It's fine if you think that way, but you are paranoid. As long as you and your NRA buddies don't spend billions on brainwashing America maybe there will be true progress on gun control regulations.
LOL, my NRA buddies? C'mon kid, I know you hate the 2nd amendment because of your ridiculous and irrational fears but that doesn't mean the vast majority of America that support the 2nd amendment are in the NRA. You really need to come to terms that you are just a loony radical on this issue. It's okay, I'm not judging you for it but your drive to repeal the 2nd amendment isn't going anywhere.
Whew, I stopped in here just to get some news (on call all weekend, I'm completely out of the loop), and I see none of it here just your typical gun control mudslinging thread. I'm gonna get the F outta here, meaning you won't here from me here again, but before I leave... This entire topic is a great example of the "lies, damn lies, and statistics" idea. You can use statistics to pretty much support any point you want. True, your odds of dying in the middle of a gun-addled rampage by some psychopath are exceedingly low. Your chances of dying in a plane crash or elevator mishap are also low. That doesn't mean that, in actuarial risk management terms, we shouldn't be aiming for zero. It's a well grounded conclusion that gun rampages by psychopaths happen almost exclusively in countries with lax gun control laws (in the Western world, there are all the cases in the US, the one massacre in Norway which like the rest of Scandinavia was surprisingly a gun happy jurisdiction up until this event caused law reform...and I suppose you can include the terrorist attack in France as a worthy exception). So for all the benefits proponents may cite regarding citizens being able to have guns, you have to weigh that against the risk of being gunned down by a crazed maniac. During the time of the Revolutionary War, the Second Amendment was considered necessary in order to keep the power decentralized and in the hands of its people. A failsafe against another tyrannical government, so to speak. Now, in the 21th century, that fear seems at least 100yrs too late. The tyrannical government has already happened. We are all slaves to the competing interests of powerful corporations. What the hell kind of good is a gun going to do you? How will a militia of armed citizens ever manage to take down Walmart? When I was young I remember times when a bunch of idiots would bunker down in an outpost in West Texas and declare themselves seceded from the union. Now, that stuff never happens anymore. Euphemistically though, I feel like gun-toting Second Amendment truthers represent that group. Increasingly ignorant, increasingly isolated, and increasingly living in a ****ty part of the country with only rocks and rattlesnakes to share their company. Derp on, folks.
At least you guys are more out in the open about being anti-civil liberties nowadays. Once upon a time, you felt you had to hide the desire to shred the constitution.
The gun nuts immediately jump to an extremist position whenever there is a risk that they will lose access to any their killing toys. Any reasonable restriction to access to firearms becomes "shredding the constitution". Despite the fact that any sentient person would agree that some restrictions already exist and for good reasons (ie, I can't enjoy my second amendment right to buy a bazooka). And reasonable restrictions to other constitutional rights exist (ie I have a right to free speech but I can't yell fire in a movie theater) and again, no one "shredded" the constitution when that reasonable restriction was set in place. The NRA led gun nut lobby argues against any reasonable restriction... and needless deaths and injuries from too many guns continue...
http://www.smh.com.au/world/us-gun-violence-mckayla-dyer-8-shot-to-death-by-11yearold-boy-20151005-gk1xcp.html "US gun violence: McKayla Dyer, 8, shot dead by 11-year-old boy" if only she had a gun to defend herself.
Well a few of the loons in here are talking about completely banning handguns....that would easily be "too much", others are talking about completely banning and melting down all guns in the civilian population....that pretty much goes directly against the 2nd amendment so I'd call it "too far" as well. There is such a thing as reasonable restrictions but... 1. They likely have very little affect on mass shootings given that most guns in mass shootings are either stolen like in Newtown, or they were legally purchased by people without reasonable red flags. 2. The crazies in here aren't talking about "reasonable restrictions" they are talking about an outright repeal of the 2nd amendment.
Almost everyone agrees with limits on the 2nd amendment. There is almost nobody in allowing the right to bear arms to include bazookas, ICBMs armed with nuclear warheads, etc. Almost everyone agrees that people with a mental illness that is prone to violence shouldn't be armed. By and large most folks just want to tinker with the restrictions or approval and how to be more effective in keeping people who shouldn't have guns from getting them. There are some who want an all out ban, but let's not pretend like there's a wholesale outcry to shred the constitution.
That's a completely reasonable statement and I have no problem with it. I wasn't talking about actual reasonable restrictions, obviously tanks bazookas, and nuclear ICBM's should be restricted.....but that's not what I was talking about. There are several in this thread calling for an outright repeal of the 2nd amendment. Those are the loony extremists I was referring to. Now the real conversation comes down to what is "reasonable restriction", you listed the obvious, but to some banning all concealed handguns is a reasonable restriction, and I don't agree. I think that the more people we can put through a training course (which IMO should be harder and be more in depth) the better we are. Trained, responsible, and law abiding civilians carrying handguns isn't a threat, and in fact would provide extra security. Would there still be accidents? Would that system be perfect? Of course not, but none are.
Her parents are responsible for this. I'd say she was considered a "soft target". 8 year olds can't defend themselves. Oh well, time to implement personal bodyguards for every little kid to prevent this from happening.
We're working on driverless cars. If they transform transportation in the way they seem poised to, automotive accidents will go way down. In fact, technological innovations like seatbelts, airbags, and crumple zones have made driving safer over time (and other sorts of innovations like the moves to reduce drunk driving) and I expect we can continue to make improvements with more innovation. Since we're addressing that situation, let's get back to how we make guns safer.
LOL @ car comparisons. Let's see what the effect of safety regulations and smart design have been over time. Hrmmm... Spoiler Wow, ever safer for society. Go figure. Probably just a random coincidence.
Man, how does Obama juggle all these false flags? Must be pretty exhausting... or maybe it's just a break from planning the architecture of his re-education camps.
Very cool how you can see WWII, the oil crises of the '70s, and the Great Recession reflected in the billions of miles traveled line. But, I'm very curious to know what happened circa 1935 to make deaths/mile spike briefly.
Much faster cars, I would guess. High-speed diesel engine was invented circa 1930, I believe. I remember stories of my grandfather's awful wreck in that era.
Well Bobby doesn't actually know what he is talking about so it's only logical that he would try to change the conversation to irrelevant, not even tangential matters like banning cars or free speech. His logic is to simplistic and simply not nuanced enough for real debates. Ironic since he posts the most in this forum.
i did: [rquoter]There is zero protection enshrined in law for transactions that happen to occur at a gun show or over the Internet. Zip. Zilch. Nada. The so-called “gun show loophole” simply does not exist. Nor does any sort of Internet gun sale loophole. Federal gun laws are directed at the entities engaging in the manufacture or distribution of firearms, not the mere venues where those activities happen to take place. If you are an FFL who sells guns at a gun show, you are required by law to either process a background check prior to the sale of a gun, or you must confirm, usually by examining a concealed carry permit or a purchase permit (both of which require background checks), that a buyer is not legally prohibited from purchasing or possessing a gun. In the same vein, there’s no Internet gun sale loophole, either. You can’t legally buy a gun off the Internet from some random guy ten states away and have it show up on your doorstep the next morning. It’s against the law to ship a gun across state lines to a non-FFL. Any firearm purchased from another state must be processed through an FFL in the state in which the buyer resides. That FFL is required to process a background check before providing the gun to you. The only federal background check exemption that exists is for transactions between private, non-FFL individuals who reside in the same state. That’s it. There’s no Internet exemption. There’s no gun show exemption. The only exemption is for transactions with zero federal nexus: no federal firearms license, and no purchase or sale across state lines. [/rquoter]
