What's wrong with a little gun control?
Submitted by goldstock on Fri, 01/18/2013 - 22:38I don't believe anyone is coming for your guns. I understand that there are people that might want that, but it's just not going to happen. I have no problem with stricter laws. Sorry, but we don't need AK 47's. And guess what, nothing suggested in any of the current proposals would even mean that you'd have to give up yours if you had one. These were the same views Reagan had:
In 1986 he signed the Firearm Owners Protection Act. It banned ownership of any fully automatic rifles that were not already registered on the day the law was signed.
As governor of California, Reagan signed the Mulford Act, which prohibited carrying loaded firearms in public.
He also supported a 15-day waiting period.
And are background checks really a bad thing for someone to own a gun. I mean to drive a car you need to take a test and get a license. You need to be 16, sometimes 17 before you get behind the wheel. You have to have car insurance. You have to obey posted speed limits. You're not allowed to drink and drive. You can even have your license suspended or revoked...not because you are a felon, but because of non related driving offenses like underage drinking.
And the doubters will always bring up the 2nd Amendment, but never mention it begins with "well regulated". Not to mention the arms that the founders bared were muskets that took up to a minute to reload between shots.
Some of the others will say we need to protect ourselves from a Tyrannical government. I hate to be the barer of bad news, but our government has drones. If they want you dead, you're high powered assault rifle isn't going to save you.
And you can say what you want about me without really knowing who I am, but I believe in the 2nd Amendment. Before you bash me and vote me down, I ask only that you tell me what you feel the 2nd Amendment protects. Do we have the right to own a Nuclear Bomb? To extreme? Can I fly around in a fully loaded F-16? No, how about drive around in a tank? Can we own anything the begins with the words "Surface to Air"? A rocket launcher, a grenade thrower? Please tell me where your "line" is. Am I really that extreme because I believe the line is right before an automatic rifle which holds a clip with more than 10 rounds and your's is right after it?
And I know that guns don't kill people, people kill people. And I know that stricter gun laws won't end gun violence, the same way I know that laws against murder, didn't end murder. Laws against rape, didn't end rape...but does that mean we shouldn't have those laws?
- Login to post comments
You are prettty good at dodging questions...
have you considered going into politics?
Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com
"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard
If you want to give me a list
If you want to give me a list of questions, I'd be happy to answer. I thought I gave an honest answer that I don't know the best way to enforce it. The first thing that would have to happen would be to get a law on the books. If you sell a gun to someone without a background check, you're arrested. Not sure if that's what you want to hear, but that's what happens if you sell a drug without a prescription. Doctors and Lawyers risk losing their licences for certain actions. Maybe the gun dealer loses his right to sell guns. I'm not claiming to be a constitutional expert by any means and I'm not trying to lay out what the law of the should be, I just think there are things that can be done to make my children a little bit safer.
Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.
John Adams
Boy, you sure are violent.
"The first thing that would have to happen would be to get a law on the books. If you sell a gun to someone without a background check, you're arrested. Not sure if that's what you want to hear, but that's what happens if you sell a drug without a prescription."
So you are in favor of using violence against non-violent people who are interacting peacefully and voluntarily?
If I don't ask permission from government to enter into a voluntary exchange with another person, I should be violently kidnapped and thrown in a cage?
Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com
"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard
If I'm speeding down the
If I'm speeding down the highway and refuse to pull over, is that a non violent act? If I sell a 20 year old alcohol, is that a non violent act? If I refuse to pay my parking tickets, is that a non violent act? If I sell cigarettes without paying taxes, is that a non violent act? If I fish without a fishing license, is that a non violent act?
We may not agree on the laws and/or the punishments and I'm not saying I agree with the all the laws above, but to call me a violent person because I would support a hypothetical law that would require a background check before someone purchases a fire arm is a little extreme.
Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.
John Adams
my bad with the repost
my bad with the repost
Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.
John Adams
At least be honest about what you advocate.
If you are advocating any form of statism, you are in fact advocating violence.
I'm honest about what I advocate, that violence is only justified in self-defense.
If you believe in using aggressive force by legislation, at least be honest about it.
Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com
"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard
If I'm speeding down the
my bad with the repost
Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.
John Adams
How do you suppose that they would enforce a partial gun ban...
with people that they know are non-compliant? Are they going to wave their fingers at us and say - "Bad boy. You can't do that." - and leave it at that?
This is in response to your very first sentence - "I don't believe anyone is coming for your guns."
I really wish I had the
I really wish I had the perfect answer, and you are 100% correct that no law is going to be entirely effective. But I rather see something being tried rather than and entire country crossing there fingers and wishing really hard that nothing bad ever happens to them. There are a lot of people fighting tooth and nail against these proposals saying they won't work, but none of you are making reasonable counter suggestions.
Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.
John Adams
Victims of the Katrina gun grab...
...prolly didn't believe anyone was coming for their guns, either.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4
But even if outright confiscation does not happen at first, the people would be fools to allow infringement on the right to bear arms, as it will only weaken the ability to resist confiscation and tyranny.
Btw, just because you don't see the trap in such plans doesn't mean it's not there.
Good Luck to you in this thread
May I suggest getting a bottle of ibuprofen or aleve and keeping it close by?
jrd is still here... kinda in a weird sort of way. She also just might be the happiest girl in the world because she got exactly what she wanted which was a perfect summer wandering playlist.
No fear, I completely
No fear, I completely expected a little backlash, but I was really hoping to gain some knowledge on where people would draw the line to acceptable items to own and so far I've only seen one position and that was that private citizens should be able to possess nuclear weapons.
Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.
John Adams
lol
Well, like I said.... good luck.
I did not even say I agreed with a little gun control in a post I posted a few weeks ago. In fact I said over and over I was not suggesting gun control, I simply had questions about some of the terms surrounding guns and gun laws. Why? Because I do not own a gun, never have, and I know nothing about them.
Yeah, that was a few weeks ago, and I am still shaking off a lot of negativity from people around here.
Godspeed to you.
jrd is still here... kinda in a weird sort of way. She also just might be the happiest girl in the world because she got exactly what she wanted which was a perfect summer wandering playlist.
Because "gun control" is "abuse of power".
It also incites resistance, including violence. Unconvinced? Please read my article at NEWSETAL. http://newsetal.com/?p=4419
Nice article...but
I don't believe anyone is trying to take away your right to protect your life, your home or your property. I also don't believe that anyone is trying to disarm you. Just the contrary, none of the recent proposals would try to take any currently owned guns. Yes, there are people out there that want to take your guns, but there are also people out there that think that the 2nd Amendment gives everyone the right to have Nuclear capability. I don't agree with either.
And sorry, but your article completely goes off the rails when you try to argue for gun rights by mentioning that a few people in favor of gun control may have a shady background especially since those incidents have absolutely nothing to do with guns. It would be like me saying Timothy McVeigh was a supporter of gun rights so gun rights are bad. Just Saying.
Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.
John Adams
I draw the line where government does.
If the government has the right to possess helicopters, tanks, and nuclear weapons, so do private civilians.
The government does not have the right to use those things to harm other people unless it is a matter of defense, and neither to private civilians.
It's not really extreme at all. But giving unelected government agents powerful weapons while banning them for ourselves, THAT IS EXTREME.
I'm sorry, but I feel that is
I'm sorry, but I feel that is extreme to argue we have the right to have a nuclear weapon. If that was the case, our world as we know it would be long gone. We'd be living (maybe) in a waste land.
Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.
John Adams
Perhaps, but probably not.
There is tremendous incentive to not drop a nuclear weapon on a population, which is why no one has done it since the US government in 1945.
Even if they were freely available on the market, I seriously doubt there would be much of a demand. What would you do with it? I wouldn't want one.
Private civilians (with some effort) can get extremely powerful explosives now and they aren't blowing each other up.
So do you think that if the
So do you think that if the kid from CT or Aurora, or Columbine, or any of those crazies could pick up a nuclear weapon without a background check, that they wouldn't have used it?
Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.
John Adams