Revisiting Gun Laws in the U.S.

[Winstonbiggs]

Originally Posted by DDNYjets

My biggest fear is that this national conversation will take the path of least resistance and that is video games and violence on TV. IMO those should be on the bottom of the list.

I wouldn't be afraid. One thing you can bet on is since the President alluded to change sales of violent video games, assault rifles and armor piercing amo will go up substantially. There's still 8 days to shop before Christmas.

[RaoulDuke]

Originally Posted by DDNYjets

My biggest fear is that this national conversation will take the path of least resistance and that is video games and violence on TV. IMO those should be on the bottom of the list..

+1

PK has been listening to heavy metal since he was 4 and he turned out OK.

[Fishooked]

Originally Posted by DDNYjets

My biggest fear is that this national conversation will take the path of least resistance and that is video games and violence on TV. IMO those should be on the bottom of the list.

First and foremost we need to change the way we view and treat mental illness. The majority of these mass murderers are mentally ill. Then we need to have stricter gun regulations. I have been thinking a lot about this the past few days and I agree with what the President said last night. If we can save just one victim or prevent one of these tragedies then it would be worth it. I understand that there are hundreds of millions of gun in circulation and there will never be a way to completely control them. But we have to try. We also need a better database of gun owners and people who are excluded from the right to own a gun.

I am not a religious person but I think there may be a correlation between the decline of faith and the overall decline of society. Gov't spends a lot of time separating itself from faith. I was surprised to see how much Obama was referencing faith and religion when trying to console the nation. Like I said, I am not a religious person but I do think religion or faith of any kind does have a positive impact on society.

I agree with most of your points except religion - well, except religion taken to extremes like those WBC idiots and Islamic extremists, etc.
If anything, seeing this sort of stuff makes it even harder to put your faith in something that isn't real - or at least seems non existent. Faith in humanity is probably at an all time low these days.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by RaoulDuke

+1

PK has been listening to heavy metal since he was 4 and he turned out OK.

Well, except for a heavy dose of nihilism, and a desire to destroy via atomic weapons an entire subcontinent, sure.

Oh, and his preference that the World end on 12/21 too. Yep, that too.

Other than that, he's a real peach of positivity.

:metalupyourass:

(Metal doesn't make you bad. Some ssmall subset of bad people listen to metal. PK is not a bad person. Wargarbl).

[RaoulDuke]

Originally Posted by Warfish

Well, except for a heavy dose of nihilism, and a desire to destroy via atomic weapons an entire subcontinent, sure.

Oh, and his preference that the World end on 12/21 too. Yep, that too.

Other than that, he's a real peach of positivity.
.

[palmetto defender]

Originally Posted by Snell41

Nuclear weapons have long been referred to as Nuclear Arms. I guess you have no problem with your neighbor having one stashed in the closet for "defense purposes"?

That is a moronic statement. A rifle can cost under $100. So can a pistol. A nuke costs hundreds of thousands and you can get fissionable material where? I suppose the average teen can construct a nuke. A little common sense please.

[Trades]

Originally Posted by palmetto defender

That is a moronic statement. A rifle can cost under $100. So can a pistol. A nuke costs hundreds of thousands and you can get fissionable material where? I suppose the average teen can construct a nuke. A little common sense please.

PM me

[Snell41]

Originally Posted by palmetto defender

That is a moronic statement. A rifle can cost under $100. So can a pistol. A nuke costs hundreds of thousands and you can get fissionable material where? I suppose the average teen can construct a nuke. A little common sense please.

Of course, but you see the point. The right to bear arms was written for the weapons of the time. A glock would be one hell of a weapon compared to colonial days. I think it's ridiculous to continue to tout the constitutional right to bear arms without bearing any consideration that "arms" have changed. I have to wonder what the founding fathers would think if they were given a future glimpse of weapons today, and the fact that citizens would be pointing to their written Amendment as their right to carry around a bushmaster, for example.

[AlbanyJet]

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution allows us to bear arms. But it doesn't say what kind of arms. We need to legally distinguish between deadly arms and non-deadly arms.

Deadly Arms: Present day revolvers, pistols, etc. These are deadly and should be outlawed, because they are deadly.

Non-Deadly Arms: Highly effective stun guns, highly potent pepper spray guns. These guns are non-deadly so they should be allowed.

The Constitution (Bill of Rights) was written in the 1700s - when stun guns and pepper spray, et al, didn't exist yet.

Got it?

[Trades]

Originally Posted by AlbanyJet

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution allows us to bear arms. But it doesn't say what kind of arms. We need to legally distinguish between deadly arms and non-deadly arms.

Deadly Arms: Present day revolvers, pistols, etc. These are deadly and should be outlawed, because they are deadly.

Non-Deadly Arms: Highly effective stun guns, highly potent pepper spray guns. These guns are non-deadly so they should be allowed.

The Constitution (Bill of Rights) was written in the 1700s - when stun guns and pepper spray, et al, didn't exist yet.

Got it?

How about knives? Bricks? Cars? Poison? Fists of Fury?

Got it?

[crasherino]

Originally Posted by AlbanyJet

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution allows us to bear arms. But it doesn't say what kind of arms. We need to legally distinguish between deadly arms and non-deadly arms.

Deadly Arms: Present day revolvers, pistols, etc. These are deadly and should be outlawed, because they are deadly.

Non-Deadly Arms: Highly effective stun guns, highly potent pepper spray guns. These guns are non-deadly so they should be allowed.

The Constitution (Bill of Rights) was written in the 1700s - when stun guns and pepper spray, et al, didn't exist yet.

Got it?

Good luck with that. The Supreme Court just ruled that categorically prohibiting the ownership of handguns is unconstitutional, so me thinks you are fighting an uphill battle.

Why not focus on something practical? Or, failing that, on inventing a magical spell that will make all the privately held guns in the country disappear.

That's about the only way you will get rid of your "deadly" arms.

[Apache 51]

It's the nut behind the bolt.

[AlbanyJet]

Originally Posted by Trades

How about knives? Bricks? Cars? Poison? Fists of Fury? Got it?

Nah, they're fine.

[Warfish]

Pepper Spray and Taser Hunting?

PETA will not be amused.

Nor will the Deer or Turkey I would presume.

[PlumberKhan]

Originally Posted by Trades

How about knives? Bricks? Cars? Poison? Fists of Fury?

Got it?

We'll ban bricks the next time someone walks into an elementary school and kills 20 first graders by striking them in the head 3 -11 times each with a brick.

[stanner]

Originally Posted by Snell41

Of course, but you see the point. The right to bear arms was written for the weapons of the time. A glock would be one hell of a weapon compared to colonial days. I think it's ridiculous to continue to tout the constitutional right to bear arms without bearing any consideration that "arms" have changed. I have to wonder what the founding fathers would think if they were given a future glimpse of weapons today, and the fact that citizens would be pointing to their written Amendment as their right to carry around a bushmaster, for example.

I'm no constitutional scholar, but I think the intent was to allow the people to repel a government occupation, a la the forced housing of troops, etc. I would think their intention was for the arms to be commensurate with the ones at the time (likely not foreseeing nukes and tanks and such).

[chesapeakejet]

Originally Posted by stanner

I'm no constitutional scholar, but I think the intent was to allow the people to repel a government occupation, a la the forced housing of troops, etc. I would think their intention was for the arms to be commensurate with the ones at the time (likely not foreseeing nukes and tanks and such).

They had cannons back then. I wonder if anyone tried to keep a cannon?

[chiefst2000]

Originally Posted by AlbanyJet

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution allows us to bear arms. But it doesn't say what kind of arms. We need to legally distinguish between deadly arms and non-deadly arms.

Deadly Arms: Present day revolvers, pistols, etc. These are deadly and should be outlawed, because they are deadly.

Non-Deadly Arms: Highly effective stun guns, highly potent pepper spray guns. These guns are non-deadly so they should be allowed.

The Constitution (Bill of Rights) was written in the 1700s - when stun guns and pepper spray, et al, didn't exist yet.

Got it?

I'm confused here. Drugs are illegal yet they are readily available in every neighborhood. 45% of homes in America contain a firearm. Are you advocating that a task force be created to forcibly search homes across America and confiscate the weapons? Would you agree then that those that resist are to be shot or arrested on site?

Now assuming, that after millions of lives are lost in the fighting to enact your gun ban concept, you win this second civil war (not likely but..) can you say with any level of confidence that this would lead to the end of guns in the USA? Please cite examples of other rights that were removed by government and never returned. They tried it with alcohol, that was a bust. They tried it with drugs. Also a bust. Prostitution? Not so much. Where is the example where a government ban on something actually worked? There isn't one.

My point? Also this blather about gun laws and bans etc are just emotional foolishness born of a desire to do something, anything, to prevent this tragedy from happening again. Well if that was truly the desire then we should look in to realistic causation and solutions. The shooter in Newtown was mentally ill. Those around him sensed that he was going over the edge and were powerless to stop him. He likely had been in touch with mental health counseling on numerous occasions. The same can be said for other recent similar events including Arizona and Colorado. The problem seems to be in the inability to get these people off the streets before they commit crimes.

[AlbanyJet]

Originally Posted by chiefst2000

Are you advocating that a task force be created to forcibly search homes across America and confiscate the weapons?

No, just the manufacture and/or sale of "deadly" firearms. Hunting rifles are OK!

[PlumberKhan]

Originally Posted by chiefst2000

I'm confused here. Drugs are illegal yet they are readily available in every neighborhood. 45% of homes in America contain a firearm. Are you advocating that a task force be created to forcibly search homes across America and confiscate the weapons? Would you agree then that those that resist are to be shot or arrested on site?

So why does your party still support banning drugs if it's just a futile as banning guns?