How do you feel about gun control?

Posted by stargeezer 6 years, 8 months ago to Government
86 comments | Share | Flag

http://www.nraila.org/media/10835251/fei...

I'm asking how you feel about the issue. There's no need for this to get argumentative since we aren't likely to change each others mind. Just tell us how you feel and why.
SOURCE URL: http://www.nraila.org/media/10835251/feinstein-america-turn-em-in_493x145.jpg


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 6 years, 8 months ago
    The last sign of the impending dictatorship is when they come to confiscate anything that can be used to resist. Mark my words, this is that sign.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by cr-gray 6 years, 8 months ago
    "He who learns nothing from history is destined to repeat it." Lesson Number one: A picture of a big pile of firearms. Lesson number two: Picture an open grave with several thousand skinny naked dead bodies in it! End of lesson.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Radio_Randy 6 years, 8 months ago
    You notice DiFi says "Mr. and Mrs. America...turn them all in, instead of "Yo! Homie, turn 'em all in!"
    Yep, get the law abiding folks to roll over and ignore the real problem.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by exindigo 6 years, 8 months ago
    Gun control legislation is designed to keep guns out of hands of minorities who make up most of the gangs. The police operate on the assumption that they can outgun any rival force and therefore are totally behind total gun control in general. Police want the capability to intimidate by fire power. The military operates in the same way. I strongly doubt that the drafters and signers of the Bill of Rights were writing from a government perspective. They were writing from a people's perspective and they wanted the people to be equally armed as any standing army. That way, the army could not be used to oppress the population through the use of superior fire power. So, in that sense, I'm against any gun control.

    However, if you use weapons in a criminal action, you forfeit your right to own them. While I believe that government should not have any control over what you can or can not possess as far as weapons, I do think that they do have the right to preserve domestic tranquility and aggressive use of weapons against innocent citizenry should be dealt with harshly.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by gonzo309 6 years, 8 months ago
      You don't have to use a weapon in a criminal action to lose your right to own arms. If you're accused of a felony, however minor; poof, your weapons are gone. You lose your spouse and get some help coping with it, again, you can't own a gun due to a mental disorder (depression). I've read that 80% of citizens break 3-4 laws per day without knowing it. Where does that leave us?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by exindigo 6 years, 8 months ago
        I think current gun control laws are totally unconstitutional. The government long ago figured out that it's better to pass unconstitutional laws and let the courts fight it out. If enough confusion can be created, government wins,
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by Robbie53024 6 years, 8 months ago
      The only thing that gun laws do is limit the ability of law abiding citizens to have them. The criminals don't give a rip about the laws and will get the guns in any way possible.

      If "all" guns were banned, except for those in the military and law enforcement, then there would be a thriving business in black market guns. They would still be out there, and mostly only criminals would have them. You and I would be defenseless and totally dependent upon either a strong and omnipresent law enforcement group, or pay protection money to a "private enforcement group" called the mob or gang. Either way, we would be totally dependent upon others for our security.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by exindigo 6 years, 8 months ago
        My point exactly. The whole goal of education is to acclimate the populace to government control. It has been a giant propaganda campaign waged against the citizens at their own volition.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by monalisaturberville1957 6 years, 8 months ago
    I have stated this before in another discussion: FEAR that is the reason gun control is even an issue. Fear that the people may wake up and realize their natural rights have been taken from them. Their fear is that the day this happens and it is likely to happen, will find the people coming together against those whom are stripping them of their natural rights. The first step is to open the hearts and minds of all people as to what their natural rights are. The use of violence against persons is the smoke screen used to convince the masses that gun control is necessary for the wellbeing of all. People spend far too much time taking what they see and hear presented to them by the news reporters as truthful facts. One thing is turned into a horror upon all. It is twisted in such a way that causes the blind bleeding hearts to react in agreement with those whom are trying to turn the tables in their favor. This is scary because it proves that we now live in a country where our children are taught not to protect their natural rights. It does not take centuries to change the mindset of a people, it only takes a few decades. This is why we are having this discussion. I do not believe in gun control. It is my natural right to bare arms and no man has the right to take that right from me. False expectations appearing real, Convince the people they have something to fear, without teaching them what fear actually is and you can push them into believing almost anything. Most people I find love the thrill of joining into an argument where they might be heard even if the thing is wrong. They will do it any way out of self ignorance.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by NealS 6 years, 8 months ago
    I liked winterwind's story. I found a new use for the outright attack on guns. I have two sons, both thought they were liberals (politically ignorant I must say). When I asked them about how they felt about turning in their guns both of them immediately became conservatives. Now they understand, and we can count on their votes. Those were my easiest conversions. We've just got to find the little keys to each individuals individuality (conservatism). You can not convert someone you are fighting with. A professed liberal is nothing more than a confused conservative. Just find the key,
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 6 years, 8 months ago
    If questioned, I will usually ask, "What don't you understand about the second amendment to the Constitution? It is only one sentence long and I'll be glad to explain it to you, word for word." If after that, the person is still argumentative, I am well prepared to explain and illustrate, that is, if the person is worth bothering with, or in a debate setting.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by coaldigger 6 years, 8 months ago
    I thought the principle of the second amendment was for citizens to protect their rights when their agent (the government) could not and (more importantly) to protect themselves from the government when the government was the violator of those rights. The former is the one we talk about when we say it is important to call 911 if there is a n intruder and you are not armed. The police will stop by in 15-30 minutes to draw a chalk picture of your dead body on the floor. The latter is an exercise in futility due to the advance in weaponry and the militarization of the police. Even our beloved AK-27 is no good against a tank.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Stormi 6 years, 8 months ago
    I feel it is like a slippery slope, if we give up gun rights, freedom of speech will soon follow.
    When I heard a law enforcement officer from northern S.C. ask what UN Agenda 21 ase, because he felt uneasy about it, but was being asked to "use guns against US citizens to enforce UN Agenda 21", that is all I needed to know.b Those within our own government plant to use guns against citizens, or at least train others to do so.
    Now, locally, we have a Sheriff who wants to put guns in the hands of 100+ teachers, in case a shooter comes to the school. I see it as a ruse. Law enforcement personnel are trained in high stress situations, teachers trained to fire are not. This can only lead to more anti-gun measures when it all goes south. It will be but another reason to disarm citizens. Teachers by nature are touchy feely, and may well get people killed. Quickly implemented conceal carry permits are not training in standoff situations.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by jimslag 6 years, 8 months ago
    My idea of gun control is to use 2 hands. Seriously though, I feel one of our natural rights is the right of self defense. Notice I said natural right, not given to me by anybody else, it is part of our rights as humans. I believe the founders also felt that and put it in the 2nd Amendment and said it would not infringed upon. There have been many arguments about it, but they had to have feeling as the only Amendment before it is for free speech. You have to take into context that they had just fought a war of freedom from tyranny and they had a lot of restrictions placed on them by the English monarch. So a lot of their feelings were against those restrictions and they wanted to guarantee that those things would never happen again. I would say little would they know that this would happen again, but they had the fore thought to put in Article 5 to allow the states to rein in an overly aggressive federal government. Our Republic is no more and has not been since at lest 1913 but I would venture to say the 1860 or so. Still gun control to me is a non-issue, it should never be brought up and I am against it. Winter brought up a good point about equalization of a 105# woman and a 250# man. it is a point that was also brought up when things were at a head in Colorado. The Colorado lawmakers played it down and still passed restrictions. So, as we know, lawmakers do not listen to common sense .
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by Boborobdos 6 years, 8 months ago
    Gun control as crime control doesn't work.

    As a political issue it works. The NRA has become the point of the right wing spear.

    What everyone misses is that we need to respect everyone's fights. Freedom in recreational drugs, abortion, speech, and lots of other things that have limits simply because others can limit them.

    The only limits that should be set are where someone is hurt. Everything else among consenting adults is OK, including carrying a firearm.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Thoritsu 6 years, 8 months ago
    I am strongly against it for many reasons. The main one is that arms are fundamental to people controlling government versus the reverse. Not that I expect a US civil war or coup.
    The concept is that we are all Americans, to be trusted to obey laws until we don't. Laws should not be enacted to take away freedoms to prevent crimes.
    An analogy is one's immune system. Our cells protect each other, and exist with minimal limits against each others existence, if they have matching DNA. Would anyone submit to mass injections of HIV, because the Government has eradicated disease, and we no longer need self protections? A well-meaning socialist might say "...but one's immune system never killed anyone else." Quite right, but AIDS has. Perhaps we should round up all people with AIDS, isolate them and "prevent" the spread of this horrible disease.
    In my mind AIDS is just like gun control. It will kill the real host.

    Fortunately, she needs more than 51 votes in the Senate to make an amendment to the Constitution...except that our Supreme Court want to legislate, not defend legislation.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Mimi 6 years, 8 months ago
    I support gun owners though I don’t own a gun myself. You have a Constitutional right to ownership and many of the laws created over the last few decades are only meant to lead to an erosion of those rights and eventually confiscation. They knew they couldn’t do it it one fell swoop, so they have been going at it a step at a time, a state at a time.

    Fortunately 'the crazys-on-the-left' have come out in full swing recently so gun owners are gaining support instead of losing it. Just be smart and reasonable about your arguments and I’m behind you one-hundred-percent.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ winterwind 6 years, 8 months ago
      hmm, Mimi, what do you mean by "smart and reasonable about your arguments"? Not looking for a fight by any means, I always want to ask people what that means to them, and here is one of the few places I can do it!
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ Mimi 6 years, 8 months ago
        Pol Potts and Hitler did confiscate guns and disarm their citizens before they brutally killed them. but I think England, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand would laugh to be compared to those regimes simply because they chose to disarm their citizens. I think a reasoned argument is a simple argument won by facts and figures. The argument should be one of respect. It’s okay those countries chose to disarm. They did what they thought was best to protect their citizens. We shouldn’t be arguing the right and wrong of owning a gun. We should be arguing the value of being an american and the challenge that implies in protecting our people in spite of the fact they have guns. As americans, we have the right to bear arms, period. We should be painting the naysayers as cowards and quitters not villains and conspirators. What they are really saying it is too difficult and challenging to be an American. Make that argument.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ blarman 6 years, 8 months ago
          I'll politely disagree.

          To me, a profound hubris is exhibited by government officials who believe they can choose for others how life should be lived. Gun control is merely one aspect of this hubris/arrogance and is particularly dangerous in two respects.

          The first is in presuming that they have the reach and control to be able to control crime. This can only be achieved through complete and utter control - not through freedom. It takes profound humility for a government official to recognize that they are not all-powerful.

          The second is the presumption that only the lives they deem to protect are worthy of such - that no right of self-defense exists! This underlies even the right of the citizen to respond to government tyranny, for a government official is nothing more than another citizen with a fancy title.

          I can not condone any infringement on the rights to self-defense or self-determination, and the gun control debate at its heart consists of an abrogation of those two fundamental principles.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ Mimi 6 years, 8 months ago
            You were polite. And you make a lot of sense.
            I believe though the whole militia argument will fall way side sooner or later; technology will make projectile defense obsolete and primitive. Buck Rodgers, anyone? We are just spinning our wheels in the mean time.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ blarman 6 years, 8 months ago
              That is entirely possible. There are new weapons the military has which are the equivalent of non-lethal "Star Trek"-style phasers. They overload the target's neural system with low-level infrared radiation and incapacitate them. It is a close-proximity weapon a lot less scary than a taser, but far too expensive (for the time being) for the common joe.

              Before the projectile weapon goes the way of the dodo, however, there are four modern projectile weapon advancements that may be of interest to those who follow such.

              The first is a firearm which can shoot around corners. The barrel is mounted on a stock which can pivot up to 90 degrees and has a sight that follows so that someone can peer around a corner - and even shoot - without exposing themselves. The military are starting to train/equip soldiers for urban warfare using these.

              The second isn't as much a gun but the projectile - the military now has bullets that can be programmed on firing with a delayed fuse - similar to artillery or heavy HE shells designed as penetrators for bunkers/tanks, etc. These bullets are made so that the explode a certain time/distance AFTER making first contact. They are designed to defeat cover through penetration. They are quite expensive, however.

              The next is also a new type of projectile that is made to sense cover and explode just after passing a programmable point. Also meant to defeat enemies hiding behind cover, the bullet is programmed on firing with a delay so that it will go off a certain number of feet after the bullet passes cover.

              The last is a weapon system created for the common joe (if you can call a $10K price tag that) that auto-targets. It's billed as a hunting rifle that can make any hunter a pro. You sight your target in and the scope locks on, takes a few measurements like wind speed, angle, distance, etc., and then when you squeeze the trigger, it will compensate and wait for the muzzle to be projected along the correct path until it fires.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ winterwind 6 years, 8 months ago
          hmmm. I always, as Rand said, think that we should take our discussions back to first principles. I think we SHOULD [doncha hate no italics?] be arguing, discussing, considering, debating.....whether the right of a country's citizens to freely own firearms is protected, de jure and de facto. It is not a right "given" by our Constitution, it is a natural right protected by our Constitution. You're correct, that is not our primary subject - but keep in mind that dictators who limit, repress and eventually destroy their own citizens can not do that unless those citizens are defenseless.
          I agree that arguments are won by facts and figures - but those facts and figures should be used correctly. The simplest statistics, supposedly designed to help people see that having a gun in the home is dangerous, are skewed before using. When discussing firearms being kept in the home, the anti-gun side says that people are more likely to be killed with that firearm by someone they know than by a stranger. Unsettling - but that number of people killed with firearms kept in the home include both suicides and self-defense killings [battered women or men who have had enough]. Thus, a true statistic, but with a skewed purpose.
          At the end, I'm not sure what you mean - "they" are saying it's too challenging to be an American? I don't see the connection with guns - what would the argument be, and just what would you be trying to achieve with it?
          I'd really like to continue this discussion, if we may. As my honey points out, it's my bedtime. [Oh, he also points out the requirement for ice cream beforehand!]
          g'night
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ Mimi 6 years, 8 months ago
            What I mean by saying that it challenging to be an American is that there are those in society that fear too much freedom, and we aren’t pointing out often enough that that fear is the root of all their arguments. Sandy Hook was a horrible tragedy, but it was a failure of existing laws not a call to create new ones. The kid was mentally-ill. Under current laws he shouldn’t have had a gun in his possession. Everybody can agree that mentally-ill people should not have access to guns. Had his mother lived--we could have made an example of her, preventing, hopefully, other mothers and fathers from taking their gun responsibility and the law lightly. Instead, we have fearful people exploiting this tragedy to make a grab for guns. Anti-gun supporters don’t want to accept our gun culture. They are afraid of aspects of being American and all that implies. They want to live like Europeans so they seek out the UN gun ban to hide behind.
            I saw a vid around here somewhere of Eric Holder saying that we have to brainwash children about guns --that he was going to work with the Department of Education to make sure the subject of guns was discussed daily. He even used the term brainwash a couple times.
            I didn’t realize that schools were teaching our children to use guns inappropriately in the first place. Wouldn’t that be the only justifiable reason for him being allowed to pursue this course of action? Have schools caused the cultural love of guns? Of course not! That would be absurd. We have always had a gun culture. You could blame Hollywood for making it look cool, I guess. Holder isn’t addressing the problem. He is trying to raise a generation of americans that will look on gun ownership as something to be feared and unwanted. He is teaching our children to hate a part of our culture that makes us uniquely american. An overwhelming majority of Americans supported the National Firearms Act of 1934. But if we really think about it, did they do so because of the type of weapon or because they abhorred being victims of mob-rule? It was about a loss of freedom. Americans should have the final say on whether or not they should have guns. When guns really take too much away from us, we will know and respond in kind. Nobody should be talking to our kids.This method may backfire. How has the thirty years of the DARE program worked in keeping our children away from drugs and alcohol? It hasn’t. If anything, it has introduced the culture of drinking to a younger age, exposing them to imagery they would have been sheltered from for a few years more anyway.

            Hope you enjoyed your...ice cream. :)
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ 6 years, 8 months ago
          I'm a person who likes facts too Mimi, so here's a few tables to help you and others have some solid evidence as we argue with the other side.

          Lets look at violent crime since the anti gunners all claim that they want guns gone so that crime will drop. Look at the graph at the bottom of this page - http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cri...

          That's quite a drop in just five years and it's very odd that this happened AFTER the 2004 expiration of the 1994 assault weapons ban which the anti gunners promised us was going to lead to open war in the streets.

          To get a better understanding of just what weapons are used to commit violent crime - sine the anti gunners tell us it's the tool not the person - we need to see just how that breaks down. It's not surprising to see that most violent crime is committed with firearms. Nobody says that people who are going to harm another person won't use a gun if they have one, but the anti gunners tell us all the time that they don't really want to ban guns, just those evil black guns. This page shows us just how violent crime breaks down by the weapon chosen. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cri...

          Assault rifles are lumped into the list called "Rifle", which accounts for a total of 323 murders in 2011. Nobody says that this should be ignored, but the weapon chosen is germane to this discussion. Slightly more murders (356) happen with shotguns - but anti gunners tell us that they don't want to ban shotguns and hunting, they only want to get rid of those "weapons of war". Humm. If that's the case, let's ban weapons that accounted for 728 deaths - hands and feet. Silly? Sure but so is wanting to ban a tool that was used in half as many crimes. Or how about a weapons used in 1694 crimes? Knives.

          Since we don't know how many of the 323 rifle deaths were caused by assault weapons, it's a bit harder to say that getting rid of them will affect these numbers, but since assault rifles are outnumbered by traditional hunting rifles 8 to one, I think it's safe to assume that they are not used in very many violent crimes.

          The crime stats for 2012 have just been released and I have not listed those because they are still being reviewed. However, in case somebody might think I'm hiding something or not wanting to show how Sandy Hook affected things, here is the link - http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cri... As you can see, even WITH the horrific crime by that insane person, deaths by rifles DROPPED even further to 322 in 2012.

          So how do these numbers relate to causes of death by ALL causes, not just crime? The CDC published this PDF and page 13 lists some enlightening numbers. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/misc/atlasr...

          According to that table 44,056 people were killed in automobile accidents per year 1988-1992. While just 15,769 were killed by all firearms per year (not including suicide - 18,184) in the same period. I'm certain there are more up to date numbers someplace, I just didn't find them in the time I wanted to spend looking. (I've got a life too) However the FBI crime numbers list total murders by firearm in 2011 at 12,664 so I think we can assume the DROP in deaths was somewhat consistent.

          The point is that the very guns that DiFi and the Bloomberg gun grabbers and the poor MOMS want to ban simply are a token. There is no clear data that indicates that these weapons CAUSE crime by their existence or that they drive people to mass murder. Subtracting the emotion and hype from the gun argument seems to totally deflate the issue.

          .







          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by jsw225 6 years, 8 months ago
          England disarmed the dutch farmers in Africa. And then suddenly, the dutch farmers were unable to fight back and were put into concentration camps. Hundreds of thousands of them died, all because the British didn't want them to fight back.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo