Poll: Time to Tighten Gun Control Laws?
Theater suspect's easy access to arsenal revives debate about weapons.
Families continued to grieve over the weekend for the 12 lost and dozens injured after a gunmen opened fire in a Aurora, Colo., theater early Friday morning.
After looking at the large arsenal James Holmes collected to carry out the crime, the conversation on TV talk shows was about gun control, crime prevention and the 2nd Amendment.
A supporter for increased restrictions on weapons access, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg criticized President Barack Obama for a first term without any real effort regarding gun control.
"The president has spent the last three years trying to avoid the issue, or if he's facing it, I don't know of anybody who has seen him face it," Bloomberg said Sunday on CBS's "Face the Nation."
Bloomberg also noted presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney's shifting stance on gun laws as the New York mayor called for this to be a more prominent topic of discussion in the 2012 race.
"This really is an enormous problem for the country, and it's up to these two presidential candidates," Bloomberg said. "They want to lead this country, and they've said things before that they're in favor of banning things like assault weapons. Where are they now and why don't they stand up? And if they want our votes, they better."
Not surprisingly, the political debate is centered in Colorado. The Associated Press spoke with Colorado State Rep. Mike Waller, a Republican who says the state shouldn't limit the purchase of ammunition. But he saw a worthy debate over the protective gear worn by Holmes during the shootings.
"Is that what the right to bear arms means, that you can purchase tactical gear to stop law enforcement from preventing you from perpetrating a crime?" Waller said to the AP. "In the days and weeks to come, this is going to be a significant conversation."
So, how does this crime shift the debate on gun control? Take the poll and tell us more in the comments section below.
Ken
11:50 am on Monday, July 23, 2012
Tell me, just how many guns does one person need?
Some have claimed that a person with a gun could have stopped that crazy person, but can you imagine that scene? Everyone with a gun pulls out their gun and starts shooting at everyone else with a gun. How many more would have been killed or injured while trying to "protect" everyone?
stanley seigler
2:49 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
@Ken: 'Tell me, just how many guns does one person need?'
as you know you will never get a straight answer to your (and most citizens') question...mainly b/c there is no legitimate answer...no logical answer...only NRA sound bites.
but no one has accused the 'true believer' gun advocate of being logical...but hope springs, so still looking the logic in using an ak47, 6000 rounds and a 100 round clip to kill a rabbit...maybe to protect against the lion prides roaming around SC.
that it is a constitutional right defies any understanding of the second amendment which related to the need for a militia to defend against an 18th century army...
in the 21st century, does anyone really believe the purpose of the 2nd amendment to provide for an armed citizenry (even if all citizens were armed) would be effective against say just a few seal units...forget the entire armed force...
gun advocates should be introduced to the 21st century...and until they are, the aurora's, columbine's, gabby gifford's, etc, will continue to take the lives of our children and neighbors.
SDR
3:16 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
The law enforcment agencies cannot stop a crime until it is commited. The judicial system have essentially stopped prosecuting crime as the prisons are full of repaet offenders. They only reason there is not more crime is because the criminals have some resonable doubt that a potential victim is unarmed. The right to bear arms is not about hunting. It is about self-defense, against criminal acts and to a greater degree, government, in spite of the notions of great thinkers like SS
reg
6:20 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
SDR - you can't own a tank or a fighter jet; why should anyone get to have a military weapon?
SoCalAdam
11:45 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
@stanley seigler
You clearly missed the potential of what could have been. Take the guns out of the situation. This young adult had the knowledge and experience to create very effective bombs as demonstrated in his apartment.
If this person wanted to do a massive amount of damage, those two tear gas cans he threw would have been small high explosive bombs. He could have just as easily walked in the back door, tossed two of these in the audience and killed everyone in the room.
So you're argument about who needs what guns is nothing short of just anti-gun dribble.
We have laws in this country, but the right to bear arms is a RIGHT. You do not get to vote on these, period.
Our forefathers understood the need for self preservation and enacted the 2nd amendment right, not to protect our hunting rights, but as a last defense agains tyranny.
Ever wonder why no country every attacks the United States on our own soil? It's not just because we have the best military on the planet. It's because 300 million armed citizens is a formidable force to deal with. The minute we give that up, we are destined to be invaded and conquered.
stanley seigler
1:27 am on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
@SoCalAdam: '...This young adult had the knowledge and experience to create very effective bombs as demonstrated in his apartment...
another illogical conclusion...or do you really believe that lack of gun control prevented the young adult from creating an effective bomb...he had the choice and chose the gun...
re: He could have just as easily walked in the back door, tossed two of these in the audience and killed everyone in the room.
why didn't he...think maybe he (a knowledgeable bright person) weighed the possibility the creation of such bombs may have been detected...he had the knowledge choose the gun...
re: the right to bear arms is a RIGHT
it is not a right to abuse this right... gun control laws would prevent abuse of the questionable right...the founders included the 2nd to prevent 18th century abuse...not the 21st reality in which we now live...sad so many cowboys still live in the 18th...
re: Ever wonder why no country every attacks the United States on our own soil?
because we have no gun control laws...you surely dont believe your NRA dribble...
jfh1945
12:15 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
I dunno, Ken. As many as are legal for them to own, I guess. I'm down to 21 right now.
But, as a more serious reply: why are you imagining a scene where, say, Holmes kills twelve people before he is wounded, and carry responders kill two? Personally, I imagine a scene where Holmes kills perhaps four, carry responders bring him down, and two more are wounded or killed by them.
That scenario means my Walter Mitty trumps your Fearful Frank any day. And, both speculations are equally valid.
JoSCh
6:46 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
The term "carry responder" is exactly the type of title that makes gun control advocates cringe and gun advocates think that they're Rambo.
nancy corbin
12:19 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
Ken, "need" is not the question. Our Constitution says our right to bear arms "shall not be infringed". Yes there are crazies out there, but there will be crazies no matter what. We should be paying more attention to what our children are leaning through violent games, tv and movies. 65,000,000 gun owners did not kill anyone today, yesterday, the day before etc....
stanley seigler
4:51 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
@nancy corbin: ' Our Constitution says our right to bear arms "shall not be infringed". Yes there are crazies out there...'
indeed there are and our constitution says it is their right to bear arms... does it really and if not how do we prevent the crazies (including crazies who seem normal) from buying guns...gun control maybe...
FYI
Second Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
the right to bare arms is based on the necessity to have a well regulated [18th century] militia ...do you or anyone, except the NRA, believe there is a necessity to have a well regulated militia [in the 21st century]
stanley seigler
6:01 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
@nancy corbin: ' Our Constitution says our right to bear arms "shall not be infringed". Yes there are crazies out there...'
yes there are and our constitution says it their right to bear arms... does it really say that and if not how do we prevent the crazies (including crazies who seem normal) from buying guns...gun control maybe...
FYI
Second Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
the right to bare arms is based on the necessity to have a well regulated militia [in the 18th century]...do you or anyone, except the NRA, believe there is a necessity to have a well regulated militia [in the 21st century]
JoSCh
6:53 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
There is something more disingenuous than blaming guns for murders and that is blaming media.
tg3043
2:48 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
I think firearms are overregulated as it is. Instant background checks are done when you purchase a firearm and if you want a cwp you have to go through manditory training and then have to go through another back ground check. The shooter in question planned this out way in advance so he knew what he wanted to do and everything he had was obtained legally. The media was trying to make a case about the quantity of ammo he purchased online. in all actuality, it's not that much if your into shooting as a sport because its cheaper to buy in bulk. i've been known to order 1000-2000 rounds per caliber for my firearms if i run across a deal.
stanley seigler
5:08 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
@tg3043: 'I think firearms are overregulated...everything he had was obtained legally.'
seems this is the point...were there enforceable regulations he would have NOT been able to purchase an ak47 legally...and had he tried to purchase illegally perhaps his plan would have been foiled.
re: 'i've been known to order 1000-2000 rounds per caliber for my firearms if i run across a deal.'
agree the purchase 1000 rounds is not much of a case...but it should raise questions and require answers...answers to simple questions should be a legal requirement...eg, why do you need 1000 rounds...
ditto for a 100 round clip...all of which might lead to suspicions as to one's intent.
Bob Boyles
3:18 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
Would you use the same argument for autos? You have to be tested and licensed before driving and yet we still have over 30,000 people die each year on the highways.
So should we outlaw cars? How about drugs, over 25,000 overdose deaths a year, and drugs are controlled more than guns! Compare that to 11,000 murders by guns each year. Of course you could throw in the 19,000 suicides by guns each year, but they could have used drugs, ropes, bridge jumping or car instead, so it's hard to compare. Before we do a knee jerk reaction to an insane person, why don't we look at the causes and just not the symptoms. Is it our culture of violence in the media? Or maybe we don't do a good job of getting crazy people of the streets.
stanley seigler
5:18 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
@Bob Boyles: '...30,000 people die each year on the highways. So should we outlaw cars?...'
gather the low hanging fruit first...then perhaps strengthen safety requirements for autos...
re:'Or maybe we don't do a good job of getting crazy people of the streets.'
we dont but should we wait until we get the crazies off the streets before we pass gun laws...then they wouldnt be necessary and we would be living in nirvana, heaven.
reg
6:18 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
But Bob - if you need a license to drive, get instructed in driving, and regularly get tested to prove your capabilities to safely drive that car - then what's wrong with doing that for weapons, too? I don't care if you have own; i just want to make sure you know how to use it. That's how many firearm fatalities occur - folks not knowing how to operate them safely. If we had the same restrictions that prevent mentally disabled and otherwise incapable from driving a car applied to weapons, we wouldn't have this stuff occur so often. And another thing, using your same example - I can't own a tank. Or a submarine. Or a fighter jet. So why should military weapons be allowed for sale to the public?
Bret
3:59 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
Hello Stanley.....blaming the weapon here is like blaming the spoon when you're fat!
BTW: Armed citizens vs a few seal teams........I would suggest that the Afghanistan population is not nearly as well armed as our citizens and our military has been there for many years trying to root out the thugs. Love our boys in uniform, but trust me......no military wants an asymmetrical conflict against an armed population.
stanley seigler
5:39 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
@Bret: 'blaming the weapon here is like blaming the spoon when you're fat!
dont recall blaming the gun...of course it's not the gun...we dont regulate a gun...but the person should be regulated as to the need and use of the gun...
re: 'no military wants an asymmetrical conflict against an armed population.'
understand why you use afghanistan as an analogy to USA...it's similar to comparing the 18th century requirement for an armed militia to the 21st century requirement...ie, it's not logical...
surely you dont believe an armed militia is needed to defend against either the T-GOPS, DEMs, or whoever, will (or can) take over the armed forces and set up a dictatorship...or that Afghanistan is anyway comparable to the USA...give it serious thought.
Doug Gordon
4:18 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
I don’t understand why people see something like this and want more laws. The simplest way to examine that is to look at the fact that the theater was a “gun free zone” and that didn’t stop him. So maybe if there was just one more law he would have thought “maybe I shouldn’t do this” and would have just went home.
Some of the reports I have read stated that his AR-15 jammed and he just used his shot gun and pistols. Yet the media is only focusing on the “ASSAULT WEAPON”. Wonder why?
Let’s also try to remember that there were many people killed before guns were even invented. Let’s look at the crusades. That was some real gruesome killing there. That was caused by religion so we should maybe ban religion as it does lead to killings in a mass quantity.
Let’s move up a few years in history and talk about World War 2. After the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor should we have made a new law that said “if you bomb us again you are in trouble” or should we have picked up our guns and defended ourselves and our way of life?
Or maybe passed a law that said you can’t invade Poland Mr. Hitler…oh wait he wasn’t aloud was he. He must not have known that doing this was a bad thing.
tg3043
10:07 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
its because the news media knew it would grab headlines. I remember cnn reporting that he had an AK47 style weapon, then later reports changed it to an AR15. Its funny how people on the left want to blame the system for failing to stop this from happening yet they dont want to address the issue of personal responsibility. whats truely amazing is that people tend to forget history pretty quickly. Both Stalin and Hitler both enacted strict gun control in their countries. After they collected all the firearms they then rounded up every person that they considered a threat to their beliefs and shot them. It pretty much comes down to this, whomever has the guns has the power. I personally would rather enjoy my freedoms then to have some politician in washington thinking he knows whats best for me.
reg
12:24 am on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Personal responsibility doesn't solve anything after the fact, tg. What's wrong with making sure that people incapable of responsible use - like the mentally incompetent or violent crime convicts - don't get them? what's wrong with making sure people know how to responsibly use them? what's wrong with NOT allowing multiple quantities of explosives being sold to individual citizens? what's wrong with keeping military weapons in the hands of the military? If any single one of those questions I list had been asked beforehand, the crap in Colorado would not have happened. You're misdirecting this whole subject.
JoSCh
7:32 am on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Because disingenuous and pedantic argument is stupid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_AK-47_and_M16
To the layperson an assault rifle is an assault rifle.
FWIW, I don't think the public should have black guns. I also don't think we should have shoulder fired grenades. I hear that makes me a socialist, even though socialism is an economic system.
Roboz
4:54 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
We here in Australia and most of the western world are baffled at America's gun culture. There always seems to be a shooting spree in the news. The U.S. had 10 times the population than Australia, but over 100 times the number of murder by guns. Why?
Roboz
5:01 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
We here in Australia and most of the western world are baffled at America's gun culture. There always seems to be a shooting spree in the news. The U.S. has 10 times the population than Australia, but over 100 times the number of murder by guns. Why?
stanley seigler
6:26 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
@Roboz: "Why?"
dont expect a logical answer...there is none (see comments here)...only NRA sound bite bs...
except for 'true believer' cowboys...we all are w/ australia and the western world in asking WHY...
also asked: WHY do politicians allow themselves to be bullied by the NRA...
stanley seigler
6:00 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
@Doug Gordon: I don't understand why people see something like this and want more laws.
opine: your analogies are proof positive you dont understand...there is NO relation to them and gun control...give it some non NRA thought...
re: 'Yet the media is only focusing on the “ASSAULT WEAPON”. Wonder why?'
simple. assault weapons should be banned...you cant count on them jamming...sad thanks to the NRA the assault weapons ban was lifted
BTW our politicians are gutless...they allow themselves to be bullied by the NRA.
JoSCh
6:57 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
They don't allow themselves to be bullied, they take money from them (and other special interest lobby groups) to enact laws that allow them to make ever higher profits. Calling that bullying is an insult to people who've been bullied. And if you insult them they might go on a shooting rampage.
Dr. John
9:11 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
So how should we handle a problem like Chicago? Here you have a city (and state) that essentially has prohibited concealed carry of firearms yet somehow over 5,000 people have died from gun related homicide since 2001. Should we have tighter gun control laws for the citizens of Chicago? The purpose of gun ownership is to protect your life and personal property with the understanding that criminals will have guns and that police are always 10-20-30-40 minutes away. I for one will always appreciate the service of police but will take action, if needed, on my own to protect myself.
reg
12:30 am on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
??? What's the problem in Chicago? and where do you get your numbers? it has one of the lowest rates of gun homicide in the country - only 364 in 2010. It's rate of 2.7/100K is 60% less than here in SC.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state
tg3043
9:42 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
@ Stanley Seigler
ok, from reading all your comments we can tell that your anti gun. Just remember, your 1st amendment rights have always been protected by our 2nd amendment rights. I happen to own quite a few firearms and i do a lot of shooting at a gun club i belong to which happens to have a lot of members that are in local law enforcement. Occasionally i'll bring out a few weapons that they might have never seen before and let them do some fire a magazine or 2 so they can have a better idea as to what to expect if they ever have to face one. I spent my youth serving my country and putting my life on the line so every citizen could enjoy the freedoms that are guaranteed in the constitution. every comment that I have seen you post has pretty much been about regulating a person's individual freedoms because they dont follow your personal beliefs. How would you like it if someone wanted to regulate how much coffee or soda you can buy at a time, or liquer, or gasoline for your car, or how much electricity you could use a month - in the US, we would call that socialism but then again you would probably call it democracy.
stanley seigler
12:18 am on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
@tg3043:'...we can tell that your anti gun.'
re: 'I [tg3043] spent my youth serving my country and putting my life on the line...'
thanks for your service...i too served and was going to make it a career but made the mistake of telling the capt where he could stick his ship...so much for fitness reports and career...
the constitution does NOT grantee freedom for crazies to bear arms...what's your plan to prevent them from securing weapons to wreak carnage, similar to that at columbine, vtech, aurora, etc...
gun control maybe...or just ask them not to do it...
as with most of the analogies given by cowboy gunnies...none relate to the gun control issue...eg, regulation of coffee to gun control...really yo cant be serious...
i am not anti gun...just anti allowing crazies relatively free access to military weapons (eg, ak47s)
also have no objection to gun hobbyist...just believe they should have to answer simple questions re purchase of guns/ammo...eg, why do you need a 1000 rounds and a 100 round clip.
re: 'let them do some fire a magazine or 2'
hope most law enforcement agencies dont have to depend on you to provide their training...BTW
'...The fact remains: the only people who benefit from the actions of the NRA is the multi-million dollar gun industry. For an in depth look at the relationship between the NRA and the gun industry, read the book "NRA:Money, Firepower & Fear". '
http://rush_awards.tripod.com/truthaboutguns.html
reg
12:39 am on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
To quote Mitt Romney: "These [assault weapon] guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people. I believe the people should have the right to bear arms, but I don't believe that we have to have assault weapons as part of our personal arsenal."
Dr. John
7:25 am on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/16/chicago-homicide-rate-wor_n_1602692.html
Also here is news from one weekend in Chicago . Eight dead, 48 injured. Gun related crimes are up over 50% from last year. The sad thing is that almost 79% of the gun criminals and victims are black. So it could be said that these are mostly democrats or future democrats committing these crimes. Don't 95% of blacks vote democrat?
Dr. John
7:25 am on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/11/chicago-shootings-8-dead-_n_1586322.html
John M. Hoyt
7:55 am on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Quite an interesting debate, with so many blaming the tool used, and not the person.
A person hell-bent on causing death or injury will do it, regardless of the tools around them.
An 18 wheeler loaded to 50000 lbs, traveling at 40 or more, into a crowded theater, or a street festival could likely kill dozens and injure hundreds, or more. Cost? Zero dollars. Steal it. Or rent one and load it with purchased bags of cement. Cost? Who cares, you bought it with a credit card, and won't be paying it off anyway.
You know those courtesy water stations at fairs, festivals, 5k walks? Buy a few 5 gallon water bottles, or heck, use tap water, a thousand cups, and one of the dozens of easily obtainable poisons. Cost? 100 bucks... Devastation? Potentially dozens or maybe even hundreds of sick or dead people.
Crowded high school football game would be ideal place dispersion of chemical weapon or improvised explosives. Cost? In the hundreds, all components available at local stores without any permit needed. Could result in thousands injured, dozens killed.
Nope, it is not the tool... It is the person who has the black heart that is dangerous...
John
JoSCh
8:04 am on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
You seem to know a lot about causing terror and describe it with an enthusiasm that is more than a little unsettling... have you considered talking to the leader of your church?
John M. Hoyt
8:23 am on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
JoSCH: I am indeed well versed in the methods people use to harm others. I believe we all are, after watching the nightly news, with tales of devastation perpetrated by those who believe they are in doing the world, or even God a favor.
I'm not one wanting to cause this, in any way, shape or form.... I'm only saying that the largest firearm related massacre does not come close to the likes of car bombers, etc. much cheaper, easier to obtain and deploy than one person with a firearm.
Just think, the guy in question had enough firepower to kill everyone there, but was unable to do so. Why? Because that weapon was not designed for that purpose.
This guy was "smart" he could have built something easier to carry (think backpack sized), less dangerous to himself, and likely, not been caught.
He wanted to do exactly what he did. He wanted to get caught, he did not want to kill everyone.
JoSCh
9:16 am on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
No doubt, and no wonder bombs/improvised explosive devices are illegal. Knives are even LESS effective at killing large numbers of people. Everybody has a line in the sand. Mine is below high cap black guns, but above handguns and hunting rifles.
I agree with you, it's the people that are dangerous. And I think rhetoric, propaganda, fear mongering and outright lies are driving some of the population toward increased violence and it's by design. I also think that some in the media are promoting this and have been for the last 4 years.
stanley seigler
12:41 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
@John M. Hoyt: '...with so many blaming the tool used, and not the person.'
you seem to create an issue then attempt to show you are wrong...ie, it is painfully obvious the person NOT the gun is the problem...and no one is blaming the gun...
just trying to understand why NRA-ilks oppose regs to help prevent crazies from committing horrific acts...
Dr. John
8:04 am on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
And a broader perspective or the value of guns for citizens,
. According to a 1995 study entitled “Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun” by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, published by the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology at Northwestern University School of Law, law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year.
Firearms are used 60 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to shoot with criminal intent. Of these defensive shootings, more than 200,000 are by women defending themselves against sexual abuse. About half a million times a year, a citizen carrying a gun away from home uses it in self-defense. Again, according to Kleck amd Gertz, “Citizens shoot and kill more criminals than police do every year [2,819 times versus 303].” Moreover, as George Will pointed out in an article entitled “Are We a Nation of Cowards?” in the November 15, 1993, issue of Newsweek, while police have an error rate of 11 percent when it comes to the accidental shooting of innocent civilians, the armed citizens’ error rate is only 2 percent, making them five times safer than police.
“Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms,” by the Clinton administration’s Justice Department shows that between 1.5 and 3 million people in the United States use a firearm to defend themselves and others from criminals each year.
John M. Hoyt
8:12 am on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Interesting information... And not surprising...
reg
9:27 am on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Now you've got me laughing again, ducktor. Some here make arguments that assault weapons and military weapons should not be made available to the public, you respond with "Firearms are used 60 times more often to protect the lives" .... what's funny is that you've made a hypocritical flip from other arguments you regularly deposit on this site. You claim that because your in-law's mail man's cousin's next door neighbor's dog told that he heard that one unregistered voter illegally voted in a year of over 200 million votes cast, then .... EVERYONE SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO UNDERGO PROCEDURES THAT RESTRICT THEIR RIGHT TO VOTE!! But when it comes to factual evidence of lives lost? "used 60 times more often to protect..." - rather hypocritical of you, ducktor, in your methods of argument.
stanley seigler
12:57 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
@Dr. John: '...a broader perspective or the value of guns for citizens,'
then how do you explain yo 'broader perspective' to the rest of the world...eg:
Roboz say: 'We here in Australia and most of the western world are baffled at America's gun culture. There always seems to be a shooting spree in the news. The U.S. has 10 times the population than Australia, but over 100 times the number of murder by guns. Why?'
and
what has your 'broader perspective' got to do with regs to prevent crazies from committing horrific acts...to help ensure only honest (sane) citizen can own guns...
many are as baffled as roboz to the apparent stupidity of opposing gun regulations...
Dr. John
9:23 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Reg,
I reccomend you stop cutting your pills in half to save money and just take the whole pill like your doctor ordered. You are starting to sound a little wack-a-doodle but it is rather entertaining.....As you know, laws prohibiting assault rifles will only prohibit them from law abiding citizens, not criminals. When the criminals give up their assault rifles, I will give up mine. I did not posit that firearms are used 60 times more ofter to protect lives, researchers published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology at Northwestern University School of Law discovered that. The other sources are statistics from the Bill Clinton Dept. of Justice. The proof that you have no logical response to the main argument is that you change subjects and resort to distraction tactics and exagerations. Now, don't get me wrong, as you know, I am a big fan of using absurdity to illustrate the absurd. Like my comment about guns being used almost exclusively by current or future democrats to kill each other. The true tragedy is that hundreds of young black lives are being ended or ruined by gun related crimes and no one here, except I, have dared to state the obvious. Truth be told, the problem in the young black population goes deeper than just hand gun control and assault rifles, but to an education system that have failed blacks starting in the 1960's and social programs that have broken up the black family.
reg
9:44 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Ducktor, after a response of the type you just offered, I should just let you catch your breath after all that backpedaling you had to do. I'd be inclined to warn you, though, to watch your step when you're doing that backpedaling, though - because you just plopped your Chinese-made boots in a big mess. I'll just let the other readers have fun with you on that last one...
Abe
7:58 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
While I agree that citizens should have the right to purchase a firearm, I do believe the type weapon that can be purchased by individuals should be regulated. I also cannot understand why so many see this as a second amendment right. As stated previously the second amendment specifically states: " A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". Seems like our State National Guard Units would be the modern day equivalent to the Militia.
SDR
8:56 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
The liberal facsist that post on Patch think that because they say something it is so. I encourage those that spot the BS they spew forth cal them on it.
@reg:
http://armyjeeps.net/armor1.htm
reg
9:47 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
And if you'd look closer at your own source, SDR, you'd see that those critters are demilitarized - no tank weapons aside from what it "dummy guns." My factual claim is legit.
As for your "liberal fascist" claim (when it's spelled correctly) - that's an oxymoron.
SDR
2:59 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Thanks for the spelling lesson.
Spellcheck this:
http://townhall.com/columnists/jonahgoldberg/2008/01/23/what_the_daily_show_cut_out
reg
3:13 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Ha! how appropriate that, on this thread pertaining to guns, you just shot yourself in the foot. Your link covers the neocon author who wrote a book called "Liberal Fascism." When questioned about that title, the author admits he's quoting H.G. Wells. What the author didn't know, though, was that H.G. Wells was a socialist, and he used that term to attack liberals in a speech trying to get folks to join his socialist group. Thanks, sdr, for setting it straight that liberals ain't socialist! (and thanks for revealing that *you* actually are)
SDR
4:18 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Making up more facts?
That's the liberal fascist way.
JoSCh
4:30 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Jesus wept. SDR, you really are a moron. Fascism opposes liberalism; fascism's primary goals are totalitarianism and the elimination of "inadequate" citizens. Neither of these is liberal in any sense.
SDR
4:48 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Jackpot, sport.
In a few years, you will see that the thoughts of the individual will be judged as correct or not correct (much as the "liberals" do with PC today). only the penalty will be a little more than name-calling
reg
4:56 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
sdr: that's right from your own link: "I tried to explain, for those whose feelings were so hurt they didn't even crack the spine, that the title "Liberal Fascism" comes from a speech delivered by H.G. Wells" Of course, that author didn't read his own book, I guess - it says right on page 21 (go open your copy, sdr!!) that he "did not get the title of this book from Wells’s speech." But what do you expect from a fascist extremist oxymoron-issuing posing as a so-called conservative but really a commie plutocrat? He says one thing in the book, then says the exact opposite in an article - and I means EXACT OPPOSITE
JoSCh
5:41 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Not if we can keep the GOP agenda from being executed. You understand that the GOP is the ones pushing towards a facist, authoritarian society and against the liberal inclusive society, right? Representatives of the GOP says the US is a Christian nation and that some Americans shouldn't receive the same rights as others. There are many, many examples of this.
Also, are you ever going to defend the b.s. link you posted in your effort to call b.s. on reg?
Allison
9:54 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
As I understand it, when the constitution was written more than 200 yrs ago, the 2nd amendment was intended to protect the people/general population from a tyrannical government disarming them & keeping them under control as the British had tried to do. Don't most dictatorships & totalitarian regimes try to disarm the population in order to keep power in the hands of a few? The 2nd amendment also provides that we will maintain a viable civilian defense force in addition to our military but it also protects the right of every law-abiding American to keep a gun in their home. It is true that if you take guns away from law-abiding people, the criminals will still get them. The Aurora killer was legally permitted to have everything he bought because he didn't have any kind of record. Up to that point, he was a law-abiding citizen. Should everyone have to go through a background check at gun shows & anytime they purchase a firearm or large quantities of ammo? I think so. I'm a law-abiding citizen & I have no problem with that. Do we all need AK-47s? I don't think so. Unfortunately, street thugs & criminals don't buy their guns at gunshows & legit dealers. Therefore, I will keep my .357 in my purse until they do.
Abe
2:21 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Thanks For your comment Allison. It helps me in furthering my understanding of the fulli meaning and intent of the 2nd Amendment and the arguement for law abiding citizens to purchase weapons. I don't carry a purse but my 9 mm is always within easy reach!!
JoSCh
2:43 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Allison, Abe, I recommend both of you guys need to tread carefully here. In the arms race between people like SDR, Dr John, and tg3043 and the US military the reds will accept no compromise. Background checks at gun shows aren't in the constitution. Arms means automatic weapons, shoulder fired missiles, SAM installations in backyards, mortars, DRMO tanks and MIG 29's, etc. Their right to bear them shall not be infringed!
SDR
2:52 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Thanks for the strict constructionist lesson. The only firearms available when the 2nd was written was the single shot. Would you trade in your revolver for that?
stanley seigler
5:04 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
@SDR: '...Would you trade in your revolver for that?'
come on now SDR...your comments have nothing to do with gun control regs...in fact emphasizes the point that the 2nd was written for the 18th century world...and surely you are aware this is the 21st...further;
Second Amendment say: 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'
and
the GOP supreme court (SC) threw 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State' under the old bus...and applied only the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed'...in a decision.
can someone (anyone) explain how the brilliant SC justices could ignore the, all too obvious, founder's premise for the 'right to bare arms'
[also while at it explain how the SC elected W and paved the way for the kocks-etal (the 1%) to buy the our country... ]
stanley seigler
5:20 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
@Allison: '...Therefore, I will keep my .357 in my purse until they do.'
as think mentioned there should be legislation requiring females to carry guns and make it illegal for males to own guns...bet it would reduce rapes...
facetious comment, weel maybe...