# Have the Americans accepted that gun crime is a price worth paying to be able to hold arms?



## barryqwalsh (Oct 2, 2015)

On Air Now in the UK!

Have the Americans accepted that gun crime is a price worth paying to be able to hold arms?
*Join the conversation:*
Call: 0345 60 60 973 | Text: 84850

Tweet: @lbc | Email the studio



AUDIO
LBC Radio - Leading Britain's Conversation | DAB Digital Radio And 97.3FM


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 2, 2015)

"Have the Americans accepted that gun crime is a price worth paying to be able to hold arms?"

Loaded question fallacy. 

This is a mental health issue, not a 'gun' issue, having nothing to do with gun control, gun laws, or the Second Amendment. 

There are two fundamental elements in play with this and other like incidents: the unwillingness or inability of Americans to implement comprehensive mental health programs and policies, and the inherently violent nature of American society, where violence is perceived as a legitimate means of conflict resolution. 

Second Amendment jurisprudence in no way 'facilitates' gun violence, it concerns solely safeguarding the right to possess a firearm pursuant to the right of self-defense from unwarranted government regulation and interference – and rightfully so given the wrongheaded notion that crimes such as that which occurred in Oregon are the result of 'too many guns' that are 'too easily' acquired. 

The resolution to this problem will be realized through the political – not legal – process, where the American people must insist in the funding and implementation of comprehensive mental health programs and policies and address the violent nature of American society.


----------



## midcan5 (Oct 2, 2015)

Definitely a 'mental health' issue but the mental health problem is with those who feel so insecure guns form their courage. Guns are part of a mental makeup that must support them as others oppose them, it has nothing to do with reality. It simply is another example of America's partisan divide. The reality is out there and irrelevant. 

"In an interview with comedian Marc Maron that aired Monday, President Obama cited Australia's gun laws as an example the United States should follow. Australia established strict gun control in response to a massacre in Tasmania that left 35 people dead in 1996. Since then, Australia hasn't witnessed any mass shootings.

"It was just so shocking the entire country said, ‘Well, we’re going to completely change our gun laws’, and they did. And it hasn’t happened since," Obama said, discussing the shooting deaths of nine people at a historic black church in Charleston last week."

Here’s the deal with the Australian gun control law that Obama is talking about

*"In 1991, Warren E. Burger, the conservative chief justice of the Supreme Court, was  interviewed on the MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour about the meaning of the Second  Amendment's "right to keep and bear arms." Burger answered that the Second  Amendment "has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud--I repeat the word  'fraud'--on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime." In a speech in 1992, Burger declared that "the Second Amendment doesn't  guarantee the right to have firearms at all. "In his view, the purpose of the Second  Amendment was "to ensure that the 'state armies'--'the militia'--would be maintained for the defense of the state." *

'Fuck You, Guns' | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Banning AR-15's Doesn't Make Sense To Me | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
America has become a killing field. | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Guns are the crack of the partisan hacks. Courage is imaginary and thus the gun huggers love of the source of their guts, like a child with its blankee.


----------



## Geaux4it (Oct 2, 2015)

Guns are part of my way of life. They have always been a part of the generations before me. We pass them down as we expire

The confederate flag was taken from us, but it lacked a Bill of Rights protection

They'll never take our guns. To many lives would be lost doing so. We can take the deaths in Chicago and sleep at night. Try taking Americans firearms is akin to a the logistical nightmare we're told deportation would be

Again, to many lives would be lost in a confiscation process

Plus, we wont let it happen

-Geaux


----------



## gtopa1 (Oct 2, 2015)

barryqwalsh said:


> On Air Now in the UK!
> 
> Have the Americans accepted that gun crime is a price worth paying to be able to hold arms?
> *Join the conversation:*
> ...



There are ALREADY gun laws in the US and many of them!!

https://www.atf.gov/file/58686/download

It is NOT a matter of Laws. 

Greg


----------



## cnm (Oct 2, 2015)

> "Have the Americans accepted that gun crime is a price worth paying to be able to hold arms?"


The realists among them have said [mass killings] are the price they are prepared to pay.


----------



## cnm (Oct 2, 2015)

gtopa1 said:


> It is NOT a matter of Laws.


Yes it is. The law that does not make it an offence to possess a handgun.


----------



## cnm (Oct 2, 2015)

Geaux4it said:


> Guns are part of my way of life. They have always been a part of the generations before me. We pass them down as we expire


See? Here's a dude more than happy to have others pay that price.

A bargain in his eyes.


----------



## Geaux4it (Oct 2, 2015)

cnm said:


> > "Have the Americans accepted that gun crime is a price worth paying to be able to hold arms?"
> 
> 
> The realists among them have said [mass killings] are the price they are prepared to pay.



I say it all the time. It's acceptable risk to live in America.....At least for now.. Let Obama destroy a little more of the American way, and perhaps, we won't accept the risk any longer

We'll move to Belize

-Geaux


----------



## PredFan (Oct 2, 2015)

barryqwalsh said:


> On Air Now in the UK!
> 
> Have the Americans accepted that gun crime is a price worth paying to be able to hold arms?
> *Join the conversation:*
> ...



No, it's that we are smart enough to know that guns aren't the problem.


----------



## BULLDOG (Oct 2, 2015)

PredFan said:


> barryqwalsh said:
> 
> 
> > On Air Now in the UK!
> ...




OK. If guns aren't the problem, then what is? More people die by guns in the US than in  other first world country s






More people under 26 die from guns than die from cars





We spend millions every year studying auto safety and ways to reduce auto deaths, but we are prohibited by laws advocated by the NRA and pushed through by right wingers from even keeping statistics on gun violence. We are prohibited by law from even studying the problem. Are you satisfied with more than 32,000 people per year dying from gun violence?


----------



## Dan Daly (Oct 2, 2015)

Freedom isn't pretty.  I hear totalitarian societies are nice and safe and orderly.  If safety is more important to you than freedom, there are plenty of places you can live that will give you the illusion of safety that you desire.


----------



## Dan Daly (Oct 2, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > barryqwalsh said:
> ...



The logical fallacy is your irrational belief that the cause of the problem is the inanimate object.


----------



## Zoom-boing (Oct 2, 2015)

Gee, I wonder how this would have played out if even just one person sitting in that classroom had a gun.


----------



## BULLDOG (Oct 2, 2015)

Dan Daly said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...




Your silly memorized excuse just doesn't work. Why do the NRA and the politicians they own fear even studying the problem? The answer is that they know it would effect gun manufacturers profits.


----------



## PredFan (Oct 2, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > barryqwalsh said:
> ...



That is an easy question to answer though being a left wing nutter you probably won't accept it.

If it isn't the guns what is it?
Our violent and fame (infamy) worshipping society.


----------



## BULLDOG (Oct 2, 2015)

PredFan said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...




I'm sure that has something to do with it, but that can't be the entire reason. That many American deaths per year deserve honest study and some attempt to reduce the loss. Why is the NRA so opposed to that?


----------



## PredFan (Oct 2, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...



The NRA is not opposed to it. It never has been. the problem is that no one ever does the study. They ONLY look at the guns. Just having a gun doesn't make you a killer. We need to look at why someone crosses that line. The problem is that it doesn't advance an agenda and therefor has no political benefit to find out.

unitl we stop looking at the "how' and start looking at the "why", these murders will continue and no amount of laws will stop them.


----------



## BULLDOG (Oct 2, 2015)

PredFan said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...




Sure they are
Congressional ban on gun violence research renewed - Business Insider


----------



## nat4900 (Oct 2, 2015)

The question asked in the O/P should be posed to the family members of the victims...Lets see how they feel if the "price" they paid was worth the freedom of expression of the gun manufacturers' lobbyists and the NRA.


----------



## PredFan (Oct 2, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...



Exactly proving my point. They are not looking at the "why" they are only looking at the "how". The NRA is rightfully fighting that. It is not an "honest study" as you claim the NRA opposes. It doesn't oppose an honest study into why this country has such a problem with violence.


----------



## PredFan (Oct 2, 2015)

nat4900 said:


> The question asked in the O/P should be posed to the family members of the victims...Lets see how they feel if the "price" they paid was worth the freedom of expression of the gun manufacturers' lobbyists and the NRA.



Typical bull shit from left wing nutters like you. The NRA, more than anything else, represents people. Millions and millions of members. You make up that shit just to avoid the truth.


----------



## BULLDOG (Oct 2, 2015)

PredFan said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> > The question asked in the O/P should be posed to the family members of the victims...Lets see how they feel if the "price" they paid was worth the freedom of expression of the gun manufacturers' lobbyists and the NRA.
> ...




About 4 million members out of 70 million Americans. I don't see that as a large number in comparison. Do you?


----------



## PredFan (Oct 2, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > nat4900 said:
> ...



Irrelevant. He claims the NRA only represents gun manufacturers.


----------



## BULLDOG (Oct 2, 2015)

PredFan said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



So you admit they don't really have many members. Now, as for the representing gun manufacturers. Are you saying they don't?


----------



## nat4900 (Oct 2, 2015)

PredFan said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> > The question asked in the O/P should be posed to the family members of the victims...Lets see how they feel if the "price" they paid was worth the freedom of expression of the gun manufacturers' lobbyists and the NRA.
> ...


 
Just a few more active brain cells, and you TOO would realize that the NRA is beholden to the "donations" made to them by the gun manufacturers who DREAD any slowing down of sales of their assualt weapons supposedly used to hunt for Bambis.


----------



## nat4900 (Oct 2, 2015)

PredFan said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...


 

In its early days, the National Rifle Association was a grassroots social club that prided itself on independence from corporate influence.
While that is still part of the organization's core function, today less than half of the NRA's revenues come from program fees and membership dues.


*The bulk of the group's money now comes in the form of contributions, grants, royalty income, and advertising, much of it originating from gun industry sources.*
Since 2005, the gun industry and its corporate allies have given between $20 million and $52.6 million to it through the NRA Ring of Freedom [sic] sponsor program. Donors include firearm companies like Midway USA, Springfield Armory Inc, Pierce Bullet Sear Target Systems, and Beretta USA Corporation. Other supporters from the gun industry include Cabala's, Sturm Rugar & Co, and Smith & Wesson.


----------



## nat4900 (Oct 2, 2015)

nat4900 said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...



I guess *PredFan* doesn't like facts (its a recurring and debilitating condition among right wingers.)


----------



## PredFan (Oct 2, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...



Wtf? By your own admission they have 4 million. That's a lot. And no I'm not saying they don't. How are you getting confused here?


----------



## PredFan (Oct 2, 2015)

nat4900 said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > nat4900 said:
> ...



You just keep making shit up don't you moron? I guess that's how you justify your ignorant positions.


----------



## PredFan (Oct 2, 2015)

nat4900 said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...



The desires and goals of the gun manufacturers is exactly the same as the desires and goals of the members of the NRA. Now go away, you are too stupid to talk to.


----------



## PredFan (Oct 2, 2015)

nat4900 said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



No moron, unlike you I have a life and can't be on the internet trying to educate idiots like yourself 24/7.


----------



## nat4900 (Oct 2, 2015)

PredFan said:


> No moron, unlike you I have a life and can't be on the internet trying to educate idiots like yourself 24/7.



........................Its kind of "cute" to see you throwing a tantrum after having had your ass handed to you...


----------



## PredFan (Oct 2, 2015)

nat4900 said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > No moron, unlike you I have a life and can't be on the internet trying to educate idiots like yourself 24/7.
> ...



Lol, you are quite the clueless idiot aren't you?


----------



## Friends (Oct 4, 2015)

Geaux4it said:


> Guns are part of my way of life. They have always been a part of the generations before me. We pass them down as we expire
> 
> The confederate flag was taken from us, but it lacked a Bill of Rights protection
> 
> ...


 
When I see a bumper sticker that says, "When guns are confiscated they will take my gun from my cold, dead hands," it seems like a good idea. 

Guns are a sick brutal fascination of sick, brutal men.


----------



## Friends (Oct 4, 2015)

Geaux4it said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> > > "Have the Americans accepted that gun crime is a price worth paying to be able to hold arms?"
> ...


 
I do not think any other country wants an influx of loathsome, right wing gun lovers, certainly no civilized country.


----------



## Stephanie (Oct 4, 2015)

Friends said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> > Guns are part of my way of life. They have always been a part of the generations before me. We pass them down as we expire
> ...



lol, I'm a woman and I love guns. what does that make me? good grief
some people are fascinated with knives, swords, cars, and all those can be used for killing. are those a sick brutal fascination of sick people?


----------



## Friends (Oct 4, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> Friends said:
> 
> 
> > Geaux4it said:
> ...


 
Gun lovers are disgusting. I want the government to punish those disgusting people by repealing the Second Amendment and confiscating privately owned guns. I favor confiscation without compensation. The private ownership of a gun should be an extremely serious offense, severely punished. 

In civilized countries even conservatives ask, "Why would anyone want to own a gun?" 

The American love affair with the gun is a symptom of a sick society.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 4, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> "Have the Americans accepted that gun crime is a price worth paying to be able to hold arms?"
> 
> Loaded question fallacy.
> 
> ...



I agree. This is an issue mainly about the nature of US society.

The problem is we know that the politicians won't do anything useful about this.

We know most people on this forum won't demand something useful be done. 

The left will scream only about guns and demand this and that, generally that guns are banned, and the right will scream at the left and insult them and ignore everything else. 

Downhill goes the USA.


----------



## Stephanie (Oct 4, 2015)

Friends said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > Friends said:
> ...


well I guess it's a good thing you don't live here. Each to their own. so what do you think abortion does for a Society, MAKE IT HEALTHY?


----------



## Stephanie (Oct 4, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > "Have the Americans accepted that gun crime is a price worth paying to be able to hold arms?"
> ...



yeah, what do you expect them to do? They aren't OUR DICTATORS. and you don't like our rights maybe you should move. how about we demand abortions be banned? you'll go for that right?


----------



## Geaux4it (Oct 5, 2015)

Friends said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> > Guns are part of my way of life. They have always been a part of the generations before me. We pass them down as we expire
> ...



^^^^^^^^^^^     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


----------



## Geaux4it (Oct 5, 2015)

Friends said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> > cnm said:
> ...



Oh... civilized... LMAO

-Geaux


----------



## Geaux4it (Oct 5, 2015)

Friends said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > Friends said:
> ...



Well, At least you'll admit it

-Geaux


----------



## Friends (Oct 5, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> Friends said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...


 
For every abortion there is a woman who does not want to raise a child, or another one. Fewer people mean that there is more of everything good to go around.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 5, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



Are you replying to my post? Because I don't see the connection here.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 22, 2015)

cnm said:


> Yes it is. The law that does not make it an offence to possess a handgun.


As our constitution specifically protects the right to own a handgun, why would it be an offence for a law-abiding citizen to own/possess one?


----------



## LOki (Oct 31, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > barryqwalsh said:
> ...








Just sayin'.


----------



## BULLDOG (Oct 31, 2015)

LOki said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...


You're just trying to change the subject and dodge the question. Why do we have more deaths here than in any other first world country?


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Oct 31, 2015)

barryqwalsh said:


> On Air Now in the UK!
> 
> Have the Americans accepted that gun crime is a price worth paying to be able to hold arms?
> *Join the conversation:*
> ...



Probably. Like car accients and drunk driving is the price to be able to drive.


----------



## LOki (Oct 31, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


Not at all. That's obviously all you.



BULLDOG said:


> Why do we have more deaths here than in any other first world country?


1) I don't think we have more deaths than any other first world country. The U.S. mortality rate is probably on par or better than most.

2) That's not the question. Check the top of the page.

The question regards the cost of recognizing, respecting, and preserving the right to keep and bear arms. There is a cost associated with rights. Anyone who values rights must accept that fact. If the acceptable cost for protecting the human right of personal autonomy is millions of human lives when discussing abortion, then the discussion regarding guns--the personal autonomy appurtenant to having the most effective tools to defend one's life--deserves the benefit of the perspective of relative cost.


----------



## BULLDOG (Oct 31, 2015)

LOki said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > LOki said:
> ...




You don't understand  that mortality rate is not the same as mortality rate due to gun violence?


----------



## LOki (Oct 31, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


Yes.

Do you understand that when you deliberately create the special category of "gun violence" so that you can simultaneously include violence that was not _caused_ by guns; and exclude violence _caused_ by people (but without using guns), you tacitly admit that you're *JUST FINE* with all the violence in the world... provided no gun was involved?

Asserting that "gun violence" would be diminished by removing guns, is asserting the same kind of meaningless tautology that asserts getting rid of boats would diminish drownings; the argument is specious, and it distracts from discussing a "violence problem" ... a problem that is not solvable by the gun-control laws typically proposed.






There is an abundance of reasearch, with an abundance of objective data, that CLEARLY demonstrate that there is ZERO causal relation between guns and violence.

Guns are clearly and irrefutably NOT the cause of any kind of violence. They DON'T cause it.

But we digress, yes?

The question you're dodging by changing the subject, is whether the cost of respecting our civil, political, and constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms is acceptable.

As I have already said, anyone who values rights must accept the fact that there is are costs associated with respecting and preserving rights. If the acceptable cost for protecting the human right of personal autonomy is millions of human lives when discussing abortion, then the discussion regarding guns--the personal autonomy appurtenant to having the most effective tools to defend one's life--deserves the benefit of the perspective of relative cost.

No sane person ever considered ending a human life to be their Right. That's a psychopath's notion.

Yet over a million defenseless human lives are electively ended every year, euphemistically under the umbrella of "healthcare." Protected as an exercise of a Right.

That is the accepted cost of preserving the human right to personal autonomy when we're discussing abortion using the best medical practices.

Over a million defenseless human lives.

I don't like that cost, but if that's what it takes to prevent the whole of society from turning human beings into brood animals, personal property, and the involuntary means to the ends of others, then its the price that must be paid.

I get that.

But when we're discussing preserving personal autonomy, through the right to possess the best tools to defend human lives from those with in possession of a perverse entitlement to violence against their fellows, the cost of a few thousand human lives--"gun deaths" if you really must--is suddenly unacceptably high. (Most commonly amongst the proponents of "choice".)

I don't get that.

Many of the human lives we lose were made defenseless by "common sense" gun control laws enacted by persons with their own sense of entitlement to violence against their constituency. I cite every "gun free zone," " mandatory waiting period," and prohibitionist owner/gun registration law as examples.

These are criminal acts perpetrated against all of us, and most particularly against those amongst us most likely to be the targets of the criminally violent. You know, like children, women, and gay folk.

I'd like to think we all agree that women folk (amongst others) possess the human right to defend themselves with the tool(s) of their individual choosing, against the aggressions of those (and their elected proxies) who consider them property . I'd like to think we agree that said right--constitutionally--shall not be infringed for all the OBVIOUS reasons.

Because it's worth the cost. And the cost is what we're talking about, right?


----------



## BULLDOG (Oct 31, 2015)

LOki said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > LOki said:
> ...




Gun violence just includes violence involving guns. Other causes aren't included.


----------



## LOki (Oct 31, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


I know. 

Do you understand that when you deliberately create the special category of "gun violence" so that you can simultaneously include violence that was not _caused_ by guns; and exclude violence _caused_ by people (but without using guns), you tacitly admit that you're *JUST FINE* with all the violence in the world... provided no gun was involved?

Asserting that "gun violence" would be diminished by removing guns, is asserting the same kind of meaningless tautology that asserts getting rid of boats would diminish drownings; the argument is specious, and it distracts from discussing a "violence problem" ... a problem that is not solvable by the gun-control laws typically proposed.


----------



## BULLDOG (Oct 31, 2015)

LOki said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > LOki said:
> ...




Perfect example of right wing logic. Makes no sense at all. Not sure how specifically discussing gun violence includes other types of violence as you claim, but I'm sure a right winger would.


----------



## LOki (Oct 31, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


Valid logic. You are deliberately misreading what I wrote. Typical example of the intellectually dishonest... from both sides of the aisle.

The term "gun violence" is a meaningless tautology. (<---click on the link provided if you're unfamiliar with the term.)

When you *deliberately create* the special category of "gun violence" so that you can simultaneously include violence that was not _caused_ by guns; and exclude violence _caused by_ people (but without using guns), you tacitly admit that you're *JUST FINE* with all the violence in the world... provided no gun was involved.

Asserting that "gun violence" would be diminished by removing guns, is asserting the same kind of meaningless tautology that asserts getting rid of boats would diminish drownings; the argument is specious, and it distracts from discussing a "violence problem" ... a problem that is not solvable by the gun-control laws typically proposed.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 2, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> You're just trying to change the subject and dodge the question. Why do we have more deaths here than in any other first world country?


One word:
Demographics


----------



## BULLDOG (Nov 2, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > You're just trying to change the subject and dodge the question. Why do we have more deaths here than in any other first world country?
> ...




Care to explain further?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 2, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


Sure.
Look at VT.  No state or local level gun control.  Virtually no gun-related crime - per capita, lower than almost all of Europe.
Look at CA.  Draconian state and local  level gun control gun control.  Rampant gun related crime, significantly higher than the US averages.
See:
"Reasonable" gun control vs "gun nut gun control" | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Why the difference?


----------



## chikenwing (Nov 2, 2015)

barryqwalsh said:


> On Air Now in the UK!
> 
> Have the Americans accepted that gun crime is a price worth paying to be able to hold arms?
> *Join the conversation:*
> ...


Violent crime has been  steadily going down. Removeing freedoms for a false sense of security is a looser.


----------



## BULLDOG (Nov 2, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



Don't dodge the question. Laws and demographics are not the same thing.  Please explain what demographics have to do with it.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 2, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


Dodge the question?
You asked if I cared to explain my response.. I cared to do so, and did.
So...  why the difference in crime between CA and VT?


----------



## BULLDOG (Nov 2, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...




No you didn't. Explain your claim that demographics is the difference between our gun deaths and the gun deaths of other countries. Laws and demographics aren't the same thing.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 2, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


I most certainly did explain my response, as you asked.
You have been led to water; you refuse to drink.


----------



## BULLDOG (Nov 2, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...




If you say so,but laws and demographics still are not the same thing.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 2, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


I do not understand why you refuse to understand the point made here.
Why is there virtually no gun crime in a state that has no gun control laws?


----------



## mgh80 (Nov 27, 2015)

When dealing with freedoms there's always a sense of "safety" or "security"...I personally agree with Benjamin Franklin that  "Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."


----------



## IsaacNewton (Nov 27, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> "Have the Americans accepted that gun crime is a price worth paying to be able to hold arms?"
> 
> Loaded question fallacy.
> 
> ...



The American people lost the ability to defend against their own government 100 years ago. This fantasy that being armed with a semi-auto rifle will give us the ability to fight our own military if necessary is just childish nonsense. As soon as a platoon of A1 Abrams tanks rolls into town the fight is over. Not to mention the helos, jets, missiles, intel, satellites, aircraft carriers, and thermo-nuclear bombs.

Anyone who thinks we have a right to bear arms to 'protect our liberties' is living in lala land. That shite ended long ago.

All this idea now is, is a way to feel warm and fuzzy and 'like our forefathers who yada yada'... It is a falsehood.


----------



## mgh80 (Nov 27, 2015)

IsaacNewton said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > "Have the Americans accepted that gun crime is a price worth paying to be able to hold arms?"
> ...




Out of curiosity, I'm in my 30s, never been arrested/convicted of a crime, zero mental health issues, why should I not be able to purchase a firearm to protect myself and my family?


----------



## IsaacNewton (Nov 28, 2015)

mgh80 said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



Why do you assume I am against all gun ownership? Its a meme, let it go.

I think well regulated gun sales are warranted. Most current gun owners support rigid background checks, this seems sane to 80-90% of the population. Cars are licensed, every person has a number in the form of an SS number, the rules for operating an aircraft are very strict. Guns simply need to be treated like everything else in the society. Regulate and use current technology to embed a chip in each one so it can be identified if used in a crime, or even remotely disabled.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Nov 28, 2015)

IsaacNewton said:


> Cars are licensed



Driving a car on public property is a privilege, not a right.



IsaacNewton said:


> every person has a number in the form of an SS number



Not a Constitutional issue.



IsaacNewton said:


> the rules for operating an aircraft are very strict



Flying aircraft is a privilege, not a right.



IsaacNewton said:


> Guns simply need to be treated like everything else in the society.



Unconstitutional.



IsaacNewton said:


> Regulate and use current technology to embed a chip in each one so it can be identified if used in a crime, or even remotely disabled.



Unconstitutional.


----------



## Geaux4it (Nov 28, 2015)

I always call it acceptable risk. Odds are very small that anyone you know will be harmed or killed by a firearm

-Geaux


----------



## IsaacNewton (Nov 28, 2015)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> > Cars are licensed
> ...



Yes we know you will lick your gun regardless, no reason for you to attempt discussion. Thanks for playing.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Nov 28, 2015)

IsaacNewton said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > IsaacNewton said:
> ...



Silly lad.  Any discussion is moot.  Consider the last twenty years of gun control history in America.

You people have been decisively defeated.


----------



## Katzndogz (Nov 28, 2015)

Have you accepted that fatal car accidents is the price you pay to drive?


----------



## BULLDOG (Nov 28, 2015)

Tipsycatlover said:


> Have you accepted that fatal car accidents is the price you pay to drive?




Are you saying that the efforts we take to prevent or at least reduce fatal accidents are not worthwhile?


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Nov 30, 2015)

Other countries have guns but don't have anywhere near the killings as in the US.

I believe there are some who actually want to arm terrorists, illegals, criminals and crazies. Why else would they support the NRA who openly fights keeping guns from those people. The NRA literally fights to arm terrorists, illegals, criminals and crazies.

Gun nutters know this.

Edited to ask - Why does the lobby (NRA) for gun manufacturers want to arm those groups? And why do RWNJs agree and financially support it?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 30, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> > Have you accepted that fatal car accidents is the price you pay to drive?
> ...


What efforts do you refer to?


----------



## BULLDOG (Nov 30, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Tipsycatlover said:
> ...




Google "efforts to reduce fatal auto accidents" you will find a long list of  requirements for car design, and operation, as well as design of roads, signage, and a host of other things. There is constant research funded by most governments, all car manufacturers, and many independent research facilities, all  specifically focused on reduction of fatal auto accidents


----------



## Skull Pilot (Nov 30, 2015)

Funny how they still have gun crimes in countries with draconian gun control isn't it?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 30, 2015)

*I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery -- TJ*

*I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery (Quotation) | Thomas Jefferson's Monticello*

Progressives opt for slavery


----------



## BULLDOG (Nov 30, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> *I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery -- TJ*
> 
> *I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery (Quotation) | Thomas Jefferson's Monticello*
> 
> Progressives opt for slavery




You need a little context to that statement. In the first place, he didn't actually say that. He quated a Latin phrase "_Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem"._ A more accurate translation would be , "I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude."

Here is the sentence in context:

"Societies exist under three forms sufficiently distinguishable. 1. Without government, as among our Indians. 2. Under governments wherein the will of every one has a just influence, as is the case in England in a slight degree, and in our states in a great one. 3. Under governments of force: as is the case in all other monarchies and in most of the other republics. To have an idea of the curse of existence under these last, they must be seen. It is a government of wolves over sheep. It is a problem, not clear in my mind, that the 1st. condition is not the best. But I believe it to be inconsistent with any great degree of population. The second state has a great deal of good in it. The mass of mankind under that enjoys a precious degree of liberty and happiness. It has it's evils too: the principal of which is the turbulence to which it is subject. But weigh this against the oppressions of monarchy, and it becomes nothing. Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem. Even this evil is productive of good. It prevents the degeneracy of government, and nourishes a general attention to the public affairs. I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical." - Jefferson to James Madison, January 30, 1787

A little rebellion doesn't mean shut the entire government down. and he certainly doesn't mean advocating treason as so many right wingers seem to do.


----------



## mudwhistle (Nov 30, 2015)

barryqwalsh said:


> On Air Now in the UK!
> 
> Have the Americans accepted that gun crime is a price worth paying to be able to hold arms?
> *Join the conversation:*
> ...


Makes me want to buy more guns...


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 30, 2015)

mudwhistle said:


> barryqwalsh said:
> 
> 
> > On Air Now in the UK!
> ...


Can never have too many.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 30, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > *I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery -- TJ*
> ...



So say the sheep


----------



## mudwhistle (Nov 30, 2015)

VP Joe Biden says "Now is the time to act!!!!"


Act like you give a fuck you mean.


----------



## Rocky Varshevsky (Nov 30, 2015)

barryqwalsh said:


> On Air Now in the UK!
> 
> Have the Americans accepted that gun crime is a price worth paying to be able to hold arms?
> *Join the conversation:*
> ...


Benjamin Franklin said:"Those who trade liberty for safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."


----------



## Rocky Varshevsky (Nov 30, 2015)

Average-Police-Response-Time

The police cannot respond in time to save you from violent crime.


----------



## Rocky Varshevsky (Nov 30, 2015)

Skull Pilot said:


> Funny how they still have gun crimes in countries with draconian gun control isn't it?



Yes. Mexico has some of the strictest gun control in the world and one of the highest murder rates.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 1, 2015)

Rocky Varshevsky said:


> Average-Police-Response-Time
> 
> The police cannot respond in time to save you from violent crime.


When seconds count the cops are only minutes away


----------



## turtledude (Dec 9, 2015)

midcan5 said:


> Definitely a 'mental health' issue but the mental health problem is with those who feel so insecure guns form their courage. Guns are part of a mental makeup that must support them as others oppose them, it has nothing to do with reality. It simply is another example of America's partisan divide. The reality is out there and irrelevant.
> 
> "In an interview with comedian Marc Maron that aired Monday, President Obama cited Australia's gun laws as an example the United States should follow. Australia established strict gun control in response to a massacre in Tasmania that left 35 people dead in 1996. Since then, Australia hasn't witnessed any mass shootings.
> 
> ...




who is this hysterical fairy.  Burger was the dumbest man to sit on the supreme court in ages.  He also didn't bother to explain that the federal government was never given any power to regulate small arms \

the real cowards are assholes like you who crap your pants over other people owning guns

Has anyone noticed that every gun banner going is a leftwing Hack


----------



## turtledude (Dec 9, 2015)

Geaux4it said:


> Guns are part of my way of life. They have always been a part of the generations before me. We pass them down as we expire
> 
> The confederate flag was taken from us, but it lacked a Bill of Rights protection
> 
> ...


IF there is a jihad and war against guns-the proper thing for patriots to do is take out the politicians who ordered the jihad and then take out the yapping banoids who constantly demanded gun confiscation.  Why waste yourself fighting cops when the soft targets of banoids will allow a far more effective reprisal>


----------



## turtledude (Dec 9, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> OK. If guns aren't the problem, then what is? More people die by guns in the US than in  other first world country s
> 
> 
> 
> ...



more than half the gun deaths are suicides-not an issue

and 80% or MORE of the homiicides are mopes killing other mopes

people who cannot legally own guns

and if you want to really see lots of gun deaths-tell people that they are going to jail for owning a gun.  many of them will use their guns to kill those who would ruin their lives and that is EXACTLY WHAT THE 2A is about


----------



## turtledude (Dec 9, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> About 4 million members out of 70 million Americans. I don't see that as a large number in comparison. Do you?


far more than the yapping nags of NOW or the NAACP or the Gay rights lobby.


----------



## turtledude (Dec 9, 2015)

Friends said:


> When I see a bumper sticker that says, "When guns are confiscated they will take my gun from my cold, dead hands," it seems like a good idea.
> 
> Guns are a sick brutal fascination of sick, brutal men.


you need to change your diaper.  you obviously lose bowel control worrying about other people owning guns.  You ought to be the one who tries to take the gun from that guy.  I will laugh when I read about what he did to you in the newspaper


----------



## turtledude (Dec 9, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> You're just trying to change the subject and dodge the question. Why do we have more deaths here than in any other first world country?



More black criminals.  white gun violence rates in the USA aren't any higher than white rates in Eurosocialist nations that ban guns


----------



## turtledude (Dec 9, 2015)

IsaacNewton said:


> Why do you assume I am against all gun ownership? Its a meme, let it go.
> 
> I think well regulated gun sales are warranted. Most current gun owners support rigid background checks, this seems sane to 80-90% of the population. Cars are licensed, every person has a number in the form of an SS number, the rules for operating an aircraft are very strict. Guns simply need to be treated like everything else in the society. Regulate and use current technology to embed a chip in each one so it can be identified if used in a crime, or even remotely disabled.



Idiotic to compare cars which aren't constitutionally protected with guns.  did you know that crooks cannot be prosecuted for failing to register guns

so you want laws that only harass honest gun owners


----------



## IsaacNewton (Dec 9, 2015)

turtledude said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> > Why do you assume I am against all gun ownership? Its a meme, let it go.
> ...



Same tired old ignorant arguments.

All laws then harass honest people by your definition. Gun owners are not a special class in any sense for any reason.
But god you people are your fear of being alive, it never ends.


----------



## turtledude (Dec 9, 2015)

IsaacNewton said:


> Same tired old ignorant arguments.
> 
> All laws then harass honest people by your definition. Gun owners are not a special class in any sense for any reason.
> But god you people are your fear of being alive, it never ends.


You're an idiot.  proper laws punish harmful activity.  gun control laws punish activity that is not  harmful and is actually encouraged by the government for its employees.  I do not hurt anyone from having a machine gun, a rifle or a penis for that matter.  But you banoids want to ban non harmful behavior that only harasses honest people in the dishonest claim it will stop people who already murder and rob

Banoid arguments

we need new laws to stop people who already violate other laws and those laws shall only apply to those who haven't done anything wrong yet


----------



## PredFan (Dec 9, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > "Have the Americans accepted that gun crime is a price worth paying to be able to hold arms?"
> ...



Wrong you moron. We do demand something be done. The difference is the we aren't stupidly obsessed with the tool used like you idiots are. We want to discover why so much violent crime is occurring.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 10, 2015)

IsaacNewton said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> > IsaacNewton said:
> ...


False.
The laws that prohibit felons from owning guns and voting do not harass honest people.
The laws against murder, rape, assault, theft, etc, do not harass honest people.
More examples at your request.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 12, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> implementation of comprehensive mental health programs.



I'm reading "The Myth of Mental Illness" now.It makes your proposal seem absurd. Would you have declared the San Bernardino killers mentally ill and searched them monthly for guns?

America was peaceful in the Republican 1950's when Republican family, school, religious, and economic values prevailed. Liberalism has been a very very violent failure but liberals lack the character to face what they have done. .


----------



## petro (Jan 7, 2016)

Rocky Varshevsky said:


> barryqwalsh said:
> 
> 
> > On Air Now in the UK!
> ...


My favorite quote. Those who argue against the 2nd Amendment better be prepared to lose the 1st.
How quick they forget the Bill of Rights...God given and inalienable rights of the People. No exceptions.
Typical that the OP is out of Britain. The very reason that the Anti-Federalists insisted on the Bill of Rights.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jan 7, 2016)

barryqwalsh said:


> On Air Now in the UK!
> 
> Have the Americans accepted that gun crime is a price worth paying to be able to hold arms?
> *Join the conversation:*
> ...




  The OP seems to call for little more response than to point it out as yet another example out of many of the British reminding us why we kicked them out of our country more than two centuries ago, and demonstrating that our reasons for doing so remain valid to this day.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jan 7, 2016)

M14 Shooter said:


> False.
> The laws that prohibit felons from owning guns and voting do not harass honest people.



  It does if you're required to prove that you're not a felon, as a condition of exercising a right.

_“Innocent until proven guilty”_, after all.  The burden belongs on one who seeks to deny an individual his rights, to prove that that denial is justified; not on the one seeking to exercise a right to prove that there is no cause why he should be so denied.


----------



## regent (Jan 8, 2016)

I think a number of Americans have accepted the price but I don't know about the kids that end up paying the price.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 8, 2016)

regent said:


> I think a number of Americans have accepted the price but I don't know about the kids that end up paying the price.


Nice appeal to emotion you have going there.
Have anything else?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 8, 2016)

Bob Blaylock said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > False.
> ...


Yes...  but that's a different law.


----------



## OldLady (Jan 8, 2016)

Dan Daly said:


> Freedom isn't pretty.  I hear totalitarian societies are nice and safe and orderly.  If safety is more important to you than freedom, there are plenty of places you can live that will give you the illusion of safety that you desire.


Is there no middle ground?  I've read a lot of view points and BOTH sides have valid concerns.  It is when neither side will give anything that we end up with an embarrassing stalemate where it looks to the world as if we don't care that citizens are shot daily.  Didn't you learn that with our rights come responsibilities to our society as a whole?  Maybe they don't teach that anymore.  I don't know.


----------



## regent (Jan 8, 2016)

M14 Shooter said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > I think a number of Americans have accepted the price but I don't know about the kids that end up paying the price.
> ...


Maybe you're right. best not to think about the young only about the guns.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 8, 2016)

regent said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...


I know I'm right -- if it weren't for appeals to emotion, outright ignorance and/or just plain dishonesty, anti-gun loons would have nothing to post.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 8, 2016)

OldLady said:


> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> > Freedom isn't pretty.  I hear totalitarian societies are nice and safe and orderly.  If safety is more important to you than freedom, there are plenty of places you can live that will give you the illusion of safety that you desire.
> ...


There is:
1:  Effectively enforce the laws already in place.
2:  Do not try to prevent crime by laws that only further limit the rights of the law abiding, as laws cannot prevent people from breaking other laws.


----------



## OldLady (Jan 8, 2016)

M14 Shooter said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > Dan Daly said:
> ...


Is closing the loopholes in background checks really "further limiting the rights of the law abiding?"  I don't see why law abiding folks are so concerned about that.  I think a lot of the concern is for things that haven't happened yet.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 8, 2016)

OldLady said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...


There sis no loophole in the current law for background check -- it is never possible to legally avoid the background checks prescribed by law.   
Never.  
Ever.


> I don't see why law abiding folks are so concerned about that.


Universal background checks are unenforceable w/o universal gun registration.
Everyone knows this, which is the reason behind the push for it.


----------



## hadit (Jan 8, 2016)

barryqwalsh said:


> On Air Now in the UK!
> 
> Have the Americans accepted that gun crime is a price worth paying to be able to hold arms?
> *Join the conversation:*
> ...


I don't see why not.  They long ago accepted traffic fatalities is a price worth paying to be able to drive fast.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 8, 2016)

hadit said:


> barryqwalsh said:
> 
> 
> > On Air Now in the UK!
> ...


Oh, and construction fatalities as the price for having buildings, bridges, dams, etc.


----------



## hadit (Jan 8, 2016)

M14 Shooter said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > barryqwalsh said:
> ...


There are those who say that no cost is too high if it saves one life.  That simply is not true, as borne out by these examples.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 8, 2016)

hadit said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


Yeah -- it doesn't apply when it works against the narrative.


----------



## regent (Jan 8, 2016)

Damn, I keep forgetting why it is so important for people to have guns. Is it the same reason kids need to have toy guns and need to pretend to shoot one another? But that brings up still another question, why is it important for kids to pretend to shoot one another with toy guns? Do all people ever grow out of that stage with time, or do some get left in that period?


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jan 8, 2016)

OldLady said:


> Is there no middle ground?  I've read a lot of view points and BOTH sides have valid concerns.  It is when neither side will give anything that we end up with an embarrassing stalemate…



  What middle ground do you think there can be.  Either we Americans have a right to keep and bear arms, which our government is forbidden from infringing, or else we do not.  And the Constitution is rather clear about whether or not we have this right.

  When you on the wrong cry for “compromise” what you really mean is that you want us to give up this right, a bit at a time, while getting nothing in return other than an empty promise of safety that no rational person believes will be fulfilled.  That's not compromise; that's fraud and tyranny.

  Benjamin Franklin had it exactly right when he said that those who would surrender essential liberty for a promise of safety deserve neither.


----------



## petro (Jan 8, 2016)

OldLady said:


> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> > Freedom isn't pretty.  I hear totalitarian societies are nice and safe and orderly.  If safety is more important to you than freedom, there are plenty of places you can live that will give you the illusion of safety that you desire.
> ...


With rights there are responsibilities. The point is that those who are responsible are being blamed for the behavior of the criminally irresponsible. Who by being criminal ignore any law or future law regarding so-called "common sense" gun laws. It's as simple as that. The Bill of Rights offers no compromise on those rights. As far as what the rest of the world thinks, I really could care less. It's our Bill of Rights, not theirs. I bet however, there are about 90 German women right now who wish they had the right to conceal carry.
With power also comes responsibility. Obama has ignored this responsibility by passing a feel good executive action based on emotion not on actual facts or the Constitution.


----------



## emilynghiem (Jan 8, 2016)

cnm said:


> > "Have the Americans accepted that gun crime is a price worth paying to be able to hold arms?"
> 
> 
> The realists among them have said [mass killings] are the price they are prepared to pay.



cnm I agree with C_Clayton_Jones post that the primary issue is mental health unchecked and untreated.

The price we pay is for neglecting to solve addiction abuse and mental health issues, especially criminal illness in the case of murders, rapes,
and other preventable crimes we take for granted.

For that, not only victims but society has paid the price.

Not just with gun violence but other cases where mental and criminal illness cost lives when these diseases can be diagnosed, treated
and either managed or curely completely.

It is a shame that we have solutions to mental illness, but these are so individualized and a lot of them spiritual in therapy,
they cannot be readily legislated or regulated by govt. The forgiveness therapy that works to heal mental illness and other diseases,
by its nature on invoking the will to forgive in order to restore healing HAS to be chosen FREELY by the person in order to work.

So this is not politicized in the media the way gun control issues are.
The legislation and political attention gets misdirected.

SEE resources for medical research into natural healing of mental, criminal and also physical diseases:
freespiritualhealing

I'm glad to see C_Clayton_Jones statement that I find well written and solidly agree with.
What I would add is the suppressed knowledge of spiritual healing is the key to addressing mental health issues
on a sustainable curable basis.  To get rid of the political divide separating left and right, religious from secular,
and faith from science, I have proposed to replicate medical research studies on this field of healing.
I believe that will change the medical and mental health systems, criminal justice, and also political relationships.

Someday, we won't even have debates distracting from the real problems because the solutions will become commonplace.


----------



## emilynghiem (Jan 9, 2016)

Bob Blaylock said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > Is there no middle ground?  I've read a lot of view points and BOTH sides have valid concerns.  It is when neither side will give anything that we end up with an embarrassing stalemate…
> ...


Dear OldLady and Bob Blaylock
1. If there will always be two camps in conflict, one saying it means regulating militia and that's what the arms are for, one saying it's the people who have the rights, and the militia/govt is separate and membership is not required for people to bear arms:

Please note that the same wording of the 2nd Amendment is interpreted both ways.
So if we keep it as is, obviously that is good enough to accommodate both beliefs.
If it is changed, then it favors one belief over the other, so that isn't going to be approved to change it, either way.

(Just like the same Bible is used by Protestants and Catholics, and other denominations who don't agree on all of it; but if you try to change the wording, then groups will protest and demand the original wording.  So just leave it as is, and by religious freedom everyone can still interpret and teach it as it applies and works for them.)

2. Instead of changing the law as written
why not reach an agreement how people is interpreted.
I propose interpreting people to mean "LAW ABIDING CITIZENS"
so this is clear the right to bear arms is withing the context of following and enforcing laws, not violating them.

someone in militia still qualifies as a law abiding citizen.
someone in govt, someone in military and police.
citizens whose intent are law abiding are included.

But not criminals seeking to abuse arms, that is not what the law authorizes or it would contradict other protections in the law about security.
Not sick people like the Ft. Hood shooter or police officers who turn out to be serial rapists.
Guns are not authorized for use by people with criminal illness or intent.

It doesn't mean you strip them of all their gun rights, but we put emphasis on making sure all people are law abiding citizens so this does not become an issue of whose rights to target and how. The focus should be on commitment to make sure all citizens are law abiding to reduce risk of crime and abuse, by screening out issues and solving them upon first sign of trouble.

The same way alcoholics in recovery can get to a stage where they know they need to stay away from alcohol and bars (or anyplace that has access to put them at risk), when mentally ill or addicted people get to that similar stage in recovery, they also know to seek help to stay safe and stay away from danger.

We can all make agreements, even with people who are mentally impaired or in process of recovery, what this law means, so we support that goal together. People become self-policing when whole communities make this commitment and seek help if anything prevents that standard from being maintained.

People who are unable to agree and exercise being a "law abiding citizen" would be legally incompetent and require assisted supervision anyway by someone who is a "law abiding citizen" able to exercise this level of responsibility. We can screen that better in communities with an agreed commitment to uphold laws instead of leaving this to chance

Having a public consensus on what this means as "law abiding"
would resolve the need to argue over whether people are members of militia or not.
Even if they are military or police, you don't want criminally ill officers invoking rights when they aren't legally competent and responsible but impaired.

That's what I would propose.
I don't think any wording needs to be changed, but perhaps parties could sign agreements
to interpret "people" as "law abiding citizens" and allow both beliefs about requiring official militia or not.
And agree not to push laws that would attempt to impose one belief over the other.

I would also recommend the same screening/training for both police, military and citizens
in order to ensure people accept legal responsibility as "law abiding citizens."
But leave it to districts, cities or states to determine their own agreed process for this training and screening.

It has to ensure "law abiding citizens" as the standard, but may vary from state to state, or per district,
similar to each local level determining its own policy on conceal and carry or open carry, and opting in or out.


----------



## 12icer (Jan 9, 2016)

AT all times when you allow something to be "interpreted" by a government, it is interpreted as giving them the power to take it AT will. Any idea that the government has a "RIGHT" of any kind is completely FALSE. Letting the government assume the position of distributor of rights ends with NO INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS as it has in every government model that has ever used it. Those who would make laws to restrict gun owners have but ONE SINGLEMINDED AGENDA, the COMPLETE DISARMAMENT OF THE CITIZENRY BY ANY MEANS. That includes killing anyone who does not agree or comply with their agenda. Just ask 70 people from Waco, OH you can't they are dead!!! Your government has killed more people in the name of 'Gun control" than even the mass murders under b o and many more have died on his watch than any two or more presidents before him. The removal of the death penalty, and the lack of enforcement of EXISTING CRIMINAL PENALTIES for GUN CRIME coupled with the social policy of letting bad behavior go unpunished till it becomes violent, and lack of individual responsibility are the driving forces in ALL murders. If the government spent as much time destroying the GANGS in this country as it does harassing law abiding gun owners, there would be less gun deaths in this country than any other


----------



## regent (Jan 9, 2016)

Where do the gangs get the guns?


----------



## 12icer (Jan 9, 2016)

You should Know where they come from if you take a stance on either side of this thread. If you take a stance against gun owners without knowing, it proves the other sides point. You should actually research ANY subject FULLY before you believe anything some group of idiots brings to the national idiot news force.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 9, 2016)

regent said:


> Where do the gangs get the guns?


From police officers.
Philadelphia police officer shot, injured in car - CNN.com


----------



## regent (Jan 14, 2016)

I wonder what the attraction of guns really is? When entering the barracks for basic training, there on the walls were racked guns and half the recruits ran to the guns touching them in their locked racks and admiring them, it was like a love affair. There must be a number of reasons for the love affair, and I wonder if there are studies on this?


----------



## hadit (Jan 14, 2016)

regent said:


> Damn, I keep forgetting why it is so important for people to have guns. Is it the same reason kids need to have toy guns and need to pretend to shoot one another? But that brings up still another question, why is it important for kids to pretend to shoot one another with toy guns? Do all people ever grow out of that stage with time, or do some get left in that period?


Kids, especially boys, always have and always will play at combat.  It's part of our heritage as humans, from when the family leader (the bigger, stronger, men) needed to be able to protect his family via personal combat.  It's still a useful ability today, as calling 911 just means there'll be someone there with a mop and bucket to clean up after the fact.


----------



## hadit (Jan 14, 2016)

regent said:


> I wonder what the attraction of guns really is? When entering the barracks for basic training, there on the walls were racked guns and half the recruits ran to the guns touching them in their locked racks and admiring them, it was like a love affair. There must be a number of reasons for the love affair, and I wonder if there are studies on this?


Most things that can be deadly hold a great deal of appeal.  Why do you think girls go for the "bad boy"?  Guns can be dangerous if misused, but when properly and safely used can be a lot of fun.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 14, 2016)

regent said:


> I wonder what the attraction of guns really is? When entering the barracks for basic training, there on the walls were racked guns and half the recruits ran to the guns touching them in their locked racks and admiring them, it was like a love affair. There must be a number of reasons for the love affair, and I wonder if there are studies on this?


Have nothing useful to say, so you go for the ad hom - eh?


----------

