the choice to defend myself with a gun in that event as only in comic books is one capable of running faster than a bullet.
 angelheart3
Joined: 2/3/2007
Msg: 382
gun control in the usa
Posted: 5/8/2007 2:32:52 PM
[But then again I do respect the right to protect one's self - bugger it let everyone have guns, shoot each other, cut the population down and save resorces!!!!!!!]

( I can never get that blasted quote thing to work correctly!)
Anyway, that would be a rather bizarre way to resolve a myriad of issues. Good thing we are only talking about guns and not nuclear or chemical warfare!

Bottom line, regardless of what position any of us takes - there is no perfect solution to accommodate everyone.

It is my belief, however, that even when the right to bear arms was implemented - there were people even then for the same reasons stated in this thread that should not have a firearm. And back then, there wasn't even the medical/behaviorial, etc. knowledge that we have today. Back then, there were criminals that used weapons to commit crimes. And while it goes without saying that the population of Americans was certainly much smaller - the same concerns and conditions existed. Even with much of the same issues, even with the improved technology today - a bullet still can kill and the only thing that has really changed is the delivery method of that bullet. In consideration of all of this, it was still deamed then to be an inalienable right to bear arms.

I remain opposed to gun control.
 livefire
Joined: 2/3/2007
Msg: 383
view profile
History
gun control in the usa
Posted: 5/8/2007 3:58:36 PM
Angel - your logical approach(without name calling, etc) is certainly refreshing, given the way this thread has gone. And the following is in no way attacking your position, just expanding on it.

Yes, the forfathers wrote the 2nd Ammendment to give everyone the right to defend themselves against people with criminal intent. However this was only one aspect of this Ammendment.

The Constitution was written after a long and bloody war of independence from GB. This war was fought to free themselves from the tyranny of the king, who was taxing them heavily to pay for the war with France, forcing the colonists to provide board and room for the redcoats as well as outright confiscation their homes/posessions, forbidding anyone from practicing any religeon not approved by the crown, and censoring any news articles that were contrary to Brittish(the kings) beliefs. And of course, colonists were being jailed, or worse, without trial if they didn't cooperate to the liking of the local Brittish governor.

The forfathers wrote those first ten ammendments to keep this type of treatment from happening again under our new government. This is why they wrote the Bill Of Rights. These rights, as was explained in detail in papers by the authors, are considered 'inalienable rights', ones that were not granted by any form of governing party, but ones that every citizen was born with. The Bill Of Rights was not written to guarrantee that the citizens would be granted these rights, they already had them. It was written to guarrantee that the government could not take them away as the king had done.

When it came to the 2nd Ammendment, this 'right' was retained by the people for defense against 'all enemies, both foriegn and domestic.' They knew that if the people did not have the ability to take up arms, as they had, against a government in the event that government became too tyrannical, their new democracy would have no chance of surviving. "The people should not fear their government, the government should fear its people." They knew that as long as the threat of another revolution was always a valid one, the government would always 'fear it's people', and listen to what they had to say about the direction the country was going or risk being overthrown.

Along with the above, they created the seperation of powers in order to avoid any one branch of government of achieving too much power. Because power, especially absolute power, will become corrupt and will no longer be the voice of the people.

They also went on to say that every able-bodied male was required to be 'at the ready' to excercise that defense. 'At the ready' was described as owning a firearm pursuant to the day, appropriate ammunition, and be proficient in the use of said firearm.

Yes, self-defense was part of the 2nd Ammendment - but not the whole of it.
 angelheart3
Joined: 2/3/2007
Msg: 384
gun control in the usa
Posted: 5/8/2007 4:16:14 PM
Well stated, livewire - and as I am sure you could discern, civics and history were not my strongsuits which is why I presented what I said in terms of belief - not fact. That was probably largely due to a civics teacher more interested in Hostess Twinkies than teaching (I am serious about that!).

I think I also said in an earlier post that I did support that it should be a requirement that anyone purchasing a fireman show evidence of completion of formal training or prior military/law enforcement (or current in that respect) certification.

Now to lighten up this thread just a wee bit - or maybe I'm opening another can of worms, do you suppose that the amendment should be modified to include "able-bodied women"? I would support that change!
 Realityissubjective
Joined: 9/24/2006
Msg: 385
view profile
History
gun control in the usa
Posted: 5/8/2007 6:01:44 PM
er....To paraphrase, The 2nd Amendment states: *right of the PEOPLE*
It is not gender specific in
 livefire
Joined: 2/3/2007
Msg: 386
view profile
History
gun control in the usa
Posted: 5/8/2007 6:36:43 PM
lol - Angel.

Here are some interesting quotes from the founding fathers:


Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it.

John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776



If men through fear, fraud or mistake, should in terms renounce and give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the great end of society, would absolutely vacate such renunciation; the right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of Man to alienate this gift, and voluntarily become a slave.

John Adams, Rights of the Colonists, 1772



[D]emocracy will soon degenerate into an anarchy, such an anarchy that every man will do what is right in his own eyes and no man's life or property or reputation or liberty will be secure, and every one of these will soon mould itself into a system of subordination of all the moral virtues and intellectual abilities, all the powers of wealth, beauty, wit and science, to the wanton pleasures, the capricious will, and the execrable cruelty of one or a very few.

John Adams, An Essay on Man's Lust for Power, August 29, 1763



Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.

Noah Webster, An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, 1787



Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.

Patrick Henry, speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778



Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.

Cesare Beccaria, On Crimes and Punishment, quoted by Thomas Jefferson in Commonplace Book, 1774-1776



The whole of that Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals...[I]t establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of.

Albert Gallatin, letter to Alexander Addison, October 7, 1789



Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? It is feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.

A Pennsylvanian, The Pennsylvania Gazette, February 20, 1788



[N]either the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt.

Samuel Adams, essay in The Public Advertiser, Circa 1749



[T]he people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.

Zacharia Johnson, speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 25, 1778



[W]hereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.

Federal Farmer, Antifederalist Letter, No.18, January 25, 1778
 angelheart3
Joined: 2/3/2007
Msg: 389
gun control in the usa
Posted: 5/11/2007 7:48:57 AM
Oh my, Charles - a statement of fact is not a narcissistic statement at all regarding no country being like the US, etc. Nor is that statement that if those in another country don't like the way we do things here, etc a narcissistic statement. If they don't like the way we do things - there is nothing that says they have to come to our country. If they think their way of life in their country is so much better then they should stay put.

It's one thing to compare cultures and it's quite another to criticize my homeland when one is not even a citizen - or resident alien - one that is working and not just playing the system that is. That's not narcissistic at all.

Narcissism: An exceptional interest in and admiration for yourself
 LoonyTunz
Joined: 8/11/2006
Msg: 390
view profile
History
gun control in the usa
Posted: 5/11/2007 10:17:38 AM

Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it.

John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776

Uhhhh, and no one things preventing guys like catman who believe in shape-shifting reptilian alien consipriracies from easy access to guns is "for the common good", and a measure to protect both himself and others from delusions?

And angelheart if you support thorough background checks and proper training ....... guess what that is? It is gun control. The NRA does want people to think of gun controls as anything other than "the government wants to take away my guns", they do not like you to see that controls are to prevent people that shouldn't have them from getting or keeping them. So the only guns they would be taking away are from the nutjobs and incompetents.


Of course we should get guns out of the hands of criminals and we're making
great strides in accomplishing that......with the support of the NRA I might add.
They also support enforcing the laws we already have, repairing loopholes, and
strict prosecution of offenders........but you'll rarely see them given credit for that.

The same NRA that still has said nothing about the intelligence of making online out of state sales with not background checks to people such as Cho ...... His mental illness was very well documented by the way. Or the same NRA that is quite pi55ed with New York for having the balls to start suing out of state gun dealers that have been making illegal sales? Forgive my incredulity, but statements like that need some support.


The bottom line is.....there is NO other country like the US. There's no other
country with the same problems we have here or the same opportunities and
freedom we have here. There are way too many factors in play to make any
comparison accurate. For those outside the country who don't like the way we
do things here.....stay where you are.....you certainly have that right if not others.

There is no country exactly like any other country .... that is pretty self evident with every country or even small town being comprised of individuals. But there are many that can be similar enough to draw accurate comparisons.
Now I need examples of the "opportunities and freedom" you as an american have that no one else does. You might be shocked to learn that there are several other free and democratic nations, some even with freedoms you do not have the legal right to enjoy unless you travel abroad.
 angelheart3
Joined: 2/3/2007
Msg: 391
gun control in the usa
Posted: 5/11/2007 10:38:40 AM
As best I can recall without browsing the entire thread, I stated I supported training. That's just being responsible and it's quite idiot in my opinion for anyone to possess a firearm and not know how to use it. We certainly don't permit just anyone to get in a car without a license and reasonable demonstration at the onset that they can drive it without being stupid. And I also recall responding very clearly that this ignorant catagorizing someone with a mental health event in their background should be grounds to refuse them the right to purchase a gun. Well, you've eliminated a substantial portion of the population in one sweep.

I do agree that we have lost a number of freedoms in this country and I attribute that largely to the ever growing practice of expecting government to fix everything that is broken rather than taking personal responsibility. You can call it gun control if you so desire, but the more we the people empower government with the responsibility to regulate everything that doesn't fit our respective beliefs - we also empower government to restrict and or remove the very freedoms we enjoy.

As for other countries, I have no issue with comparing what is going on here vs. what is going on there. But if you have not lived in THIS country - you are hardly qualified to judge this country, any more than I am qualified to judge your country.

As for gun control, what I have seen of the proposals and even the perspectives in this thread, I would not support any bills or laws in that respect short of what I have previously posted.
 Realityissubjective
Joined: 9/24/2006
Msg: 392
view profile
History
gun control in the usa
Posted: 5/11/2007 11:50:39 AM
The same NRA that still has said nothing about the intelligence of making online out of state sales with not background checks to people such as Cho ...... His mental illness was very well documented by the way. Or the same NRA that is quite pi55ed with New York for having the balls to start suing out of state gun dealers that have been making illegal sales? Forgive my incredulity, but statements like that need some support.

The same NRA that lobbies on behalf of over 3 Million voting members of society. 3 million people that agree *Gun Dealer* laws as those being propose are not relevant to the issues at hand.

The issue is NOT *Out of State Gun Dealers*. That argument opens up an whole world legal precedent nastiness. ie Car Dealer/Manufacturers getting sued for drunk drivers et al. The 1968 Gun Control Act already address's the Mail order/Online Purchase issues. One must STILL provide Legal proof of Eligibility of Ownership at the point of Recievership. The only Illegalilities in the whole transaction was the Fact the CHO made the purchase. He found the away around the system, just as MOST criminals find ways around the System.

Has ANY Law Prevented a Determined criminal from Breaking it? In Cho's case... Well Documented as it may have been... it STILL fell under the auspices of the Privacy Act and Doctor-Patient priviledge. The details of Cho's came to light AFTER the fact. So whats being proposed here... medical microchip implants??? .
Unfortunately, shiiiite happens and bad things happen to good people.... So the solution is to ban firearms? Blame the Manufacturers, Bullets, Alcohol, Blenders, Chainsaws, mechanical conveyances?? Will THAT stop deviant and criminal behavior??? ..... Im going to go out on a limb and predict, No.

Bottom line is the those oppose to firearms will NEVER be convinced of the validity of ownership.......... Until of course they find themselves in a situation where they NEED one.
 angelheart3
Joined: 2/3/2007
Msg: 393
gun control in the usa
Posted: 5/11/2007 7:05:21 PM
ibechuck - exceptionally and eloquently well stated. And I can just about warrant that should those that oppose firearms ever find themselves in a situation to NEED one, they would be the first ones to whine about not having one - IF they survive such a situation.
 Realityissubjective
Joined: 9/24/2006
Msg: 401
view profile
History
gun control in the usa
Posted: 5/12/2007 10:10:22 AM


Wow, I didnt know that battle was the purpose of forums.... I must be naive or ignorant to have believed that we came together here to learn from one another

Debate is a form of battle...Verbal Battle. Unfortunately, some are less well Armed than others and they resort to nit-picking, innuendos and personal attacks to boost their own false sense of superiority.

....now back to the regularly scheduled programming
Show ALL Forums  > Current Events  >