NRA and DEMS seek stronger gun control

[strandinthewind]

Strange bedfellows indeed :eek:

Personally, this issue is so crystal clear to me, but it is a political hot potatoe - read money maker. Sadly, the cost is human lives :mad:
____________________________________

House Democrats, NRA Seek to Strengthen Background Checks for Gun Purchasers

Saturday , April 21, 2007

WASHINGTON —

House Democratic leaders are working with the National Rifle Association to bolster existing laws blocking mentally ill people from buying guns.

Lacking support to enact strong new gun measures even after the Virginia Tech shootings, Democrats are instead resurrecting legislation, which has drawn broad bipartisan support and NRA backing, that would improve the national background check system.

The measure, a version of which has passed the House in two previous Congresses but died in the Senate, could come to a House vote as early as next month. It would require states to supply more-thorough records, including for any mental illness-related court action against a would-be gun purchaser.

Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., a strong NRA ally who has been a leading opponent of most gun control legislation, is negotiating with the group on the background-check bill.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has tapped Dingell and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y. — a leading gun control supporter whose husband was fatally shot by a deranged gunman on the Long Island Railroad — to broker a swift compromise measure that could win passage in the House and Senate.

McCarthy said the measure was the best the Democratic-controlled Congress could do even in the wake of the deadly shooting rampage Monday in which a disturbed gunman killed 32 and then himself.

"We're not going to do anything more on guns — it's just not going to happen. This is a pro-gun Congress," said McCarthy.

Current law bars people judged by a court to be "mentally incompetent" from purchasing firearms, but the federal background check database is incomplete, with many states far behind in automating their records and sending them to the FBI.

Cho Seung-Hui, the 23-year-old gunman in the recent shootings, should have failed his background checks and been barred access to guns after a Virginia special justice found in 2005 that his mental illness made him a danger to himself, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence said this week.

The measure being negotiated would subject states to possible penalties for failing to provide the information, and authorize new federal grants to help them do so.

"If we give the states what they need to enforce these limits, that's a big step," McCarthy said. "A computer is only as good as the information in it."

The measure has drawn bipartisan interest. Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, an NRA ally, is among the Republicans considering signing on.

Talks on the measure are extremely sensitive, given how little time has passed since Monday's shootings on the Blacksburg, Va., campus.

The legislation has spawned an unusual alliance between gun rights activists, who want background checks to be faster, and gun control advocates, who want them to be more accurate. Still, the NRA and some of its congressional allies are skittish about appearing to support any gun control measure in the wake of the Virginia Tech rampage.

"We have a potential opportunity to get something done that both sides have agreed (on) for a couple of years," said Peter Hamm, a Brady Campaign spokesman. "There's clearly a level of distrust that's as tall as Mount Everest between the two sides in this debate. We watch each other carefully."

Democratic Rep. Richard Boucher, who represents the southwestern Virginia district where the shootings unfolded, said he would not talk about gun policies until next week at the earliest, out of respect for the families of the victims. Like most lawmakers, Boucher wore a maroon and orange ribbon on his lapel Friday, set aside as a day of remembrance for the Virginia Tech tragedy.

Dingell would not comment on the talks Friday, nor would the NRA.

"This is not the time for political discussions, public policy debates or to advance a political agenda," the group said in a statement.

However, another gun rights group, the Gun Owners of America, is adamantly opposed to the legislation. It said the measure would allow the government to trample privacy rights by compiling reams of personal information and potentially bar mentally stable people from buying guns.

"The thing that most concerns us about this is our friends at the NRA are supporting it, and that could give Democrats cover in the election," said Larry Pratt, a spokesman for the group. "The NRA is making a mistake on this. This is a bill that could pass."

Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, a strong gun rights supporter, said he hasn't opposed the background check measure in the past and wouldn't expect to do so now.

Gun measures have been known to spin out of control in the freewheeling Senate — where any senator can seek to amend a bill. Any measure there would be looked upon as an opportunity for both gun control advocates eager to enact stronger limits and their foes pushing to weaken existing gun laws.

For Dingell's effort to succeed, Republicans and Democrats on both sides of the Capitol likely would have to agree to hold off on a broader gun debate and focus instead on the background-check measure.

"We need to be very careful that we don't intrude on the right of law-abiding and free citizens," Craig said. "We all search for the political screen of, 'Oh, we've got to do something and pass a law, and therefore the world will be a safer place.' Not necessarily."

www.foxnews.com

[estranged4life]

Betcha reading the NRA and the Democrats are both in favor of stronger gun control is a nightmare to the RepuliCANTS.

[BlackWidow]

What a tragedy!

[irishgrl]

so, Jason: you're against it arent you? Personally I hope it goes thru....

[strandinthewind]

so, Jason: you're against it arent you? Personally I hope it goes thru....

No -- I am for it. I do think, however, that any gun control that forces the release of mental helth records will cause the ACLU to explode.

I am for the right to own a hand gun only if you take it to the police station and re register it every year to ensure it is still in your position and to get a balisics test redone.

[irishgrl]

No -- I am for it. I do think, however, that any gun control that forces the release of mental helth records will cause the ACLU to explode.

I am for the right to own a hand gun only if you take it to the police station and re register it every year to ensure it is still in your position and to get a balisics test redone.
ah....interesting. I know you are an avid hunter so I just figured you'd be against this. Glad to see you're supporting it :nod:

[strandinthewind]

ah....interesting. I know you are an avid hunter so I just figured you'd be against this. Glad to see you're supporting it :nod:

The Const. does guarantee the right to own a semi automatic weapon or a hand gun. It gives the states the right to arm a militia.

Consequently, the right to own a gun should be heavily regulated.

[irishgrl]

The Const. does guarantee the right to own a semi automatic weapon or a hand gun. It gives the states the right to arm a militia.

Consequently, the right to own a gun should be heavily regulated.
did you do a typo?
The Const. does guarantee the right to own a semi automatic weapon or a hand gun

the only right that is mentioned is the right of a militia to be armed, not the right to own a hand gun or semi-automatic :shrug:

[strandinthewind]

I meant "not"

Oh Well :laugh:

[irishgrl]

I meant "not"

Oh Well :laugh:
thats what I thot! too eager my boy, too eager :lol:

[shackin'up]

I don't think any European can relate to this topic. How can you have the right to speak if you have the right to carry a tool that can only force to endless silence?

Constitution or not: times change.

USA and ethics.....:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

[irishgrl]

I don't think any European can relate to this topic. How can you have the right to speak if you have the right to carry a tool that can only force to endless silence?

Constitution or not: times change.

USA and ethics.....:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:
Many see gun ownership as the last line of defense against governmental tyranny, when push comes to shove, a tool for rebellion. Not that I think it will realistically happen, but thats how some see it. the 2nd amendment has been used to justify private gun ownership (think NRA) or the right of the states to arm a citizen militia (think legal precedent).

[Sarah]

I see owning a gun as a way to get a dirtbag out of my face, car, or house.

Like I've said before, all this **** is just dandy, but it's meaningless when the "bad guys" keep their weapons.

The Virginia Tech president was one of the head guys at keeping guns off university campuses by denying even federally licensed individuals the right to carry on campus. Would the death toll be lower had at least one responsible, licensed individual been carrying that day? Instead, you have one person who doesn't give a **** about rules blasting on a bunch of obeyers. That **** is ridiculous to me.

[strandinthewind]

^^^^

The crazy liberals will never admit this logic. They instead think that banning all guns will keep them out of the hands of the criminals too. That just is not going to happen. So, I say until then, people can get guns.

[The Tower]

All guns should be banned.

[shackin'up]

Sorry, your logic is absolutely impossible to follow. Only criminals and policemen need guns. Every citizen with a gun is a criminal. That should do the trick don't it. That's the way it basicly works over here.

[The Tower]

Sorry, your logic is absolutely impossible to follow. Only criminals and policemen need guns. Every citizen with a gun is a criminal. That should do the trick don't it. That's the way it basicly works over here.

^----- Exactly.

Guns have one purpose: to kill (or seriously injure). Either way, no one should be allowed to own a gun.

[strandinthewind]

Sorry, your logic is absolutely impossible to follow. Only criminals and policemen need guns. Every citizen with a gun is a criminal. That should do the trick don't it. That's the way it basicly works over here.

That looks good on paper, but the problem is the police here cannot catch all the illegal guns now. So, what makes anyone think they can get them if all the law abiding gun holders turn their guns in. So, it is a catch 22 -- again, if they can get rid of all the handguns and assault weapons, then I am all for it. But, as long as the criminals have them, I say let us defend ourselves as I cannot stop a trigger pulling by dailing 911 and waiting for the cops.

But, you are never going to get rid of the rifles and shotguns - so the point is actually moot.

[strandinthewind]

All guns should be banned.

I agree, but it will never happen - - so, I say until that happens, I want to be able to defend myself, not to mention hunt.

[The Tower]

That looks good on paper, but the problem is the police here cannot catch all the illegal guns now. So, what makes anyone think they can get them if all the law abiding gun holders turn their guns in. So, it is a catch 22 -- again, if they can get rid of all the handguns and assault weapons, then I am all for it. But, as long as the criminals have them, I say let us defend ourselves as I cannot stop a trigger pulling by dailing 911 and waiting for the cops.
Subscribing to this notion only perpetuates gun violence. Gun laws shouldn't be based on what the criminal can do- it's a ridiculous argument.

This one is even more ridiculous:

So, what makes anyone think they can get them if all the law abiding gun holders turn their guns in.
Huh?!? What do "law abiding gun holders" have to do with get guns from the criminals?

But, you are never going to get rid of the rifles and shotguns - so the point is actually moot.
I say, get rid of them all.

I agree, but it will never happen - - so, I say until that happens, I want to be able to defend myself, not to mention hunt.
I think hunting should be banned, too.

[Sarah]

Then you should be the one forced to go into criminals' homes, dig through all their ****, find their guns, and bring them in.

Yeah. Right.

My gun has never killed or hurt any person or any animal. I am very proud of that, and I'd like to keep it that way. But there again, when some lunatic with nothing to lose brings his ass and his unregistered gun my way, my tally will change in a hurry. I'm proud of the fact that I feel like I can defend myself.

I don't trust the government or any other person (especially the hick-ass twisted cops we have around here who have never shot at anyone much less been shot at, who just think it's cool to PLAY with guns) with my defense. And to be honest, if they passed a law that said I'd have to turn in my gun, I'd break that **** and keep it. Piss on the theories and all the hypothetical bull**** that would be super nice. I would love to feel like I didn't need a gun, believe me. But for now, I'll stay in the real world, thanks.

[irishgrl]

^^^^

The crazy liberals will never admit this logic. They instead think that banning all guns will keep them out of the hands of the criminals too. That just is not going to happen. So, I say until then, people can get guns.
been fence sitting much? splinters in the bum my friend??? coulda sworn you started off by saying you supported this legislation :shrug: you cant foist off your forked tongue logic on "crazy liberals" Im afraid......you cant have it both ways. either you agree that guns should be banned and you turn yours in, OR you disagree, and you give pithy reasons why. FYI: the "hunting" reason is plain LAME. there is no SPORT in hunting an animal with a sophisticated weapon, with a scope and whatnot, for sheer joy of saying "I got him!!!" its even worse in a staged corral. Remember Bless the Beasts and the Children????

[irishgrl]

Then you should be the one forced to go into criminals' homes, dig through all their ****, find their guns, and bring them in.

Yeah. Right.

My gun has never killed or hurt any person or any animal. I am very proud of that, and I'd like to keep it that way. But there again, when some lunatic with nothing to lose brings his ass and his unregistered gun my way, my tally will change in a hurry. I'm proud of the fact that I feel like I can defend myself.

I don't trust the government or any other person (especially the hick-ass twisted cops we have around here who have never shot at anyone much less been shot at, who just think it's cool to PLAY with guns) with my defense. And to be honest, if they passed a law that said I'd have to turn in my gun, I'd break that **** and keep it. Piss on the theories and all the hypothetical bull**** that would be super nice. I would love to feel like I didn't need a gun, believe me. But for now, I'll stay in the real world, thanks.
by the way, you DO know that its ILLEGAL to use DEADLY force (ie a GUN) to protect property? that means, my dear that a robber can come in and take your stereo, or your jewelry or your family heirlooms and you cant use a gun to stop him. you can only use a gun LEGALLY to protect your own LIFE or someone else's life. so. the question remains. what will you do if a robber comes in and steals your cash/jewels/property??????? use a gun, go to jail.

[irishgrl]

Subscribing to this notion only perpetuates gun violence. Gun laws shouldn't be based on what the criminal can do- it's a ridiculous argument.

This one is even more ridiculous:


Huh?!? What do "law abiding gun holders" have to do with get guns from the criminals?


I say, get rid of them all.


I think hunting should be banned, too.
HOLD THE PHONE. Please note the ONE and ONLY time Tower and I will agree:

I think hunting should be banned, too.

Im not a fan of what passes for "hunting" particularly since we dont need wild game to survive any more. If, on the other hand, we faced apocalypse and had to go back to living on the land, that would be a different story. But for now, in our society, there's no reason to allow "hunting". IMO. mark this day on your calendar. Im sure Towie will....

[irishgrl]

Sorry, your logic is absolutely impossible to follow. Only criminals and policemen need guns. Every citizen with a gun is a criminal. That should do the trick don't it. That's the way it basicly works over here.
only criminals and policemen need guns

criminals dont NEED guns, they just have them illegally! thats what makes them criminals. Im just saying. by the way, and not to belabor the obvious, America was a country founded on REBELLION. We didnt trust our Government. Personally, considering the way the Government has been acting pretty much unilaterally (since King George anyway) Im not against private gun ownership--but ONLY in the event we need to revolt/rebel against this corrupt Government. If that makes me guilty of treason so be it. I HATE my President and I HATE what has been perpetrated upon the American people in the name of furthering the agenda of some war hawks and greedy corporate beneficiaries. Men in Black, I live in Northern CA. Come get me.

[strandinthewind]

Towie -

1. I adore you :xoxo:

2. You know as well as I do in South LA there will always be guns. I hate that. But, am I not saying the truth or at least should I sacrifice my life while the govt. takes 20 years - In the end, I think hunting should be ok -- but all other assault things as well as handguns should go. I pray for the day :shrug:

[strandinthewind]

. . . Im not against private gun ownership--but ONLY in the event we need to revolt/rebel against this corrupt Government . . . .

Or some man 40 pounds heavier than you are comes into your house to hurt you or your kids :shrug: You know it happens.

[irishgrl]

Or some man 40 pounds heavier than you are comes into your house to hurt you or your kids :shrug: You know it happens.
yes. and in the event I need to protect a LIFE, the law protects me.

sad to say, I dont own a gun. I'll just have to rely on my baseball bat.

[strandinthewind]

been fence sitting much? splinters in the bum my friend??? coulda sworn you started off by saying you supported this legislation :shrug: you cant foist off your forked tongue logic on "crazy liberals" Im afraid......you cant have it both ways. either you agree that guns should be banned and you turn yours in, OR you disagree, and you give pithy reasons why. FYI: the "hunting" reason is plain LAME. there is no SPORT in hunting an animal with a sophisticated weapon, with a scope and whatnot, for sheer joy of saying "I got him!!!" its even worse in a staged corral. Remember Bless the Beasts and the Children????

I do support this legislation, which does not ban all guns -- so I am consistent.

Also, I know people who hunt their own land for food. And, believe me, a slaughterhouse is no walk in the park compared to hunting.

[The Tower]

1. I adore you :xoxo:
Ditto! :xoxo:

2. You know as well as I do in South LA there will always be guns. I hate that. But, am I not saying the truth or at least should I sacrifice my life while the govt. takes 20 years - In the end, I think hunting should be ok -- but all other assault things as well as handguns should go. I pray for the day :shrug:
Yes, there will always be guns. I was born in So Cal and have lived here all my life and have never owned a gun and have never had the occasion to use one for any reason. I am not part of a sheltered group that has been cloistered away from poverty, etc. So, with that said-

Human beings are basically stupid, emotional creatures. Guns give us stupid, emotional creatures far too much control over each other and allowing them to be in so many people's hands creates a huge danger to our society.

Sarah's claim about being a responsible gun owner sounds great and all that- but, how many people out there who are "responsible" gun owners end up in a position where they lose it emotionally and someone ends up dead? Not to mention all the other gun owners who aren't responsible at the very least and who are lunatics at the worst? I mean, people in LA on the freeways freak out at each other and flip each other off just because of traffic congestion (and bad driving). These are just regular old people who lose it emotionally for stupid reasons. Could you imagine adding guns to that equation?

Guns and the "gun culture" just contribute to gun violence. The glamorization of the power of guns perpetuates the violence- especially to those who are probably the worst candidates to own a gun. Empowering a gun to point where just because you own it somehow gives you defense against the world again perpetuates the violence. Look at those New York cops who blew away that black guy who was leaving a bar on his wedding day. They lost control and wiped him out. How many people have been blown away by cops because the cops didn't know whether or not they had a gun in their waistband? Because guns are so prevalent in society, law enforcement automatically has to assume that any situation they are presented with will have a gun associated with it.

It's all wrong. The only way to stop it, is to remove the guns from the equation. To ban them. To stigmatize them. To not make them glamorous. To not allow them to give stupid, emotional humans the feeling of empowerment. We don't need killing machines in the public in this day and age.

[Sarah]

by the way, you DO know that its ILLEGAL to use DEADLY force (ie a GUN) to protect property? that means, my dear that a robber can come in and take your stereo, or your jewelry or your family heirlooms and you cant use a gun to stop him. you can only use a gun LEGALLY to protect your own LIFE or someone else's life. so. the question remains. what will you do if a robber comes in and steals your cash/jewels/property??????? use a gun, go to jail.

Maybe in your state, but not in mine.

(a) A person is justified in threatening or using force against another person when and to the degree the person reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The person must have a reasonable belief that there is an imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury. The danger creating the belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury must be real, or honestly believed to be real at the time, and must be founded upon reasonable grounds. There is no duty to retreat before a person threatens or uses force.

(b) Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury within the person's own residence is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or serious bodily injury to self, family or a member of the household when that force is used against another person, not a member of the family or household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence, and the person using the force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.


Come in my house with bad intent, and you're going to be in a very bad situation. In the kneecap or in the shoulder, most likely. I'm still not sorry for feeling the way that I do. Honestly, I'd rather be shot than beaten half to death with a baseball bat.

[strandinthewind]

^^^

There was a joke in law school that you have to wait until they actually break down the door and step into your house before you can shoot them :laugh:

Seriously, I do not know the answer to the gun debate. I would love it if all guns were suddenly removed from the planet. But, that is just not going to happen. I mean guns are legal here and there is still a muti billion dollar a year illegal arms blackmarket.

[Sarah]

I'm in a bad mood today, so I'm just gonna say that occasionally, I start to think that maybe we should just fkin legalize everything and let survival of the fittest play out.

I kid, I kid. Kind of.

[The Tower]

I'm in a bad mood today, so I'm just gonna say that occasionally, I start to think that maybe we should just fkin legalize everything and let survival of the fittest play out.

I kid, I kid. Kind of.
I'm all for libertarian-style stuff. Drugs- legalize them. Prostitution- legalize it. Repeal all the stupid morality laws. Etc., etc., etc.

But the gun issue is where I draw the line. They are too dangerous and people are too stupid.

[strandinthewind]

. . . . Prostitution- legalize it . . . .

Hello - the field is crowded enough as it is :shrug:

[Sarah]

I'm all for libertarian-style stuff. Drugs- legalize them. Prostitution- legalize it. Repeal all the stupid morality laws. Etc., etc., etc.

Ditto.

But the gun issue is where I draw the line. They are too dangerous and people are too stupid.

See, owning a gun is a delicate thing. I FULLY respect the danger of it. If you aren't scared of a gun, you shouldn't have one. From time to time with certain friends, I do enjoy a little gun talk.. but I relate that to like, car talk or computer talk. Attributes, specs, range results, etc. Like strand, I say that if there was a way for guns to be taken off the street and out of everyone's hands, I'd be okay with letting mine go. Until that day, it's just too dangerous out there. Especially for a female who travels the interstates at night time like me. 3 AM in the middle of the desert somewhere in Arizona and I'm off to the side of the road, dead tired with no lights. I would have had a nervous breakdown had it not been for knowing that I had my gun.

[strandinthewind]

Interesting stats

What Americans Really Think About Gun Control
Tuesday , April 24, 2007

By Brit Hume

Gun Control

If you are wondering why the apparent popular support for gun control does not translate into legislative action — there is ample illustration in the latest ABC News poll taken after the Virginia Tech shootings. 61 percent of the respondents said they favor stronger gun control laws — but as to whether they would do any good – 49 percent said yes and 50 percent said no. By a 52-to-29 margin, respondents said they prefer enforcing existing gun laws to passing new ones.

ABC devoted nearly two minutes to the poll during last night's evening newscast — but never mentioned one of the most interesting results. When asked the primary source of gun violence – 40 percent said popular culture, and 35 percent said the way parents raise their children. Only 18 percent blamed the availability of guns.

www.foxnews.com

[The Tower]

Interesting stats

What Americans Really Think About Gun Control
Tuesday , April 24, 2007

By Brit Hume

Gun Control

If you are wondering why the apparent popular support for gun control does not translate into legislative action — there is ample illustration in the latest ABC News poll taken after the Virginia Tech shootings. 61 percent of the respondents said they favor stronger gun control laws — but as to whether they would do any good – 49 percent said yes and 50 percent said no. By a 52-to-29 margin, respondents said they prefer enforcing existing gun laws to passing new ones.

ABC devoted nearly two minutes to the poll during last night's evening newscast — but never mentioned one of the most interesting results. When asked the primary source of gun violence – 40 percent said popular culture, and 35 percent said the way parents raise their children. Only 18 percent blamed the availability of guns.

www.foxnews.com
Thanks for quoting that fair and balanced "newsman", Brit Hume.... :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I love how gun violence isn't related to the availability of guns. KOO-KOO! This is why America is ****ed up.

[strandinthewind]

Thanks for quoting that fair and balanced "newsman", Brit Hume.... :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I love how gun violence isn't related to the availability of guns. KOO-KOO! This is why America is ****ed up.

It was an ABC poll that was the important thing.

[The Tower]

It was an ABC poll that was the important thing.
But, Brit Hume was trying to prove a republican/NRA point, which is:

"It's not the guns that are the problem- it's the people and the gangstas"

Which is such bull****. See- this part:

ABC devoted nearly two minutes to the poll during last night's evening newscast — but never mentioned one of the most interesting results. When asked the primary source of gun violence – 40 percent said popular culture, and 35 percent said the way parents raise their children. Only 18 percent blamed the availability of guns.
...is so intellectually dishonest.

Popular culture regarding this issue is what it is because of the availability of guns. The way parents raise their children regarding this issue is also because of the availability of guns. The gun culture created the gangsta rap/Jesse James shoot-em-up (popular culture) and the machismo gun nuttiness (the way parents raise their children).

These are all symptoms of the cause of gun violence, which is simply the fact that guns are easily and readily available for use in America.

[strandinthewind]

Well, the people polled did think that way, so, he was pointing out all the results of the polling, the latter of which supports what is obviously his position.

Were the people polled valid in their thinking? I think they were in that the vast majority of the the people with guns do not kill people with them. Therefore, it is not the gun itself, but the person with it.

I also think that the vast majority of people know that banning all guns is never going to happen. So, they base their answers on that.

[Sarah]

I love how gun violence isn't related to the availability of guns. KOO-KOO! This is why America is ****ed up.

I would think there would be more people like me - gun owners who prefer to NOT use their gun (excepting target shooting/marksmanship events) than, say, gun waving lunatics who cause the gun violence. And however many old men there are out there with cases of guns bought at gun shows for collection purposes. Gun violence is just the way modern people kill. Without them, people were still killing each other like crazy, **** just isn't as gory and medieval. And I really gotta say that I'm glad I wasn't around for that. I can imagine us discussing catapult control laws.

I'm just gonna go over here to, uh, sit in my house with my gun tucked away, and hope nobody makes me use it. Hell. I'd probably use it on myself before I'd ever get the chance to use it on someone else, anyway.

[shackin'up]

Then you should be the one forced to go into criminals' homes, dig through all their ****, find their guns, and bring them in.

Yeah. Right.

My gun has never killed or hurt any person or any animal. I am very proud of that, and I'd like to keep it that way. But there again, when some lunatic with nothing to lose brings his ass and his unregistered gun my way, my tally will change in a hurry. I'm proud of the fact that I feel like I can defend myself.

I don't trust the government or any other person (especially the hick-ass twisted cops we have around here who have never shot at anyone much less been shot at, who just think it's cool to PLAY with guns) with my defense. And to be honest, if they passed a law that said I'd have to turn in my gun, I'd break that **** and keep it. Piss on the theories and all the hypothetical bull**** that would be super nice. I would love to feel like I didn't need a gun, believe me. But for now, I'll stay in the real world, thanks.

96 percent of my country doesn't own a gun. registered or unregistered. And never did. It's not theory, it's not hypothetical. Its true.

It's just dumb if 96 % capitulates for 4% morons. That's not a society, but a paranoia mass. Well perhaps that's your reality......

[Sarah]

96 percent of my country doesn't own a gun. registered or unregistered. And never did. It's not theory, it's not hypothetical. Its true.

It's just dumb if 96 % capitulates for 4% morons. That's not a society, but a paranoia mass. Well perhaps that's your reality......

Dude. This is America. I don't know what to tell you. 96% of you country doesn't own a gun. That's great. Happy for ya. :shrug:

Just wait it out. All the rest of the mother****in' world hates us, so it's only a matter of time till you gang up on us anyway. As if we're the ONLY people who have guns. It's actually amazing that we have all the guns that we do and don't have a lot of visible rebel groups and crap like that. I mean, America isn't the country with the..dare i say.. armies of children. Yeah, violence here is bad, but violence all over the world is bad. And perpetual.

[The Tower]

I would think there would be more people like me - gun owners who prefer to NOT use their gun (excepting target shooting/marksmanship events) than, say, gun waving lunatics who cause the gun violence. And however many old men there are out there with cases of guns bought at gun shows for collection purposes. Gun violence is just the way modern people kill. Without them, people were still killing each other like crazy, **** just isn't as gory and medieval. And I really gotta say that I'm glad I wasn't around for that. I can imagine us discussing catapult control laws.
Well, this whole debate got stirred up again because another lunatic rampaged with a gun. So, the debate really has been (as Gerald pointed out kinda)- "At what point does America's love of gun culture and gun ownership become trumped by the reckless violence that accompanies it?"

That's really all it's about.

Just because violence has always, and will always, exist doesn't mean that society has to fuel the fire by throwing killing machines into the mix.

It's actually amazing that we have all the guns that we do and don't have a lot of visible rebel groups and crap like that. I mean, America isn't the country with the..dare i say.. armies of children. Yeah, violence here is bad, but violence all over the world is bad. And perpetual.
The children army thing is more of an economic/health related issue than a gun violence issue. America has plenty of gun-nut rebel groups- militias- that are training for their big day. They can't act now because there isn't anarchy. Give everyone a gun and they'll be anarchy, though. There's a neat little added benefit of gun control/banning guns. Those militia nutjobs can't act under gun control conditions. :nod:

[Sarah]

See, it's part of our founding fathers' master plan. We get all crazy and hurt ourselves so people are too nervous to mess with us, because they don't want to be around when we totally lose it.

master shake: and I will PEE..all over my pants.. and THEN we'll see who looks bad. :lol:

[strandinthewind]

. . . There's a neat little added benefit of gun control/banning guns. Those militia nutjobs can't act under gun control conditions. :nod:

Do you honestly think the govt. can recover the existing weapons these people have and/or prevent them in any significant way from obtaining them on the black market?

Don't get me wrong, I with the govt. had such power.

[The Tower]

Do you honestly think the govt. can recover the existing weapons these people have and/or prevent them in any significant way from obtaining them on the black market?

Don't get me wrong, I with the govt. had such power.
See, this is the thing Jason... your argument sucks.

Just because a black market exists, or whatever, shouldn't deter gun control measures from eternal vigilance. The republicans were allllll over John Kerry when he said that we'll never be able to end terrorism, but that we should try to contain it, pick away at it, until it is nothing more than an nuisance.

It's the same thing with guns. Make it as hard as one possibly can to get their hands on them.

I've never understood that whole "if criminals can get stuff, everyone else should be able to, too".

[Sarah]

I've never understood that whole "if criminals can get stuff, everyone else should be able to, too".

My thing isn't "if criminals can". It's "because criminals can".

Edit: How do you feel about non-lethal rounds? Pepperballs, beanbags, etc.

[The Tower]

My thing isn't "if criminals can". It's "because criminals can".
I understand where you're coming from- I can't possibly begin to know what it feels like to be a woman who feels threatened, though. I'm not able to live in those shoes, but I can see why you would want to carry a gun in certain circumstances. I could never do it, though. Even if I felt threatened.

Edit: How do you feel about non-lethal rounds? Pepperballs, beanbags, etc.
I don't have problems with non-lethal stuff. Mace, tasers, etc.- BUT, I am anti-violence about everything (so, I'm not espousing "go out and taser someone!"). However, I prefer law enforcement to use non-lethal whenever necessary. And the military/war thing always blows no matter the circumstances. Everyone loses in war, no matter the outcome.

If I had the power to instantly cast a spell and all firearms/military weapons were disintegrated off the planet, I would do it in a second.

[irishgrl]

Maybe in your state, but not in mine.

(a) A person is justified in threatening or using force against another person when and to the degree the person reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The person must have a reasonable belief that there is an imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury. Where does it say you can protect PROPERTY???? The danger creating the belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury must be real, or honestly believed to be real at the time, and must be founded upon reasonable grounds. There is no duty to retreat before a person threatens or uses force.

(b) Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury within the person's own residence is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or serious bodily injury to self, family or a member of the household when that force is used against another person, not a member of the family or household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence, and the person using the force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.


Come in my house with bad intent, and you're going to be in a very bad situation. In the kneecap or in the shoulder, most likely. I'm still not sorry for feeling the way that I do. Honestly, I'd rather be shot than beaten half to death with a baseball bat.
you misinterpreted the statute (you cant use DEADLY force to protect PROPERTY, only your own life or someone else's life)AND I'd venture to say, there are Court Cases that would prove you wrong. Care to state what State you live in? The law is more than Statutes, its also application via Court rulings. You'd be making a serious error if you went by statute alone.

[irishgrl]

See, this is the thing Jason... your argument sucks.

Just because a black market exists, or whatever, shouldn't deter gun control measures from eternal vigilance. The republicans were allllll over John Kerry when he said that we'll never be able to end terrorism, but that we should try to contain it, pick away at it, until it is nothing more than an nuisance.

It's the same thing with guns. Make it as hard as one possibly can to get their hands on them.

I've never understood that whole "if criminals can get stuff, everyone else should be able to, too".
unfortunately, I dont happen to trust law enforcement either. if only cops had guns (legally) we would become a police state in earnest, pretty much like the old Nazi regime.....and there's something inherently WRONG with that in the minds of most Americans.

[GypsySorcerer]

If I had the power to instantly cast a spell and all firearms/military weapons were disintegrated off the planet, I would do it in a second.

I more or less agree with you on this whole argument. Firearms are prime for impulses of emotionally charged people. Of course, violence wouldn't cease if guns didn't exist, but there'd be a lot less. But because of this Alpha Male, my dick is bigger than your dick, my country can blow up your country mentality, I doubt we'll ever see it happen.