a complete ban of firearms will never happen here. to pretend so is just hyperbolic rhetoric designed to play on people's emotions and make a butt load of money.
Gun Control Thread -- (Pros and Cons) -- Aftermath of Connecticut Shooting
- Thread starter CajunCrimson
- Start date
- Status
Didn't say it would ever happen. Said there are those in leadership who would be okay with it happening. Hence the reason there's a need for those to oppose such nonsense.
Last edited:
That darn reading comprehension thing again....
He didn't say that it would happen. He said there are people in power who would like for it to happen. Big difference.
then why mention it in this thread at all.That darn reading comprehension thing again....
He didn't say that it would happen. He said there are people in power who would like for it to happen. Big difference.
as i pointed out earlier in this thread, there are people at all levels of power who would like all kinds of bat crap crazy stuff to happen that isn't ever going to happen. its occasionally fun to point and laugh at them, but using them as an example to try to make a point is pretty fruitless.
Uhhhh, because there really are those in legislative power who would like to see a total ban occur? And I don't mean fringe House guys.
You don't think for a minute that someone like Obama would ban the ownership of guns of any type would ever happen if he didn't have resistance? Apparently you've not been following the news.
Youre extremely naive if you don't think staying silent would, no doubt, at some point, remove our rights to bear arms.
The left wants law abiding, God fearing, citizens to be quiet on issues like this. Ain't ever gonna happen.
Last edited:
Our president, the idiot...or is that our idiot, the president....no matter, just the same.
When the gun ban talk starts for real, I personally will not be inclined to listen to anyone that also doesn't put abortion on the table as well. If protecting innocent lives is the only motivation then the first step is to make abortion illegal and many, many more lives will be saved each year.
Says the man who orders drone strikes killing children on the other side of the planet.
In 2008 there were 2,947 children killed through gun violence, and in 2009 there were 2,793.
To me it seems too cheap to dismissively say that those deaths are just a cost that we as a nation should be comfortable with paying so that we can continue to purchase firearms in a relatively easy fashion. But I wondered how easy it would be to dismiss that pain and loss if every time I went to purchase a firearm I had to explain to those parents who lost a child to gun violence why I was buying that firearm without a waiting period, or mental health check, or ensuring that I was storing it safely, or that I didn't have to have some basic measure of safety instruction. I understand that there is no one magic policy that will all of a sudden "fix" the problem of gun violence in the US. However to fall back on the argument of "but the 2nd amendment says I can, so back off" or "regulations won't matter to the criminals since they break the law already" seems a bit weak.
With all of the incidents as of late, isn't it at least worth it to see if something could help the issue, wherever it may lie. The answer may not be regulations on firearms, it may lay in changing the mental health policy, or modifying construction/safety requirements for buildings such as schools, or heck putting US marshals in every school much like they did commercial airplanes after 9/11. But to take any measures that could possibly improve the situation off the table before even starting to analyze the problem seems closed minded and short sighted.
Last edited:
We can and should sensibly regulate the sale and transfer of weapons without unnecessarily compromising our freedoms.
To discount the value of freedom in cost/benefit calculations is what is closed minded and short sighted, as is the impulse to "do something" even if it accomplishes nothing, and causes immeasurable harm.
"Sounds" reasonable but as soon as you get into specifics, I am sure it will sound awful.
The Connecticut nutjob (I refuse to use his name) stole the guns used in the killing from his mom who'd legally purchased them. Not sure how any regulation could stop that from happening.
OK, let's flesh this one out a bit.
First, what is sensible regulation? Specifically?
Second, is this only for new firearms sales are do we start a national firearm registrations system where every owner of all firearms must register them with the government? If it's retroactive (registration of all firearms), how do we force this when no one knows how many firearms even exist - legally or illegally - in the US?
Third, how does this registration stop these killings? Specifically?
Again, I'm not one to say 'no' to any new legislation, I just want to hear what is being proposed and how it's going to help. If we're even considering potentially infringing upon the rights of people (that's up for debate, but suffice to say that this is one huge gray area of a discussion), we need to KNOW ahead of time that any new legislation will actually help stop these mass murderers. Otherwise, it's just an emotional 'we have to do something!' knee-jerk reaction that is far more likely to infringe upon the citizen's rights than to actually curb this behavior.
And he was denied the purchase of a firearm the week of the shootings - the system worked.
We can't expect legislation to protect us from the acts of the criminally insane, unless the legislation is to actively treat the insanity.
- Status
Latest threads
-
-
Question: Chris Youngblood did he commit over the weekend?
- Started by mlingerfelt31
- Replies: 2
-
-
-
-