The Ban on Guns is not about saftey...

reply to post by zedVSzardoz


Yes, if you have a child who might have sudden mood disorders and violent tendencies, YES, you owning a gun should be more strictly regulated... things like this is whats wrong... now this sick child goes and kills 20 kids. make sense.

Originally posted by Kurokage
reply to post by racer451

 

There are other contries other that America, you know!!

I mean regular testing, like once a year to keep your firearms license.

Like annual testing of the elderly who drive 2 ton cars at high speeds into children in crosswalks...

you mean that annual testing
get a gri on your arguments PULLEEZE!!!!!

reply to post by luciddream


you can play the emotional card using this massacre as your rally call all you want. We are not impressed by the show.

You are just grasping for straws. PS: I think it is disgraceful to push an agenda riding the waves of public sentiment caused by a tragedy like this. very callous of you.

If you have a mentally sick individual he needs to go away to a hospital with strong locks and white walls. He needs help.

IF he is good to go and can be in the general population, then there is no issue.

THIS KID was not "good to go". His mother having guns at home or not was not the issue. HE needed to be somewhere getting help. NOT at home.

reply to post by racer451


lol... if its possible i would like to keep 65yr+ Olds off the road!!

I had 2 older couple arguing in the car in front of me on a red light... then the light turns green and they still arguing... i didn't want to Horn and give them a heart attack.

Originally posted by luciddream
reply to post by zedVSzardoz

 

Yes, if you have a child who might have sudden mood disorders and violent tendencies, YES, you owning a gun should be more strictly regulated... things like this is whats wrong... now this sick child goes and kills 20 kids. make sense.

again, send your list of those who are about to have those mentioned behaviors and Law Enforcement Agencies will get on it. I am sure they will take your word for it. It worked for the great Psychic Jean Dixon, Once.

reply to post by zedVSzardoz

THIS KID was not "good to go". His mother having guns at home or not was not the issue. HE needed to be somewhere getting help. NOT at home.

Yet something like this HAPPENED. Thats why there should be laws that take a look into these.

If the gun registry did do a check on her kids and found out that he is unstable, then maybe they could have done something... "he needs to be institutionalized in order for us to permit a weapon in your home" etc.

reply to post by luciddream


WHY DO YOU THINK LAWS WILL CHANGE HUMAN NATURE?

You keep saying these magical laws will stop bad things from happening. That is so naive it is just silly.

You can regulate things, which we do. You can not expect perfection because you wrote it down on paper and made SOME people agree to it.

So do we just check their kids, or their neighbors as well, their cousins, their grandparents, friends, delivery people, girlfriends, boyfriends, one night stands, foreign exchange students, house guests, or anyone they invite to their parties as well?

JUST DUMB....straws....

reply to post by TedHodgson

No the gun ban is about "Growing up" as humans, Putting aside our petty childish ways and accepting that threatening to pump somebody full of 12-Gauge shot because they disagree with you is no substitute for understanding. There will always be danger to our family's and others whether people have their guns or not, The point is people are much more open, Kind and honest and in a much more pleasant mind-frame when they stop living with 6-shot handgun under their pillow. In order for the world to disarm itself the people of that world must first take a bite of Humble pie and lay down the Arms they desperately cling to

If this is the case then I suggest that Obama lead by example. Why not declare the White House a "gun free zone" and disarm his body guards. How about he stops having his administration buy up huge amounts of ammunition and arming them to the T.

He could stop invading other countries and killing civilians there. Lead by example if that's the case. Until then it is extremely important that the American people are able to stay well armed. It is a check against would be "invaders".

Originally posted by luciddream


Yet something like this HAPPENED. Thats why there should be laws that take a look into these.


If the gun registry did do a check on her kids and found out that he is unstable, then maybe they could have done something... "he needs to be institutionalized in order for us to permit a weapon in your home" etc.

I guess it may be a foreign concept to you about individual citzens rights.

It is something this country has embraced; it is something that forced our hand during the revolutionary war which ironically is exactly at the heart of WHY we have individual gun ownership rights so that no "further usurpations or oppressions" are exacted at the hands of a corrupt government; it is something that should NOT be and IS NOT "permitted" but a "RIGHT and will always will be in this country. The mother's right to own is her individual right, and to have investigated everyone she has ever known or had contact with is folly at best. However, her PERSONAL responsibility certainly lacked, her KNOWING she had a mentally unstable child in the house and not separating the lock from the key as it were; or the bullets from the firearms and by not having trigger locks or a safe in which they were placed. In that, I will concede that her personal choice on location and availability were definitely far from well thought out.

reply to post by racer451


In Britain once you reach 65 you have to retest for your driving license.

Originally posted by v0ice0freas0n
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

I take issue with your premise that a civil war is inevitable. You're just as unwavering in your stance as many liberals I know. I started out far left of where I am today, but have come to agree with you regarding the "daddy" complex of government, and think that listening to the "opposition" and asking questions tends to be a far better policy than imposition of my sentiments. On that note, let me ask you something. We know that you don't want an overbearing government regulating your guns. I agree to a point. How do you feel about that government regulating social issues? Gay marriage? Abortion?

There is an enormous difference and it's impossible to find relativism in. I know my thoughts on this are provoking the left a bit...and that isn't my intent, it's a side effect I can find no way to avoid.

The difference is this. I am not out looking for new laws to write and pass. I'm not out advocating new regulations and "fundamental transformation" of a nation that has had recent issues but worked pretty well for a couple centuries as a light on the hill for others to look to.

The Political Left (as opposed to normal people like us) *ARE* pushing...every single day...of every single week...year around and for YEARS NOW...new laws, regulations and guidelines I MUST follow under penalty or prison, back breaking fines or just a general loss of status in society so severe as to make life far less worth living than it would have otherwise been.


I, as many on the right do, sit here content to let things run their course and nature do it's thing. It's not a NEED we feel, as a general rule about people on the right, to DICTATE terms and life to other people...and they will just do it or else.

Again, on the left? Dictating terms is what it comes down to by literal definition in so many ways.

^^THAT is where immovable object WILL eventually meet irresistible force and fighting will settle this thing. Eventually....it'll have to come to that. Why?? Well... if 330 MILLION people ALL died.....ALL DEAD....and just TWO PEOPLE remained? Lets say one's a Dem and one's a Republican.... Well, the Republican might be content to go off and live life quietly for however many days are left...the Dem will tell him how that life will be lived.

There,..in that last paragraph, sums up the whole thing on America today and why an ultimate fight between right and left isn't a question of when....if things don't change....it's only how long and what issue finally blows it wide open as other nations have seen happen many times in history.

reply to post by luciddream

Good job on sugarcoating something that is made for vile purpose. Its like saying a dad and son picking on little kids at the school is not bullying but a form of relationship... (i suck at metaphor lol)

There are 120 MILLION people in this nation who VERY strongly disagree with your assessment of a "vile purpose" behind a firearm.

It's the fact SO MANY on your side of this debate won't even give lip service to the fact that other half EXISTS...that makes this debate about a dead end anymore. We're talking AT...not WITH each other. Your opening lines there..pretty well end whatever constructive debate could follow as my side is basically written off as liars, cheats or fabricators of fact and position before you've even gotten to the second point.

Yikes... We are doomed when this is the level of discourse our free speech has led to. Debate doesn't even end in vicious attack....it STARTS that way. I don't know how a society endures much longer when guns are but one of many topics this has come to be true about.

The 120 million is a number I often cite so let me take a moment and add the actual citation it comes from:

Gunpolicy.org

As well as this fantasy about who would be taking them:



^^ Those are the facts, not theory, of this debate. Those are the actual numbers and not what we'd like to pull from thin air and throw around like they have basis. Those numbers mean this whole debate is arguing without much point and without any real outcome of long term change. The numbers mean...banning guns isn't happening in any effective way in my lifetime. Even if one COULD invalidate the Supreme Court...which one cannot do.

There's lots of talk about libity and personal responsability for owning firearms, who's responsability is it to stop people with mental issues from obtaining firearms and shooting up another school?

Would you rather stop the person from getting guns in the first place or take the chance someone may take him out before he shoots?

There's lots of talk about libity and personal responsability for owning firearms, who's responsability is it to stop people with mental issues from obtaining firearms and shooting up another school? Would you rather stop the person from getting guns in the first place or take the chance someone may take him out before he shoots?

reply to post by Kurokage


What is more important is the question of who is responsible for yours and your children's safety? The answer to that is you are... It is your job to protect yourself and to protect your children. It is the responsibility of you and no other.

Government schools are dangerous environments. Children are sitting ducks there. Any insane person attempting to make a statement, we live in a world full of them, knows exactly where to do it. No one is armed, the parents are away, the kids are sitting ducks...

Who is going to stop the "bad guys" from getting guns.. The answer is no body.

It is insanity for people to try to disarm the good guys.

reply to post by Kurokage


More to the point however is the question, do you think that Obama really cares about protecting children? His administration has killed more children than any rampaging gunman.

It is time to look at the motives behind this push to disarm the population.

Originally posted by Kurokage
There's lots of talk about libity and personal responsability for owning firearms, who's responsability is it to stop people with mental issues from obtaining firearms and shooting up another school?

Would you rather stop the person from getting guns in the first place or take the chance someone may take him out before he shoots?

Sir, your arguments are bending like a thin tree in the wind. your tree top is now touching its base.

just pointing out the obvious

Originally posted by crankySamurai
reply to post by Kurokage

 

More to the point however is the question, do you think that Obama really cares about protecting children? His administration has killed more children than any rampaging gunman.

It is time to look at the motives behind this push to disarm the population.

You're absolutely right. When Obama comes out and restricts the use of Unmanned drones to the direct support of troops in contact with the enemy, I'll believe he cares. When he specifically prohibits the use of drones as unmanned and UNCHECKED hunter/killer units free to roam the battle space of any of a half dozen nations today...and kill whatever they figure meets criteria? I'll believe he cares ANYTHING for innocent life.

Until then? You're absolutely right. The President already runs a program far far worse in killing innocent people ...while claiming to hunt bad guys....than a full blown army of CT nut jobs.

There needs to be change alright...but a glance in the mirrors at the White House is where THAT change needs to start or it's as hypocritical as anything I've ever heard to claim it's to save innocent people. Anyone ever think the VERY casual way human life is handled at the very top levels of leadership trickles down like the tingle in one reporter's leg....for helping citizens see human life as cheap too?

Leading by example...and not dictate...does wonders.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000

Originally posted by crankySamurai
reply to post by Kurokage

 

More to the point however is the question, do you think that Obama really cares about protecting children? His administration has killed more children than any rampaging gunman.

It is time to look at the motives behind this push to disarm the population.

You're absolutely right. When Obama comes out and restricts the use of Unmanned drones to the direct support of troops in contact with the enemy, I'll believe he cares. When he specifically prohibits the use of drones as unmanned and UNCHECKED hunter/killer units free to roam the battle space of any of a half dozen nations today...and kill whatever they figure meets criteria? I'll believe he cares ANYTHING for innocent life.

Until then? You're absolutely right. The President already runs a program far far worse in killing innocent people ...while claiming to hunt bad guys....than a full blown army of CT nut jobs.

There needs to be change alright...but a glance in the mirrors at the White House is where THAT change needs to start or it's as hypocritical as anything I've ever heard to claim it's to save innocent people. Anyone ever think the VERY casual way human life is handled at the very top levels of leadership trickles down like the tingle in one reporter's leg....for helping citizens see human life as cheap too?

Leading by example...and not dictate...does wonders.

I completely agree with this.

And thanks again for being civil, I'm a British adult who is NO left winger (is that the right term lol) and I don't think banning guns will help but find the whole idea of a nation all wanting to carry firearms a little strange and that you're not worried about how and who can own a "gun".

reply to post by Kurokage


Simple guns are a deterrent from tyranny. It is the same reasons the founders put the right to bear arms in the constitution. So that the people had the ability to protect themselves from an overbearing government just as they had to.

The government will be less likely to act violently against a well armed population. It is to protect freedom.

reply to post by crankySamurai


Thanks for the topic, but as you know We the most Americans that are not part of the most Americans that the president talks about are the ones to be targeted as usual we are the danger to the status quo, because the rest of Americans that the president talks about that agree with him are usually easily manipulated and gullible, that is why we the most Americans that believe in the second amendment are not the ones surrounding the monkey clown politicians with our faces stupefied in awe like bubble heads saying yes to everything the politicians say.