It Was Done on Tobacco. It Can Be Done on Guns.

[GLASNOST]

You need to read the Constitution more carefully. You will find it right next to the mention of assault weapons.

it's in the 2nd Amendment?
I didn't realize milk was considered an arm.
hmmm, the right to keep and bear milk...
Nope, never seen it.

Which one is it you "never seen" in the Constitution ... "milk" or "assault weapons"? I have read the Constitution and I can tell you 100% that you will find milk mentioned right near the mention of assault weapons. Look again and I am sure you will agree.

'assault weapons' are arms.
Mentioned in the 2nd Amendment
Milk is not.

You are not looking carefully enough. Have you found "assault weapons" mentioned? Good! Now read a little further and you will find "milk" mentioned. Have another look .... I'll wait.

Huh?


Have you found:

T.V.

Radio

Film

Internet

Mentioned in the 1st amendment?


.

I am very sorry if that went over your head but you can't blame me for that.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Plus the M-16 is a weapon of war should'nt be in the public hands.

Are you saying that if I personally owned one (an M16), it would go out and kill people all by itself?
Why do you assume I would be so dangerous or irresponsible?

I have a 4,500 pound vehicle....it can be just as deadly ....why should those be in the hands of civilians?

It would be terribly easy for someone to tap into the water mains feeding large communities and kill THOUSANDS if not tens of thousands at a time with certain chemicals before authorities could react......

Why should we have water mains? because we NEED them. And believe it or not, the Founding Fathers knew from personal experience that a society NEEDS to be well armed.

I know...I know....it's "different". But is it? what I'm saying is that if someone decides to kill....guns are NOT at all the only way to kill many at a time. get rid of guns and you may open a Pandoras box of MUCH worse mass killings.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

So what can we actually DO to stop these crazed maniacs from going on shooting sprees killing innocent people?

We "could" try taking away this set of guns and that set of "assault" rifles. But again, I suspect MORE people would die not less because
there are MANY ways in our modern societies that someone evil could kill people in mass. And if you take away guns, they WILL devise other ways they have not thought about before. Opening a potential Pandora's Box of mass killings unheard of previously.

We have to be careful.

What I think needs to happen right away is for this nation to put aside the politically Correct nonsense and have a HONEST OPEN DEBATE about mental health and the root causes that drive people to commit mass murder.

It's plain to see what those causes are, and why certain groups prefer NOT to go there.

Anything less is putting a bandaid on cancer.

 

[SaxxyBlues]

Plus the M-16 is a weapon of war should'nt be in the public hands.

Are you saying that if I personally owned one (an M16), it would go out and kill people all by itself?
Why do you assume I would be so dangerous or irresponsible?

I have a 4,500 pound vehicle....it can be just as deadly ....why should those be in the hands of civilians?

It would be terribly easy for someone to tap into the water mains feeding large communities and kill THOUSANDS if not tens of thousands at a time with certain chemicals before authorities could react......

Why should we have water mains? because we NEED them. And believe it or not, the Founding Fathers knew from personal experience that a society NEEDS to be well armed.

I know...I know....it's "different". But is it? what I'm saying is that if someone decides to kill....guns are NOT at all the only way to kill many at a time. get rid of guns and you may open a Pandoras box of MUCH worse mass killings.

I'm not taking anybody's anything. I want certain kinds of weapons to be registered. American men are so privileged. By that I mean they can store a cache in their homes and the military can only qualify with their weapons once a year. IMHO the military should be stronger and the general public should be required to register certain weapons.

 

[GLASNOST]

So what can we actually DO to stop these crazed maniacs from going on shooting sprees killing innocent people?

We "could" try taking away this set of guns and that set of "assault" rifles. But again, I suspect MORE people would die not less because
there are MANY ways in our modern societies that someone evil could kill people in mass. And if you take away guns, they WILL devise other ways they have not thought about before. Opening a potential Pandora's Box of mass killings unheard of previously.

We have to be careful.

What I think needs to happen right away is for this nation to put aside the politically Correct nonsense and have a HONEST OPEN DEBATE about mental health and the root causes that drive people to commit mass murder.

It's plain to see what those causes are, and why certain groups prefer NOT to go there.

Anything less is putting a bandaid on cancer.

Mental health has nothing to do with it. THAT is the bandaid you are talking about. If you really want to stop the shootings you can stop it immediately by banning guns and if you want to stop it, in the long run, give your people jobs with fair wages.

 

[Ernie S.]

By Dennis A. Henigan

The American people can overcome the gun lobby, but only if we confront, and expose, three myths that have long dominated the gun debate and given the politicians a ready excuse for inaction.

First, we must not let the opponents of reform get away with the empty bromide that "guns don't kill people, people kill people." Does any rational person really believe that the Sandy Hook killer could have murdered twenty-seven people in minutes with a knife or a baseball bat? Guns enable people to kill, more effectively and efficiently than any other widely available weapon.

Second, we must challenge the idea that no law can prevent violent people from getting guns. This canard is refuted by the experience of every other western industrialized nation. Their violent crime rates are comparable to ours. But their homicide rates are exponentially lower because their strong gun laws make it harder for violent individuals to get guns.

Third, we must not accept the notion that our Constitution condemns us to the continued slaughter of our children. It is true that the Supreme Court has expanded gun rights in recent years; it is equally true that the Court has insisted that the right allows for reasonable restrictions. In his opinion in the Heller Second Amendment case, Justice Scalia listed restrictions on "dangerous and unusual weapons" among the kinds of gun laws that are still "presumptively lawful." Assault weapons that fire scores of rounds without reloading surely are "dangerous and unusual."

The tobacco control movement overcame some equally powerful mythology to fundamentally alter American attitudes toward tobacco products. The tobacco industry's effort to sow confusion and uncertainty about the link between smoking and disease eventually was exposed as a fraud. The entrenched view that smoking was simply a bad habit that individuals can choose to break was destroyed by evidence that the tobacco companies knew that nicotine was powerfully addictive and engineered their cigarettes to ensure that people got hooked and stayed hooked. The assumption that smoking harms only the smoker was contradicted by the overwhelming evidence of the danger of second-hand smoke.

Once these myths were exposed, attitudes changed, policies changed and we started saving countless lives. Since youth smoking peaked in the mid-1990s, smoking rates have fallen by about three-fourths among 8th graders, two-thirds among 10th graders and half among 12th graders. A sea change has occurred on the tobacco issue.

Similarly fundamental change can come to the gun issue as well. The myths about gun control, however, still have a hold on too many of our political leaders and their constituents. We will hear them repeated again and again in the coming weeks of intense debate. Every time we hear them, we must respond and we must persuade.

There is too much at stake to be silent.

More: Dennis A. Henigan: It Was Done on Tobacco. It Can Be Done on Guns

If you think guns kill people, come explain to me why my collection of hunting and military rifles and a safe full of handguns from revolvers to 15 round semiautomatics don't all get together, load themselves and and go cause mass murder daily. I own nearly 3 dozen firearms 2 of which have taken a human life. One a suicide that would have happened had a gun not been available and the other by a Japanese soldier maybe 75 years ago. Men have killed men with weapons for all of history. From rocks to A-bombs and from sharp sticks to swords, to switch blades. Our weapons have become more efficient. Yes we can kill more people, in a shorter time with a gun, but the gun, left to it's own devices, just sits gathering dust.
Yup. I could kill 30 people in 30 seconds with an efficient gun provided I met no armed resistance, or I could kill 30 with a broad sword in a minute The time difference is irrelevant. What IS relevant is the intent to kill and the lack of similarly or Superior armed resistance.
What you demand is denying everyone the ability to defend themselves from an armed individual bent on taking lives. Instead of seeing to it that I die an unnecessary death because I was unable to defend myself, fix what causes half of the murders in this country: unmotivated, uneducated, unloved and undisciplined people who depend on government assistance, sometimes for generations. Fix the drug dependence that addles the brains and creates an illegal economy of violence. Fix the people who think a black man is a traitor to his race if he excels in school and works an actual job in order to support himself and his family.
Face up to the fact that 1/8 of the US population is responsible for 1/2 of the murders, yes at the risk of losing your lock on their voting block. Put the blame where it belongs; on Lyndon Johnson's Great Society which, more than anything, is responsible for the near death of the 2 parent family.
We have thousands of gun laws, The only one we need is "Thou shalt not kill" All others are superfluous. Face the fact that many people can not be rehabilitated by anything short of a spiritual awakening and that it is best for society that murderers are absolutely and permanently removed from society and are used for the only thing they are suited to; fertilizer. THEN you might be able to do something about murder. Nope. we will never eliminate it entirely, but we can cut it in half.

 

[GLASNOST]

If you think guns kill people, come explain to me why my collection of hunting and military rifles and a safe full of handguns from revolvers to 15 round semiautomatics don't all get together, load themselves and and go cause mass murder daily. I own nearly 3 dozen firearms 2 of which have taken a human life. One a suicide that would have happened had a gun not been available and the other by a Japanese soldier maybe 75 years ago. Men have killed men with weapons for all of history. From rocks to A-bombs and from sharp sticks to swords, to switch blades. Our weapons have become more efficient. Yes we can kill more people, in a shorter time with a gun, but the gun, left to it's own devices, just sits gathering dust.
Yup. I could kill 30 people in 30 seconds with an efficient gun provided I met no armed resistance, or I could kill 30 with a broad sword in a minute The time difference is irrelevant. What IS relevant is the intent to kill and the lack of similarly or Superior armed resistance.
What you demand is denying everyone the ability to defend themselves from an armed individual bent on taking lives. Instead of seeing to it that I die an unnecessary death because I was unable to defend myself, fix what causes half of the murders in this country: unmotivated, uneducated, unloved and undisciplined people who depend on government assistance, sometimes for generations. Fix the drug dependence that addles the brains and creates an illegal economy of violence. Fix the people who think a black man is a traitor to his race if he excels in school and works an actual job in order to support himself and his family.
Face up to the fact that 1/8 of the US population is responsible for 1/2 of the murders, yes at the risk of losing your lock on their voting block. Put the blame where it belongs; on Lyndon Johnson's Great Society which, more than anything, is responsible for the near death of the 2 parent family.
We have thousands of gun laws, The only one we need is "Thou shalt not kill" All others are superfluous. Face the fact that many people can not be rehabilitated by anything short of a spiritual awakening and that it is best for society that murderers are absolutely and permanently removed from society and are used for the only thing they are suited to; fertilizer. THEN you might be able to do something about murder. Nope. we will never eliminate it entirely, but we can cut it in half.

No one has ever suggested that guns kill people. Maybe you cannot read very well? It is the fact that Americans commit more mass shootings than anywhere else in the world that guns should not be allowed in the U.S. Do you get it now?

 

[Ernie S.]

Lakhota Suppose, instead of laughing, you offer a reasoned rebuttal. Let me know if you need any definitions or remedial classes.

 

[Lakhota]

Lakhota Suppose, instead of laughing, you offer a reasoned rebuttal. Let me know if you need any definitions or remedial classes.

Ernie S., you lost that debate a long time ago. But, thanks for playing.

 

[GLASNOST]

Lakhota Suppose, instead of laughing, you offer a reasoned rebuttal. Let me know if you need any definitions or remedial classes.

see post #1627 if you want "reasoned rebuttal".

 

[Ernie S.]

If you think guns kill people, come explain to me why my collection of hunting and military rifles and a safe full of handguns from revolvers to 15 round semiautomatics don't all get together, load themselves and and go cause mass murder daily. I own nearly 3 dozen firearms 2 of which have taken a human life. One a suicide that would have happened had a gun not been available and the other by a Japanese soldier maybe 75 years ago. Men have killed men with weapons for all of history. From rocks to A-bombs and from sharp sticks to swords, to switch blades. Our weapons have become more efficient. Yes we can kill more people, in a shorter time with a gun, but the gun, left to it's own devices, just sits gathering dust.
Yup. I could kill 30 people in 30 seconds with an efficient gun provided I met no armed resistance, or I could kill 30 with a broad sword in a minute The time difference is irrelevant. What IS relevant is the intent to kill and the lack of similarly or Superior armed resistance.
What you demand is denying everyone the ability to defend themselves from an armed individual bent on taking lives. Instead of seeing to it that I die an unnecessary death because I was unable to defend myself, fix what causes half of the murders in this country: unmotivated, uneducated, unloved and undisciplined people who depend on government assistance, sometimes for generations. Fix the drug dependence that addles the brains and creates an illegal economy of violence. Fix the people who think a black man is a traitor to his race if he excels in school and works an actual job in order to support himself and his family.
Face up to the fact that 1/8 of the US population is responsible for 1/2 of the murders, yes at the risk of losing your lock on their voting block. Put the blame where it belongs; on Lyndon Johnson's Great Society which, more than anything, is responsible for the near death of the 2 parent family.
We have thousands of gun laws, The only one we need is "Thou shalt not kill" All others are superfluous. Face the fact that many people can not be rehabilitated by anything short of a spiritual awakening and that it is best for society that murderers are absolutely and permanently removed from society and are used for the only thing they are suited to; fertilizer. THEN you might be able to do something about murder. Nope. we will never eliminate it entirely, but we can cut it in half.

No one has ever suggested that guns kill people. Maybe you cannot read very well? It is the fact that Americans commit more mass shootings than anywhere else in the world that guns should not be allowed in the U.S. Do you get it now?

From the OP: First, we must not let the opponents of reform get away with the empty bromide that "guns don't kill people, people kill people." It may not be a claim that guns actually do kill, but it certainly is an attempt to discredit the statement.
The fact that we have mass shootings is statistically irrelevant. < 1% of gun deaths occurred as a result of mass shootings in 2018. Yes I read quite well and I "get it" Can you? Do you?

 

[Ernie S.]

Lakhota Suppose, instead of laughing, you offer a reasoned rebuttal. Let me know if you need any definitions or remedial classes.

Ernie S., you lost that debate a long time ago. But, thanks for playing.

How could I possibly lose a debate against an opponent who refuses to debate? You can't defend against my position, so you push a button as if I am at all challenged by your immature ridicule. Suit yourself, papoose. I made my point and you can't refute it. Now WHO won the debate?

 

[Rustic]

Some guy on here last night said M-15's and AK-47's are not assault weapons.

M-15s?

 

[GLASNOST]

From the OP: First, we must not let the opponents of reform get away with the empty bromide that "guns don't kill people, people kill people." It may not be a claim that guns actually do kill, but it certainly is an attempt to discredit the statement.
The fact that we have mass shootings is statistically irrelevant. < 1% of gun deaths occurred as a result of mass shootings in 2018. Yes I read quite well and I "get it" Can you? Do you?

Look, friend, you are searching the sky to find gravity. Here's what it is .... and I want you to read this VERY CAREFULLY.

Problem > > > trigger-happy people shooting other people at random in what is called "mass shootings". You understand that, yes? I mean you "get it", right? ... GUNS + PEOPLE. Once more .... GUNS + PEOPLE. So what is the stable part and what is the variant part of the equation? I'm glad you asked me.

The stable part of the equation is GUNS. Mass shootings are carried out by the use of GUNS, not knives, cars, karaté, poison, pea-shooters, spit-balls, paper-clips, rocks or strategically-placed banana peels. Shootings - GUNS. Got it?

The variable part of the equation is PEOPLE. Do you understand? You know, the ones who are pulling the trigger. We are talking about Americans committing mass shootings and in one way or another shooting to death 200 people in the U.S. each and every day of the year. These are Americans shooting other Americans.

So, to put it simply the problem is AMERICANS with GUNS. Is that difficult to understand? No, it isn't.

On the surface there are two fundamental remedies to cure the problem about AMERICANS with GUNS:

1. Eliminate Guns.
2. Eliminate Americans.

But beneath the surface, there is another issue:

GUNS are make to shoot. That is their purpose so there isn't very much we can do about that. But there is the question of why AMERICANS are so trigger-happy. Maybe if you find the answer to that (and correct it) then guns in their hands won't be any more of a problem as guns in the hands of other nationals. Hmmmmmmm, a very large percentage of Americans are destitute – no jobs, no money, no roof over their head.

So, my earnest conviction is like this: Either remove guns from Americans or end American destitution. I don't endorse the notion of eliminating Americans because it's too messy .... so quit screwing around and give them jobs with fair wages for fuck's sake. If you don't want to do that then you'd better ban the gun.

 

[Blues Man]

One of the silliest propositions put forth by the NRA and gun enthusiast is putting more people on streets with guns will reduce gun violence. The United States Research Counsel 16 member panel addressed right to carry laws and it's effect on crime. Despite a large body of research, the committee found no credible evidence that the passage of right-to-carry laws decreases or increases violent crime. What they did find was confirmation of number of other studies that shows there is a very strong correlation between the number of guns on the street and violent crime. The proposal to put more guns on streets is a deflection from the real problem, too many guns in hands of public.

WRONG
Switzerland has a gun ownership rate and weapons ownership comparable to the US per capita.
But they have almost no mass shootings.

WHY?

THEY LACK LEFTIST POLICIES. THE REAL PROBLEM IS INSANE LEFTISTS.

IF YOU REALLY WANT TO RESOLVE YOUR PERCEIVED GUN PROBLEM IN AMERICA, YOU WOULD TOMORROW RENOUNCE LEFTIST POLICIES. ANYTHING LESS IS A DISPLAY OF YOUR ABJECT IGNORANCE. PLAIN AND SIMPLE

There is a vast difference between the Swiss and American culture particularly in regard to firearms. Switzerland has very different regulations, practices, and policies related to guns than America. Although they are liberal compared many European countries, they are more restrictive than in American.

First of all there is no constitutional guarantee to bear arms. In Switzerland gun ownership is not a right.

Furthermore, Swiss civilians must demonstrate that they are physically, intellectually, and mentally capable of handling a weapon. This usually comes as part of military service which is mandatory. Much of the high ownership of guns is due to the requirement that all military officers and optionally enlisted men maintain their weapon after discharge since they are subject to recall in an emergency.

In contrast to the US, a license is required for most gun purchases which is acquired through the local police. Prior to granting a license, a background check is done. If the police feel there may be mental problems, they can ask for a certification from a psychiatrist.

The Swiss Weapons Act requires an acquisition license for handguns and a carrying license for the carrying of any permitted firearm for defensive purposes. Exceptions exist for hunters. Automatic weapons are banned as well as assault style weapons and various accessories such as silencers and high capacity weapons. All gun purchases must go through a local dealer. Age varies a bit depending on type of weapon and purpose but generally it is 21. A stolen firearm not reported to police and used in a crime can result in criminal charges.

There are a lots of guns in Switzerland but there are far more regulations than in the US and they are national. However, the biggest difference between Americans and the Swiss in regard to firearms is the lack of a culture of violence in Switzerland. There hasn't been a riot in Switzerland in over 50 years and they haven't been involved in a war in over 200 years. Most people that own guns in Switzerland are either required to do to military service, hunt, or participate in shooting sports. Owning guns for personal protection is not common.

And none of those regulations would keep someone from taking their military weapon, or stealing the military weapon of a neighbor and walking into a school and murdering children.....

The Pulse Nightclub shooter went through a complete background check for his job in security. He was then accused by a co-worker of possibly being a terrorist......the FBI launched a complete investigation into him.....3 interviews with trained FBI interrogators, a complete background check and history work up, and even an under cover approach by an agent......he also had a background check for each gun he purchased......

After passing each......he went to the Pulse Nightclub and murdered people...

Licensing guns is pointless......registering guns does nothing.....

You don't know what you are talking about.....

Licensing guns works around the world
Only the US encourages an underground network for gun purchases

Just because a regulation does not stop every possible murder is not grounds to say it will not stop any

There is nothing to say it will stop any


Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[harmonica]

But there is a right to bear a musket AK's AR 's NO

"Assault weapons" are in common use for traditionally lawful purposes, making them "bearable arms" as the term is use din 2A jurisprudence.
Thus, your statement there is no right to own and use 'assault weapons' - like just about everything else you post - is unsupportable nonsense.

free speech is limited--so is the 2A

A red herring?
That's the -best- you can do?

I accept your concession of the point - that, by virtue of the fact 'assault weapons' are in common use for traditionally lawful purposes, we do in fact have a right to own and use them.

Now, to address your red herring:
The basic exercise of the right to free speech is only limited when it harms others and/or places them in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger -- when does the basic exercise of the right to keep and bear arms harm others, or place them in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger?

I know this question is above your pay grade, but please do try to not embarrass yourself with your response.

hahahahhahahahaaha
o---geeee--let me think--this is tough one.....???
how about when they MURDER someone---that's harming, isn't it?!!!!

 

[Blues Man]

But there is a right to bear a musket AK's AR 's NO

"Assault weapons" are in common use for traditionally lawful purposes, making them "bearable arms" as the term is use din 2A jurisprudence.
Thus, your statement there is no right to own and use 'assault weapons' - like just about everything else you post - is unsupportable nonsense.

free speech is limited--so is the 2A

A red herring?
That's the -best- you can do?

I accept your concession of the point - that, by virtue of the fact 'assault weapons' are in common use for traditionally lawful purposes, we do in fact have a right to own and use them.

Now, to address your red herring:
The basic exercise of the right to free speech is only limited when it harms others and/or places them in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger -- when does the basic exercise of the right to keep and bear arms harm others, or place them in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger?

I know this question is above your pay grade, but please do try to not embarrass yourself with your response.

hahahahhahahahaaha
o---geeee--let me think--this is tough one.....???
how about when they MURDER someone---that's harming, isn't it?!!!!

What about the people who don't commit murder?

Which by the way is the vast majority of gun owners.

Why is it you people can't seem to understand that no one is responsible for the crimes committed by another?

All people are not the same person

 

[rightwinger]

The hell they do
Two-thirds of Americans support assault weapons ban: Fox News poll

Look at who agrees with you....gun grabbers.
For shits and giggles let's say you were correct.....
Then 2/3s of America would be weak, tyrant hugging pussies who have completely forgotten history and the lessons of the American Revolution and why MUCH wiser men crafted the 2nd Amendment and why....and are groveling for a dictators boot up their asses.

Fox News is now basically part of the Left wing propaganda machine. If you're smart, you already know why and what has changed. (Therefore, no doubt, you have no clue)

So, no...it's more propaganda.
1/3 of America supports an assault weapons ban. I'll generously give you that.

How many Republicans are there? Hint: enough to still win national elections so AT LEAST slightly more than half.

And if you really believe most of those support the gun BS you're wanting you're just a dim bulb gun grabbing asshole.

Love how you guys have turned on Fox after years of being your propaganda arm. Fox did the poll, they just reported the results

Americans want sensible gun controls.......like the rest of the civilized world use

Republicans rule from a minority in the House, Senate and White House

 

[rightwinger]

But there is a right to bear a musket AK's AR 's NO

"Assault weapons" are in common use for traditionally lawful purposes, making them "bearable arms" as the term is use din 2A jurisprudence.
Thus, your statement there is no right to own and use 'assault weapons' - like just about everything else you post - is unsupportable nonsense.

free speech is limited--so is the 2A

A red herring?
That's the -best- you can do?

I accept your concession of the point - that, by virtue of the fact 'assault weapons' are in common use for traditionally lawful purposes, we do in fact have a right to own and use them.

Now, to address your red herring:
The basic exercise of the right to free speech is only limited when it harms others and/or places them in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger -- when does the basic exercise of the right to keep and bear arms harm others, or place them in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger?

I know this question is above your pay grade, but please do try to not embarrass yourself with your response.

hahahahhahahahaaha
o---geeee--let me think--this is tough one.....???
how about when they MURDER someone---that's harming, isn't it?!!!!

What about the people who don't commit murder?

Which by the way is the vast majority of gun owners.

Why is it you people can't seem to understand that no one is responsible for the crimes committed by another?

All people are not the same person

If you don’t plan on shooting up a school, responsible gun owners don’t need an AR-15 with a 50 round magazine

 

[MAGAman]

A person has dominion over his own body

You have no say in what he chooses to eat smoke, snort shoot into his veins or shoves up his ass

The government disagrees.