Do You Want Guns to be Illegal?

I agree with you, that's what the second amendment was about. However that idea isn't practical with current technology. Even if everyone had multiple guns it wouldn't stand up against a govt. The govt. could shut down power, water, cut off gasoline supply, transportation, and thus food supply. If that didn't work, they can roll in the tanks, bunker busting bombs, missiles etc. Guns won't defeat that.

Having a bunch of people who think they can use guns against all of that won't help should the govt. go tyrannical on us.

I think the citizenry should stand up against a tyrannical govt. I just don't think guns would be effective in the slightest against it.

 

I think you overrate this government's Army. The Taliban with 15 year old AKs and IQs of goat herders withstood the best blow from that Army and they still didn't get rid of them.

There are plenty of self reliant Americans who are prepared for things you listed. It's best to be prepared for anything.

 

I want guns to be controlled. If you have ever had someone pull a gun on you over a disagreement, you'd understand. People who have guns readily nearby are opt to use them unnecessarily. It allows them to be far more confrontational than they otherwise would be because they know they got a big bad boy to back them up.

Guns for home protection and hunting are understandable. But carrying guns around on your body or in your glove compartment - unless you have a justifiable reason (you can prove you are in need of protection) - that should not be allowed.

Furthermore, there should be anger management courses for people who do have guns at the very least. And a lot more tracking of guns as well.

 

I am not delusional, I am an idiot remember? My comments were nothing about the rest of the world I was merely concerned about you. Now that you have written you are not in danger I feel much better. I hope your life continues to be one of blessedness.

I find it odd that you would further use a biological fact of life (the sucking of a "mamma's tit") against me. I know formula is a bigger deal now but it was not as overused when I was a child nor did we have the money for such a luxury. So, yes, I spent some time feeding from my kother's breast.

Any chance you had a poor relationship with your mother and that is why you now have fears of being killed?

 

Well said, FB. I'm for guns and own 4, but I have no romanticized fantasies of defending liberty a 308 rifle. The main reason why gun control is an issue is because we have a large portion of the population who is for it and a larger portion of the population against it. Both, hyperbolizing their arguments and politicians take advantage of this.

The government can care less how many semi-auto small arms the public owns. Technology has outpaced the "overthrown tyranny" angle a long time ago.

 

That's only because the US army held back against civilians. When there's civil war, that's rarely the case, if ever.

 

Good. Americans should be prepared to withstand that. But guns won't help defeat that govt. Guns won't do anything against tanks, missiles, bunker busters etc.

The taliban is holding on, but they aren't winning. They aren't in control. They are fighting a less advanced force, and the citizens there don't have the infrastructure we do here to lose.

 

What I'm trying to say in my first post is that... We have gun control, not because the government fears guns. We have it because a large portion of the US population does, and the politicians are merely playing on both sides of the issue. If all the citizens voted to ban gun control, the government can care less, until you get to guns that really do damage.

 

At the point of personal attacks you've lost? Is that what you're saying? LOL

 

Exactly...

Says the guy who has been tossing out insults nearly constantly.

It is like he doesn't have any self-awareness whatsoever.

 

I am going to point out yet again that the 2nd Amendment doesn't prohibit the regulation or registration of weapons.

This tired argument that an armed populace prevents tyranny consider that in Sadam's Iraq every family had an AK47. He handed them out to them prior to the 2003 invasion. It still took the US government to overthrow Sadam's regime. Plus now that the Iraq no long has a strong central government and is swimming in weapons the Iraqis are using those AK's to shoot each other in sectarian violence.

 

On a related issue:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...4f7482-d227-11e3-9e25-188ebe1fa93b_story.html


Threats against Maryland gun dealer raise doubts about future of smart guns


Threats against Maryland gun dealer raise doubts about future of smart guns

Video: Andy Raymond, owner of Rockville gun store Engage Armament, who vowed to sell the nation’s first smart gun, backed down after threats from gun enthusiasts. In this video he posted to Facebook, he responds to death threats against him and addresses the criticism. (Warning: Strong language.)

By Michael S. Rosenwald, Published: May 2 E-mail the writer

The latest skirmish over the nation’s first smart gun, marked this week by death threats against a Maryland gun dealer who wanted to sell the weapon, has raised doubts about its future and prompted some gun-control advocates to back away from legislative efforts to mandate the technology.

Engage Armament, a Rockville gun shop, endured an outpouring of vitriol from gun rights activists who fear the technology will be used to curtail their Second Amendment rights by limiting the kinds of guns they can buy in the future.

The protests echoed those against the Oak Tree Gun Club, a Los Angeles area store that offered to sell the smart gun and — like Engage Armament — quickly dropped the idea after opposition mounted. Electronic chips in the Armatix iP1 can communicate with a watch that can be bought separately. Then the gun cannot be fired without the watch.

Gun rights advocates are worried about a New Jersey law under which only smart handguns can be sold there within three years of being sold anywhere in the country. The law, they fear, will be replicated in other states. Similar proposals have been introduced in California and Congress.

On Friday, New Jersey’s Senate majority leader offered a compromise that might allay fears that smart gun technology will become a backdoor form of gun control. State Sen. Loretta Weinberg (D),who sponsored the landmark 2002 law, said she would ask the legislature to drop the mandate if the National Rifle Association, a fierce critic of smart gun technology, promises not to stand in the way of the development and sale of the weapons.

“I’m willing to do this because eventually these are the kinds of guns people will want to buy,” Weinberg said.

In response to questions about Weinberg’s proposal, the NRA issued a terse statement from Chris W. Cox, executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action. “The NRA is interested in a full repeal of New Jersey’s misguided law,” Cox said.

Stephen Teret, a public health expert at Johns Hopkins University and smart gun proponent who helped with the New Jersey law, said “bullying” gun store owners was “reprehensible.” But he said it might be better for New Jersey to get rid of the mandate and let market forces dictate the future of smart guns.

“At the time, the New Jersey law made a great deal of sense,” he said. “But a number of things of have changed. Most importantly, the technology has improved. And number two, there’s a market demand for these kinds of guns. Given those changes, if New Jersey wants to rely on market forces instead of legislation, that’s certainly a reasonable approach.”

And given what happened in Maryland this week, it might be the only way to get the guns into buyers’ hands.

Andy Raymond, the co-owner of Engage Armament, had decided to offer the Armatix iP1 smart gun, despite the furor it had caused in California. He was fiercely opposed, he said, to banning the sale of any kind of gun and thought smart guns could expand the market for firearms to buyers concerned about safety.

But after word spread that he would sell the gun, vehement protests emerged online, with people calling him a traitor, a communist and various expletives. The protests were fueled, in part, by gun rights blogs alerting gun owners to Raymond’s plans. Although Raymond doesn’t think the NRA was behind the attacks, the organization later tweeted news that Raymond had backed down.

Belinda Padilla, chief executive of Armatix’s U.S. operations, had initially hailed Raymond for selling the weapon.

“He’s very knowledgeable about what happened in California,” she said. “But he is interested in providing a safer handgun for those that want one. He believes in the freedom of choice.” After he changed his mind, she did not respond to a request for comment.

During the blitz of calls and e-mails, someone told one of Raymond’s workers that the store wouldn’t sell the gun because there wouldn’t be a store; it would be burned down.

At another point, Raymond picked up the phone and said, “Hi, this is Andy. How can I help you?” The caller asked, “You’re the guys selling the smart gun?” Raymond tried to reason with him. But the caller said, “You’re going to get what’s coming to you, [expletive].”

Raymond took that as a death threat. Even his dog, Brutus, did not escape the vitriol.

Raymond was shaken, and late Thursday night — sitting at a table with a bottle of liquor, surrounded by assault rifles and puffing on a cigarette — Raymond recorded a video later posted to Facebook in which he vowed not sell the gun. He apologized for messing up and spoke directly to the people of New Jersey.

“I did not know I would be screwing you over,” Raymond said in the video. “I’m terribly sorry. . . . You don’t have anything to worry about from me.” He was furious about the death threats. “That’s a great thing for gun rights,” he said, “when you threaten to shoot somebody.”

At one point, he grew agitated and said that instead of shooting him, people should shoot the politicians who restrict gun rights. He took the video down from his store’s Facebook page Friday.

After finishing the video, Raymond feared what would happen to the store if he left. He slept there until until 3 a.m., then went home and returned at 6 a.m. to stand guard.

“I thought what I was doing was right,” he said. “I didn’t want my shop burned down.”

Raymond did receieve messages of support, with many people commenting online that it should be a buyer’s choice. Some gun owners denounced calls for violence against him.

“I have no doubt that the people who threatened Andy were gun owners,” someone wrote on MdShooters.com, an online forum. “People often say ‘We are all on the same side.’ No we are not. Only a complete idiot who hasn’t been around gun people would say such a moronic thing. Andy is seeing the real side of a section of gun owners.”

Meanwhile, gun-control advocates such as Teret were clearly disappointed and frustrated that protest had caused another potential seller to back off. Advocates think the technology will reduce gun violence, suicides and accidental shootings. While Armatix uses a watch to enable users to fire its smart gun, other companies are trying rings, grips, fingerprints and even voice recogintion.

“It makes no sense to me why gun rights people would say certain types of guns shouldn’t be purchased,” Teret said.

That was Raymond’s reasoning, too. And then the wrath unfolded. Told about the idea of doing away with the New Jersey mandate, Raymond said, “Well, yeah, that would be great.”

“But we still won’t carry it,” he said. “I just can’t.”

 

The people who against restricting guns are desperate to restrict this type of gun. What does it say about someone threatening to kill a business owner?

The NJ law needs to be changed and is silly.

 

You've called multiple people idiots. You said that about the people. Where this idiot comes from that's a personal insult. But maybe you're on such a high level of intellect that you can insult others without insulting them. Congrats, smart guy.

 

You are misunderstanding me (I understand I am very poor at writing so it is only to be expected). I merely was asking if you had a poor relationship with your mother since you seemed to think it was unusual for me to have been breast fed. There was no attack because it was a question. Obviously I know nothing of your familial relationships therefore it would be odd for me to make a declaration.


I also am not sure why you suggest we are having an argument. All of my posts have stated that I am incapable of discussing the topic and only was wondering about your safety. You have since said you are quite secure so I feel the issue is resolved. I don't know why you feel the need to criticize me so much. I know that when I read of a blessed life it usually involves the feeling of contentment which then should negate the need to make yourself fell better by trying to belittle others. I might be remembering poorly, though.

 

bigpuffery does the same thing, I'm starting to think that 1616 is him or his brother posting under s different moniker due to the deserved lack of respect each of them receive around here.

 

No we were specifically talking about murders. Then you cited gangs as the overwhelming cause of murders. You contend that guns will protect you from gun murders which is overwhelmingly untrue.

Then you contend that guns will protect you from armed burglaries. You haven't cited any actual statistics to back this up, it's just all in your theoretical brain all the violent things you could be protected from if only you had a gun because that works so well today, we're the most armed nation on earth and we hardly have any violent crime at all.... right? Now you're going to post news articles of the .000001% of events in which someone with a gun stopped a violent crime but of course that's the incredible exception to what happens, not anything resembling the rule.

The question really is whether as a country we should have unrestricted access to guns for everyone so that in .000001% of the circumstances in which a person may face violent crime they'd be able to defend themselves and if they're lucky stop the crime with their gun. No mention by you that it's much more likely a criminal will steal your gun and use that gun used in future crimes than it is likely a little old lady will defend herself with that gun.

The other thing that is disturbing is that the proponents of gun rights frequently seem to double as the anti-government crazy types. Their motives aren't about fighting crime as much as thinking they're preparing for some revolution where they're going to show up with their AR's and take on an infantry unit or something. If they were about fighting crime they'd know there are a lot better ways to do that besides being armed to the teeth as a society and all the baggage and repercussions that come with that.

 

People legally use firearms to protect themselves far more than you are suggesting. The media, however, do not give those incidents the same degree of attention that they would if the firearm were used to hurt or kill an innocent person.