Is Now the Time for Gun Control?

Gun control, eh?
Once I decide which is more dangerous: the criminals at large - or - the criminals in charge we'll know which group needs it more.

There are a lot of causes of our gun violence, but the relative ease of acquiring weapons without a doubt contributes to the problem. We need gun control to raise the price of weapons above what gang bangers can afford, and at the same time the increased cost will make legal gun owners more likely to secure their weapons and keep delinquents from getting them easily by theft.

originally posted by: CB328
There are a lot of causes of our gun violence, but the relative ease of acquiring weapons without a doubt contributes to the problem. We need gun control to raise the price of weapons above what gang bangers can afford, and at the same time the increased cost will make legal gun owners more likely to secure their weapons and keep delinquents from getting them easily by theft.

I'm pretty sure the gang bangers as you put it, can afford the guns they have. There's a lot of money in the illegal drug business, just saying. Nah, I don't think raising the price of guns and ammo is gonna deter them. The best deterrent for legal gun owners to secure their weapons is wait for it..........their guns.

Is Now the Time for Gun Control?

NO.

Have people lost their damn minds ?

I already know Obama has.

Where is the 'common sense' for making more LAWS that people are not going to follow.

Fact.

We have laws that say a person can't murder another person.

So the point of blowing 1 billion dollars to make more laws for something that is already illegal is what ?

What do you think of the United States' gun control laws?

Idiotic is what they are.

I simply can not wrap my head around "gun control"...
Everyone who is for it, obviously wouldn't know a fact from a fairytale, IMO.

The sad part is that we have study after study of real world examples of how it fails to do ANYTHING, to deter crime!
The NFA did nothing to deter crime. The GCA did nothing to deter crime. The Brady bill did nothing to deter crime. The Clinton ban did nothing to deter crime. In fact, the only thing that any of these did do, is create bigger government and make criminals out of honest citizens who were simply exercizing their Rights! And, let's not forget how lucrative these laws are, either...

Is now the time for gun control? Pfft... Surely you jest, Mr. Obama...

a reply to: GoOfYFoOt

There is one thing they do.

Put us one step closer to China.

Where it is ILLEGAL for their citizens to own them.

originally posted by: CB328
There are a lot of causes of our gun violence, but the relative ease of acquiring weapons without a doubt contributes to the problem. We need gun control to raise the price of weapons above what gang bangers can afford, and at the same time the increased cost will make legal gun owners more likely to secure their weapons and keep delinquents from getting them easily by theft.

No Barry, that's a dumb Idea. The "gang bangers" don't usually go to the gun store and get their guns the way legal citizens do. You must not get out much.

Enforcing the laws we have on record and finding a way to deal with the mental health issues in the US is what it will take to put a dent in all the violence that we see in the news. In case you missed it, the people who are committing these crimes are all on medications for some sort of mental illness.

Our government has pulled the wool over their own eyes, and decided to throw some drugs at them and hope they go away. They need help. They need some sort of structured care program. It's a shame the left is so blinded by their fear of guns, that they miss the whole cause of the problem.

a reply to: network dude

No Barry, that's a dumb Idea. The "gang bangers" don't usually go to the gun store and get their guns the way legal citizens do. You must not get out much.

Except most of the mass killings at schools and theaters etc are not by gang bangers.

It's very simple to me. They can have my guns after they give me theirs....and no take backs.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: GoOfYFoOt

There is one thing they do.

Put us one step closer to China.

Where it is ILLEGAL for their citizens to own them.

lol nice use of strawman argument.

a reply to: OFFTHEGRID

Love these off the grid threads. Jesse should be writing these instead of his goons, maybe they'd get more attention.

a reply to: OFFTHEGRID

Well, to answer the OP question directly?

I think a great Satellite Radio show I used to listen to every week called "Gun Talk" was very informative. It followed the cases, events and happenings both before and after our President came to power.

As they repeatedly noted? There are over 20,000 laws, regulations and ordinances regarding firearms in the United States when one combines local, state and Federal to form one big mess of over-reach.

I think we DO need to work on our gun laws, but sure not to add any. We need to remove about 19,980 of those existing ones and parse this down to what would fit into a pamphlet.

The Founding Fathers seemed to have tried, but brevity was TOO successful in their case, it seems.

a reply to: OFFTHEGRID

I am willing to say that Bloomberg is in the middle of this, somehow.

And I second the notion that this money will go into a company that is basically a slush fund.

a reply to: PhoenixOD

lol nice use of strawman argument.

Oh?

]Firearm ownership law in the People's Republic of China heavily regulates the ownership of firearms. Generally, private citizens are not allowed to possess firearms.

en.wikipedia.org...

Hmmm 'strawman' eh?

a reply to: neo96

Yes thats a strawman. The proposal was gun control in America. Person B has exaggerated this to a position harder to defend.

Its a weak form of argument.

Let me answer that by stating that we wouldn’t have the 2nd amendment if it wasn’t for the British. The reason we have the 2nd amendment, the right to bear arms, is because the British would come here and they would do anything they felt like doing to you. That’s why the forefathers put it in there, so you have the ability to defend yourself, defend your property against tyrannical government, which at that time were the Brits. So blame the British for us having the 2nd amendment and the right to bear arms...puts it in perspective, doesn’t it? But it’s the truth. So if you’re going to blame the 2nd amendment, blame the British for their behavior, which required us to put in the 2nd amendment. Isn’t it interesting that the British don’t have that? Would I be for amending it? No, absolutely not. It is what it says its very simple, it says you have the right to bear arms. You have the right to own a gun, and I have that right and so do you. You don’t have to do it if you don’t want to, but you have that right.

a reply to: MrJohnSmith

a reply to: JesseVentura

It was specifically the events of the British Military disarming the Colonist that sparked the idea of people having the right to bear arms.

And.....................it is there, with the term "Militia" to allow the people to take up Arms and restore the Govt to as it was created.

It was one of the several balances put in place to avoid a Govt that we have today. Encroaching, overreaching, bloated, self-indulgent and out of control.

I agree, there are plenty of controls to guns right now. If they enforce the ones that they already have in place then, you’ve done all you could do. Is there going to be an occasional violation where someone gets a gun that shouldn’t have one? Of course, but that’s going to happen anyway. That’s going to happen no matter what and you just have to deal with it as it does. There's plenty of laws right now the problem is they don’t enforce them that well.

a reply to: queenofsheba

Not gonna happen any time soon, if ever. Too much money going on in that business.

With operation "Fast and furious", Obama has proven he doesn't respect any kind of gun ownership because totalitarianism doesn't work very well when the public is armed. He was on television advocating against guns and how children were getting hurt the same day he had already used a few drones against Pakistan which killed dozens of children.

The true menace to society is Obama himself, by far a much worse detriment and a danger to people here and abroad overseas.
He cares about the lives of children about as much as Hitler cared for people that weren't caucasian.

The president assumes he will be able to pass new abusive and unconstitutional laws because he see's the American public as a bunch of stupid sheep, which he proves his feelings about, over and over every time he tells people something and they believe him.