Gun Control - What's the Problem?

[westwall]

No, YOU make my point. You try and bring morality into a discussion that has nothing to do with morals. That is a religious position. We are talking about Rights and laws that transcend religion. Funny how you try and deflect by claiming I am the one pointing the finger when I was showing you to be the hypocrite. I was bending your very own finger and making you point it back at YOU.

You don't think the gun discussion has anything to do with Morals? What world are you living in? It makes sense for you to make that claim as it is an argument that you will not win, so discrediting it is one way to go about it.

Religion has nothing to do with this either as you claim...well maybe a little for some, but it is a very moral issue for many Americans.

You may call me a hypocrate if you like but I have acknowledged many points agree'd with members from both sides of the argument. What have you done but blindly defend your club and throw out insults. Keep up with your attitude and see where it takes you... The world is moving towards progression you can join the discussion or be left behind.

No, it doesn't. Religion is the codification of morals thus they have no place in any discussion about Rights. Morals change with time and culture. Ethics on the other hand don't change. And ethically you are simply wrong in every way.

 

[Rustic]

No, YOU make my point. You try and bring morality into a discussion that has nothing to do with morals. That is a religious position. We are talking about Rights and laws that transcend religion. Funny how you try and deflect by claiming I am the one pointing the finger when I was showing you to be the hypocrite. I was bending your very own finger and making you point it back at YOU.

You don't think the gun discussion has anything to do with Morals? What world are you living in? It makes sense for you to make that claim as it is an argument that you will not win, so discrediting it is one way to go about it.

Religion has nothing to do with this either as you claim...well maybe a little for some, but it is a very moral issue for many Americans.

You may call me a hypocrate if you like but I have acknowledged many points agree'd with members from both sides of the argument. What have you done but blindly defend your club and throw out insults. Keep up with your attitude and see where it takes you... The world is moving towards progression you can join the discussion or be left behind.

 

[Rustic]

 

[Rustic]

 

[2aguy]

Why is it always the gun people who have to "calm down"? It is YOU who are demanding that WE give up our property and our Rights. And you do this by being emotional and lying about the causes of crime.

I suggest it is YOU who needs to calm down.

You make my case... Yes both sides need to calm down. You just aren't going to win the moral argument if it is one sides desire to feel safe vs your desire to keep your ability to kill. I suggest you learn some self realization and stop pointing the finger

Yeah…nice rhetoric. It isn't a desire to kill, it is a desire to have the best tool to keep our families safe…which the history of humans has shown to be firearms. Wether it is street criminals or mass murdering governments the only thing that makes a real difference when it is the weak vs. the strong the few outnumbered by the many is a firearm in the hands of the defender.

The fact…yes, the fact, that every time guns are registered they are eventually confiscated and in the worst case situations it has led to mass murder, genocide and ethnic cleansing is actual history….not feelings or thoughts…actual history. Actual research shows that the odds of actually surviving a violent attack by a criminal is with a gun….actual research shows that the best way for a woman to defend herself from a stronger, more aggressive male is a gun.

So those people who want to disarm normal, law abiding people with laws that will not stop one criminal from getting a gun….which you yourself have agreed with, makes no sense at all to a person with even minimal intelligence. Americans use guns to stop violent criminal attack between 500,000 and 3,000,000 million times a year…and according to bill clinton it is 1,500,000 times a year….vs. career violent criminals who murdered 8,124 people in 2014, the majority of which were other violent career criminals…

So the actual numbers from 40 years of research don't back up your views….so again, an individual with the bare minimum of intelligence can see that giving up the best tool for self defense against violent criminals and corrupt, murderous governments, for no reason, since you yourself admit those laws will not stop criminals from getting guns….

Is just stupid…………..the people with mental issues are the ones who insist that because 2-3 AR-15s are used to commit crimes, maybe, each year……that the owners of the other 3,750,000 AR-15s, who don't use them to commit crime must surrender them. That is insane…..not our position.

So……no…not one more gun, bullet, magazine or piece of equipment will be surrendered to those who are mentally ill…..

Please don't twist my words, I did not accuse gun owners of having a desire to kill. I pointed out that in a moral debate your side is fighting to keep a tool whose purpose is to kill and destroy things... The opposing side fears guns and desires a safe environment. More guns, in their opinion, does not make them feel safe. This is POV is a fact and a difference of opinion that you should understand. I respect your points, and am simply suggesting that you and other gun advocates take on a more inclusive/less aggressive approach to the conversation. The best way to progress is to understand your opponent. I see too much of both sides spiraling down a path of talking points that rally their base and repel the opposition. I also believe that the "Moral" argument is on the anti-gun side. It is a fact that guns are killing machines thus the gun rights advocates have more of a responsibility to give reassurance and work on measures to improve safety and responsibility to make the non-gun owners feel more at ease. Calling people stupid or oppressive for wanting to feel safe isn't the right approach.

Like i've mentioned, I am a gun owner and I am not interested in jumping through a bunch of hoops if I want to sell or buy guns. I also am very empathetic to those who fear guns and those who have been victims of gun violence. I hope when you continue conversations about this subject you stick to the valid effective points and can put ego aside to acknowledge the fears, concerns and valid points of your opposition. You have a lot working for you with historical data about effectiveness of gun control measures, use that in a constructive way. There are many countries that have seen massive failures with gun control but some have seen success so we should be objective in our review of the effective and ineffective measures. An absolutist POV will never work.

You are obviously passionate and convinced in the validity of all your arguments, I'm just telling you that the other side feels the same way and there IS middle ground, but you stick to the stronger talking points. As I mentioned before, bring up the slippery slope, genocide, or safety in arming the masses and you will lose the attention of your opposition and thus remain at a stand still.

There are many countries that have seen massive failures with gun control but some have seen success so we should be objective in our review of the effective and ineffective measures

It isn't that gun control works in those countries it is simply that their criminal culture is different and murders people with guns less often…..like Japan…it also doesn't hurt to have a police state where the police and prosecutors have vast and almost unchecked powers to search, arrest and convict criminals…

Gun control laws didn't make those countries safer, their criminal sub cultures did….

 

[Rigby5]

I'm a gun owner, most of my friends are gun owners, but i'm confused... What is the problem that most conservatives have with President Obama's Gun Control ideas? I hear the speeches, read the plans, watched the town hall and listen to commentary on both sides until my ears bleed and I still don't understand the conservative position.

Everything that the President has suggested makes sense to me. I don't feel threatened about losing my guns, and I don't think that a responsible citizen's ability to buy a gun is being threatened. I think anything that helps keep guns out of the wrong hands is a good idea, it will save lives! The only point I hear from conservatives on why they object is that they think there is a hidden agenda by the Left to take away all guns. That is ridiculous, paranoid and unrealistic, there must be something more...

Why does the pro-gun base object to background checks and regulations that will make it harder for criminals or irresponsible individuals to own a gun? I just don't understand the argument. Please enlighten me.


View attachment 59771

It is very easy to understand, and should be extremely obvious already.

The MAIN thing is that all federal weapons legislation, just like the War on Drugs, is completely and totally illegal.
While there may seem to be some advantages to doing this sweeping legislation from the federal level, it is totally in violation of the Bill of Rights and the whole concept of a democratic republic.
Laws like for controlling weapons, drugs, health care, safety, etc., are totally and complete under state and local jurisdiction by law, and completely prohibited to the federal government.
There can not be one single legal weapons law, according to the Constitution.

But there are also many other reasons.
Such as with background checks.
Did you know that there already have been laws requiring background checks for half a century? You can not buy a firearm from a dealer, store, pawnshop, internet, gun show, etc., without a background check?
While you can put an ad in the paper and sell to someone without a background check, that only happens because the federal government REFUSES to conduct background checks for anyone except licensed dealers.
That is why there can't be a law that requires a background check for a sale from a private citizen.
And that is a deliberate failure on the part of the federal government, not the private gun owners who want to do background checks.

And it also is actually illegal to prevent convicted felons from obtaining weapons after they have finished their sentence. The right of defense shall not be infringed. You can't have second class citizens. It is illegal and immoral. If people are still a known danger, then you monitor them by keeping them under supervision, where you protect them as well as us. You don't just violate their rights by putting them at the mercy of other criminals. There is no legal basis for denying anyone who is not incarcerated, any rights.

The whole premise of attempting to make society safer by making it harder for criminals to get weapons, is just an obvious lie. The reality is that most illegal guns are owned by drug dealers because they all have to be armed. They have to deal in cash due to drug laws making it impossible for them to use banks or police. So adding more laws can not possibly reduce gun access. The reality is more laws will increase illegal gun access because it make the business more profitable. All more gun laws do is intimidate honest people more into being unarmed completely, thus encouraging and enticing even more crime. The whole idea is insane and backwards, making absolutely no sense at all unless you intend to start taking away even more basic rights and want a general population that is helpless.

 

[Crixus]

I'm a gun owner, most of my friends are gun owners, but i'm confused... What is the problem that most conservatives have with President Obama's Gun Control ideas? I hear the speeches, read the plans, watched the town hall and listen to commentary on both sides until my ears bleed and I still don't understand the conservative position.

Everything that the President has suggested makes sense to me. I don't feel threatened about losing my guns, and I don't think that a responsible citizen's ability to buy a gun is being threatened. I think anything that helps keep guns out of the wrong hands is a good idea, it will save lives! The only point I hear from conservatives on why they object is that they think there is a hidden agenda by the Left to take away all guns. That is ridiculous, paranoid and unrealistic, there must be something more...

Why does the pro-gun base object to background checks and regulations that will make it harder for criminals or irresponsible individuals to own a gun? I just don't understand the argument. Please enlighten me.


View attachment 59771

Fast forward to 2019 and its Donald J Trump who thinks he should be able to take your guns with no due process and only on the word of your girlfriend or whoever. I can't wait to see how the rabid trumpkin smoke this okay. Even Bammer wasn't so bold as to go on national news and say he wants a law where one guy could have the cops go to your house and grab your guns because you are a dangerous racist who preaches hate ( or a guy at a Trump rally in a MAGA hat and T-shirt).

 

[Rigby5]

No, YOU make my point. You try and bring morality into a discussion that has nothing to do with morals. That is a religious position. We are talking about Rights and laws that transcend religion. Funny how you try and deflect by claiming I am the one pointing the finger when I was showing you to be the hypocrite. I was bending your very own finger and making you point it back at YOU.

You don't think the gun discussion has anything to do with Morals? What world are you living in? It makes sense for you to make that claim as it is an argument that you will not win, so discrediting it is one way to go about it.

Religion has nothing to do with this either as you claim...well maybe a little for some, but it is a very moral issue for many Americans.

You may call me a hypocrate if you like but I have acknowledged many points agree'd with members from both sides of the argument. What have you done but blindly defend your club and throw out insults. Keep up with your attitude and see where it takes you... The world is moving towards progression you can join the discussion or be left behind.

No, it doesn't. Religion is the codification of morals thus they have no place in any discussion about Rights. Morals change with time and culture. Ethics on the other hand don't change. And ethically you are simply wrong in every way.

Not sure you are right about separating morals, ethics, and religion.
There is some differences between morals, ethics, religion, and law, but they are subtle.
The main difference is that religion would include more want you should proactively do as well as restrictions, while law would tend to be the minimal set including only prohibitions on what you must not do.

But I think they mostly overlap and there is no fixed division.
For example, we could decide that society requires good Samaritan laws that require you to assist those in danger?
We do not now, but likely we should.

But getting back to gun control, it is by definition, dangerous, illegal, useless, and corrupt.
It serves no purpose in a egalitarian democratic republic other than to destroy it and turn it into a dictatorship of an elite.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

I'm a gun owner, most of my friends are gun owners, but i'm confused... What is the problem that most conservatives have with President Obama's Gun Control ideas? I hear the speeches, read the plans, watched the town hall and listen to commentary on both sides until my ears bleed and I still don't understand the conservative position.

Everything that the President has suggested makes sense to me. I don't feel threatened about losing my guns, and I don't think that a responsible citizen's ability to buy a gun is being threatened. I think anything that helps keep guns out of the wrong hands is a good idea, it will save lives! The only point I hear from conservatives on why they object is that they think there is a hidden agenda by the Left to take away all guns. That is ridiculous, paranoid and unrealistic, there must be something more...

Why does the pro-gun base object to background checks and regulations that will make it harder for criminals or irresponsible individuals to own a gun? I just don't understand the argument. Please enlighten me.


View attachment 59771

It is very easy to understand, and should be extremely obvious already.

The MAIN thing is that all federal weapons legislation, just like the War on Drugs, is completely and totally illegal.

That is the gist of the matter.

 

[Rigby5]

Why is it always the gun people who have to "calm down"? It is YOU who are demanding that WE give up our property and our Rights. And you do this by being emotional and lying about the causes of crime.

I suggest it is YOU who needs to calm down.

You make my case... Yes both sides need to calm down. You just aren't going to win the moral argument if it is one sides desire to feel safe vs your desire to keep your ability to kill. I suggest you learn some self realization and stop pointing the finger

Yeah…nice rhetoric. It isn't a desire to kill, it is a desire to have the best tool to keep our families safe…which the history of humans has shown to be firearms. Wether it is street criminals or mass murdering governments the only thing that makes a real difference when it is the weak vs. the strong the few outnumbered by the many is a firearm in the hands of the defender.

The fact…yes, the fact, that every time guns are registered they are eventually confiscated and in the worst case situations it has led to mass murder, genocide and ethnic cleansing is actual history….not feelings or thoughts…actual history. Actual research shows that the odds of actually surviving a violent attack by a criminal is with a gun….actual research shows that the best way for a woman to defend herself from a stronger, more aggressive male is a gun.

So those people who want to disarm normal, law abiding people with laws that will not stop one criminal from getting a gun….which you yourself have agreed with, makes no sense at all to a person with even minimal intelligence. Americans use guns to stop violent criminal attack between 500,000 and 3,000,000 million times a year…and according to bill clinton it is 1,500,000 times a year….vs. career violent criminals who murdered 8,124 people in 2014, the majority of which were other violent career criminals…

So the actual numbers from 40 years of research don't back up your views….so again, an individual with the bare minimum of intelligence can see that giving up the best tool for self defense against violent criminals and corrupt, murderous governments, for no reason, since you yourself admit those laws will not stop criminals from getting guns….

Is just stupid…………..the people with mental issues are the ones who insist that because 2-3 AR-15s are used to commit crimes, maybe, each year……that the owners of the other 3,750,000 AR-15s, who don't use them to commit crime must surrender them. That is insane…..not our position.

So……no…not one more gun, bullet, magazine or piece of equipment will be surrendered to those who are mentally ill…..

Please don't twist my words, I did not accuse gun owners of having a desire to kill. I pointed out that in a moral debate your side is fighting to keep a tool whose purpose is to kill and destroy things... The opposing side fears guns and desires a safe environment. More guns, in their opinion, does not make them feel safe. This is POV is a fact and a difference of opinion that you should understand. I respect your points, and am simply suggesting that you and other gun advocates take on a more inclusive/less aggressive approach to the conversation. The best way to progress is to understand your opponent. I see too much of both sides spiraling down a path of talking points that rally their base and repel the opposition. I also believe that the "Moral" argument is on the anti-gun side. It is a fact that guns are killing machines thus the gun rights advocates have more of a responsibility to give reassurance and work on measures to improve safety and responsibility to make the non-gun owners feel more at ease. Calling people stupid or oppressive for wanting to feel safe isn't the right approach.

Like i've mentioned, I am a gun owner and I am not interested in jumping through a bunch of hoops if I want to sell or buy guns. I also am very empathetic to those who fear guns and those who have been victims of gun violence. I hope when you continue conversations about this subject you stick to the valid effective points and can put ego aside to acknowledge the fears, concerns and valid points of your opposition. You have a lot working for you with historical data about effectiveness of gun control measures, use that in a constructive way. There are many countries that have seen massive failures with gun control but some have seen success so we should be objective in our review of the effective and ineffective measures. An absolutist POV will never work.

You are obviously passionate and convinced in the validity of all your arguments, I'm just telling you that the other side feels the same way and there IS middle ground, but you stick to the stronger talking points. As I mentioned before, bring up the slippery slope, genocide, or safety in arming the masses and you will lose the attention of your opposition and thus remain at a stand still.

There are many countries that have seen massive failures with gun control but some have seen success so we should be objective in our review of the effective and ineffective measures

It isn't that gun control works in those countries it is simply that their criminal culture is different and murders people with guns less often…..like Japan…it also doesn't hurt to have a police state where the police and prosecutors have vast and almost unchecked powers to search, arrest and convict criminals…

Gun control laws didn't make those countries safer, their criminal sub cultures did….

And safer is not always the proper goal.
For example, when the US was a British colony, the founders did not want it safer as much as they wanted it more free.
If we were under Stalin or Hitler, then anyone wanting it safer would be a traitor who should be killed.
Freedom is the proper goal, not safety.
Everyone should want the freedom to defend themselves, not the safety of central authority imposing arbitrary absolutes.
Freedom is risky, but well worth it.

 

[toobfreak]

I think anything that helps keep guns out of the wrong hands is a good idea

Who are the wrong hands?

Who gets to decide that?

Whatcha gonna do when big government decides YOU are the wrong hands?

If anyone actually had an accurate predictive way to know in advance whose hands would be truly wrong, we'd already be preventing 90% of all gun murders and would be able to re-institute automatic weapons while removing 90% of the gun laws off the books.

 

[Rigby5]

I'm a gun owner, most of my friends are gun owners, but i'm confused... What is the problem that most conservatives have with President Obama's Gun Control ideas? I hear the speeches, read the plans, watched the town hall and listen to commentary on both sides until my ears bleed and I still don't understand the conservative position.

Everything that the President has suggested makes sense to me. I don't feel threatened about losing my guns, and I don't think that a responsible citizen's ability to buy a gun is being threatened. I think anything that helps keep guns out of the wrong hands is a good idea, it will save lives! The only point I hear from conservatives on why they object is that they think there is a hidden agenda by the Left to take away all guns. That is ridiculous, paranoid and unrealistic, there must be something more...

Why does the pro-gun base object to background checks and regulations that will make it harder for criminals or irresponsible individuals to own a gun? I just don't understand the argument. Please enlighten me.


View attachment 59771

Fast forward to 2019 and its Donald J Trump who thinks he should be able to take your guns with no due process and only on the word of your girlfriend or whoever. I can't wait to see how the rabid trumpkin smoke this okay. Even Bammer wasn't so bold as to go on national news and say he wants a law where one guy could have the cops go to your house and grab your guns because you are a dangerous racist who preaches hate ( or a guy at a Trump rally in a MAGA hat and T-shirt).

I am not a Trump supporter, but that is just a hysterical lie.
What Trump said is that with a red flag situation, you confiscate first and then litigate second.
You just claimed "no due process", which is false. Trump just said that due process comes after the weapon is confiscated. And while that has risks, it likely is the best way, because it put the decision making in the hands of the courts instead of the police, as long as police are held to a reasonable, "probable cause" standard.

The main thing I want is for it to be local police and local courts, instead of the BATF and federal courts.
We need to shift gun control back to being local, because that not only ensures less corruption, but also is the only legal way to do it. Federal weapons laws are all just inherently illegal.

 

[2aguy]

I'm a gun owner, most of my friends are gun owners, but i'm confused... What is the problem that most conservatives have with President Obama's Gun Control ideas? I hear the speeches, read the plans, watched the town hall and listen to commentary on both sides until my ears bleed and I still don't understand the conservative position.

Everything that the President has suggested makes sense to me. I don't feel threatened about losing my guns, and I don't think that a responsible citizen's ability to buy a gun is being threatened. I think anything that helps keep guns out of the wrong hands is a good idea, it will save lives! The only point I hear from conservatives on why they object is that they think there is a hidden agenda by the Left to take away all guns. That is ridiculous, paranoid and unrealistic, there must be something more...

Why does the pro-gun base object to background checks and regulations that will make it harder for criminals or irresponsible individuals to own a gun? I just don't understand the argument. Please enlighten me.


View attachment 59771

Fast forward to 2019 and its Donald J Trump who thinks he should be able to take your guns with no due process and only on the word of your girlfriend or whoever. I can't wait to see how the rabid trumpkin smoke this okay. Even Bammer wasn't so bold as to go on national news and say he wants a law where one guy could have the cops go to your house and grab your guns because you are a dangerous racist who preaches hate ( or a guy at a Trump rally in a MAGA hat and T-shirt).

No....he just sold drug cartels over 3,000 guns, illegally, behind closed doors, and gave Iran, the number 1 sponsor of global murder 150 billion dollars in cash.....

 

[Slade3200]

I think anything that helps keep guns out of the wrong hands is a good idea

Who are the wrong hands?

Who gets to decide that?

Whatcha gonna do when big government decides YOU are the wrong hands?

If anyone actually had an accurate predictive way to know in advance whose hands would be truly wrong, we'd already be preventing 90% of all gun murders and would be able to re-institute automatic weapons while removing 90% of the gun laws off the books.

People who are deemed violent and or mentally unstable

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

I think anything that helps keep guns out of the wrong hands is a good idea

Who are the wrong hands?

Who gets to decide that?

Whatcha gonna do when big government decides YOU are the wrong hands?

If anyone actually had an accurate predictive way to know in advance whose hands would be truly wrong, we'd already be preventing 90% of all gun murders and would be able to re-institute automatic weapons while removing 90% of the gun laws off the books.

People who are deemed violent and or mentally unstable

Well then the Troglocrats should never be allowed to own guns.

 

[toobfreak]

I think anything that helps keep guns out of the wrong hands is a good idea

Who are the wrong hands?

Who gets to decide that?

Whatcha gonna do when big government decides YOU are the wrong hands?

If anyone actually had an accurate predictive way to know in advance whose hands would be truly wrong, we'd already be preventing 90% of all gun murders and would be able to re-institute automatic weapons while removing 90% of the gun laws off the books.

People who are deemed violent and or mentally unstable

Again, who decides the threshold for "violent" and "mentally unstable?" We already deny people with known violent past, crimes, threats to others the right to hold a gun. And we already do the same for the mentally institutionalized deemed not in good control of themself. What has it accomplished?

So now we are back in that gray area where someone must guess who might BECOME violent or has the CAPACITY to be so, and who is just a little goofy and who is dangerously so?

And that leads us right back to lopping off a whole bunch of totally innocent, harmless people who have not done a thing to deserve it in the hopes that we catch enough of the truly crazy, dangerous people in the process!

So that leads us full circle right back to the original questions:

• Who gets to decide all that?
• What if they rule against you for reasons other than actual things you've done?
• Where is the governing watch dogs which keeps such power from being abused?
• And why are we still blaming the guns and not going after the cause which drives these people in the first place?

 

[Andylusion]

I'm a gun owner, most of my friends are gun owners, but i'm confused... What is the problem that most conservatives have with President Obama's Gun Control ideas? I hear the speeches, read the plans, watched the town hall and listen to commentary on both sides until my ears bleed and I still don't understand the conservative position.

Everything that the President has suggested makes sense to me. I don't feel threatened about losing my guns, and I don't think that a responsible citizen's ability to buy a gun is being threatened. I think anything that helps keep guns out of the wrong hands is a good idea, it will save lives! The only point I hear from conservatives on why they object is that they think there is a hidden agenda by the Left to take away all guns. That is ridiculous, paranoid and unrealistic, there must be something more...

Why does the pro-gun base object to background checks and regulations that will make it harder for criminals or irresponsible individuals to own a gun? I just don't understand the argument. Please enlighten me.

First, because it doesn't work. My brother-in-law bought a gun on the side of the highway. Got in touch with a guy, met him at a highway rest stop, gave him the cash, he gave him the gun. They drove off.

Now please explain to me how your background checks or whatever law, is going to stop that? It isn't. It simply will not prevent a single gun from getting in the hands of a single criminal. It never works.

And here's the other side.

You say you don't feel threatened. Yeah of course not. No politician is going to say openly "This is the first step to taking away all your guns!".

But in the end, what the hell do you think government is going to do with that information?



After Katrina hit, armed national guard went house to house, confiscating guns from people registered to owning weapons. They went to middle class and upper class areas, taking guns from home owners trying to defend their property.

You know where they didn't go? To the poor crime infested areas, because no one there registered their illegal guns.

Here are the two reasons conservatives are against endless new laws:

1. New laws do not stop criminals, they only stop good law abiding citizens. There is zero evidence, as in none, that laws have stopped a criminal from getting a gun, anymore than prohibition stopped people from getting a drink, and drug laws stop teenagers from overdosing on Heroin.

2. New laws are a way of moving toward totalitarianism, and government abuse of the public. The Jews in Europe went willingly towards their own death, because the government promised them all those laws were for their protection. It's one half step towards government control each time, until you end in a dictatorship. There is no surprise that every dictator in history, has first started with gun control.

 

[westwall]

No, YOU make my point. You try and bring morality into a discussion that has nothing to do with morals. That is a religious position. We are talking about Rights and laws that transcend religion. Funny how you try and deflect by claiming I am the one pointing the finger when I was showing you to be the hypocrite. I was bending your very own finger and making you point it back at YOU.

You don't think the gun discussion has anything to do with Morals? What world are you living in? It makes sense for you to make that claim as it is an argument that you will not win, so discrediting it is one way to go about it.

Religion has nothing to do with this either as you claim...well maybe a little for some, but it is a very moral issue for many Americans.

You may call me a hypocrate if you like but I have acknowledged many points agree'd with members from both sides of the argument. What have you done but blindly defend your club and throw out insults. Keep up with your attitude and see where it takes you... The world is moving towards progression you can join the discussion or be left behind.

No, it doesn't. Religion is the codification of morals thus they have no place in any discussion about Rights. Morals change with time and culture. Ethics on the other hand don't change. And ethically you are simply wrong in every way.

Not sure you are right about separating morals, ethics, and religion.
There is some differences between morals, ethics, religion, and law, but they are subtle.
The main difference is that religion would include more want you should proactively do as well as restrictions, while law would tend to be the minimal set including only prohibitions on what you must not do.

But I think they mostly overlap and there is no fixed division.
For example, we could decide that society requires good Samaritan laws that require you to assist those in danger?
We do not now, but likely we should.

But getting back to gun control, it is by definition, dangerous, illegal, useless, and corrupt.
It serves no purpose in a egalitarian democratic republic other than to destroy it and turn it into a dictatorship of an elite.

I agree with everything you say, except for the religion aspect. Religion is not necessary to live a moral life.

 

[Slade3200]

I think anything that helps keep guns out of the wrong hands is a good idea

Who are the wrong hands?

Who gets to decide that?

Whatcha gonna do when big government decides YOU are the wrong hands?

If anyone actually had an accurate predictive way to know in advance whose hands would be truly wrong, we'd already be preventing 90% of all gun murders and would be able to re-institute automatic weapons while removing 90% of the gun laws off the books.

People who are deemed violent and or mentally unstable

Again, who decides the threshold for "violent" and "mentally unstable?" We already deny people with known violent past, crimes, threats to others the right to hold a gun. And we already do the same for the mentally institutionalized deemed not in good control of themself. What has it accomplished?

So now we are back in that gray area where someone must guess who might BECOME violent or has the CAPACITY to be so, and who is just a little goofy and who is dangerously so?

And that leads us right back to lopping off a whole bunch of totally innocent, harmless people who have not done a thing to deserve it in the hopes that we catch enough of the truly crazy, dangerous people in the process!

So that leads us full circle right back to the original questions:

• Who gets to decide all that?
• What if they rule against you for reasons other than actual things you've done?
• Where is the governing watch dogs which keeps such power from being abused?
• And why are we still blaming the guns and not going after the cause which drives these people in the first place?

We the people decide through the representatives that we elect. Hopefully there are town halls and public forums to gather input from the people but that’s how it works in a republic.

 

[Slade3200]

I'm a gun owner, most of my friends are gun owners, but i'm confused... What is the problem that most conservatives have with President Obama's Gun Control ideas? I hear the speeches, read the plans, watched the town hall and listen to commentary on both sides until my ears bleed and I still don't understand the conservative position.

Everything that the President has suggested makes sense to me. I don't feel threatened about losing my guns, and I don't think that a responsible citizen's ability to buy a gun is being threatened. I think anything that helps keep guns out of the wrong hands is a good idea, it will save lives! The only point I hear from conservatives on why they object is that they think there is a hidden agenda by the Left to take away all guns. That is ridiculous, paranoid and unrealistic, there must be something more...

Why does the pro-gun base object to background checks and regulations that will make it harder for criminals or irresponsible individuals to own a gun? I just don't understand the argument. Please enlighten me.

First, because it doesn't work. My brother-in-law bought a gun on the side of the highway. Got in touch with a guy, met him at a highway rest stop, gave him the cash, he gave him the gun. They drove off.

Now please explain to me how your background checks or whatever law, is going to stop that? It isn't. It simply will not prevent a single gun from getting in the hands of a single criminal. It never works.

And here's the other side.

You say you don't feel threatened. Yeah of course not. No politician is going to say openly "This is the first step to taking away all your guns!".

But in the end, what the hell do you think government is going to do with that information?



After Katrina hit, armed national guard went house to house, confiscating guns from people registered to owning weapons. They went to middle class and upper class areas, taking guns from home owners trying to defend their property.

You know where they didn't go? To the poor crime infested areas, because no one there registered their illegal guns.

Here are the two reasons conservatives are against endless new laws:

1. New laws do not stop criminals, they only stop good law abiding citizens. There is zero evidence, as in none, that laws have stopped a criminal from getting a gun, anymore than prohibition stopped people from getting a drink, and drug laws stop teenagers from overdosing on Heroin.

2. New laws are a way of moving toward totalitarianism, and government abuse of the public. The Jews in Europe went willingly towards their own death, because the government promised them all those laws were for their protection. It's one half step towards government control each time, until you end in a dictatorship. There is no surprise that every dictator in history, has first started with gun control.

Background checks and gun control laws wouldn’t stop people like your brother from getting a gun. But it will stop the people who don’t have the phone number of the guy that will sell them a gun at a rest stop.