Pass a test to use a protected right?

[LoneLaugher]

You want to violate the law because of a minor problem? What next? Sorry but the Government won't be free to do anything they want because there are 300 million firearms in private hands. if only 3 percent resist that is a huge number of people armed and ready to fight to resist tyranny.

Fighting tyranny........down at the local 7-11 or on a trip to the mall with the kids. Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Why is killing people with a gun a right?

Notice how little matthew changes the subject and lies about what the OP said?

Typical for someone who can't reply to the actual subject.

So you consider a gun a right but not education...lol...

One makes the world a worse place to be on,,while the other makes it better! Why shouldn't someone have to take a test of mental stability to own a killing machine?

Because then it becomes politics.

Who decides who is mentally stable and who is not? Well I guess that would be up to the person(s) who are in charge at the time. When those people who are against gun ownership take charge, they will become more conservativel as to who is considered mentally acceptable and who is not.

Oh, and don't say it wouldn't happen. It already has........repeatedly.

I remember when gays just wanted to come out of the closet. They said if they had that kind of liberty, they would be delighted....... and they were, until they wanted something else. Fast forward to today, and we have gays adopting children, gays getting married, gays in the military.......

Smoking was another one. They just wanted to ban smoking in movie theaters. Where are we at today? You can't smoke indoors of most public places. In fact, there are places where you can't even smoke outdoors as well.

Environment? That's another one. They just wanted to get rid of lead in paint and gasoline. Just stop those smoke stacks from blowing pollution into our air. Did they stop there?

The point is when it comes to leftist agendas, they never stop at any point. It may take them many years to get most of what they want, but they are patient people.

So anybody that thinks if we had this law or that test would be the end of the discussion, they obviously are young and never studied other of our past issues.

 

[B. Kidd]

Pass a citizenship test for citizenship, then pass a gun-ownership test for gun-ownership, whether a natural born citizen or not. It can be lawfully accomodated.
Our mass killings are out of control and it is totally un-American not to think out-of-the-box towards rectifying this issue.
We can keep our 2nd amendment rights and elevate public safety, too!

Alright! I'm open to your suggestions how we can do that.

Background checks combined/compared against an AMP (anger management profile). The AMP I have in mind has 5 scales:

-Truthfulness
-Alcohol
-Drugs
-Anger (violence)
-Stress Coping Abilities

It has been means tested since 1982, takes 25 min. to take (2 mins. to score-computer based), has a self-evolving database correction system, and a validity error factor of 2-3%.
Pass both the Background check and the AMP, get your gun. It won't completely eradicate mass killings, but maybe will lower them compared to what we have today.
My wife is on my back to contact a local congressional rep. about it, but don't know if I want to go through the hassle (am a retired counselor here in NV. that worked for the Courts for 22 yrs. and have sat on various state level committees).

I am also pro-2nd amendment rights but am also fed up with fellow Americans being gunned down too often in these mass shootings.
My wife thinks that my background, idea, and expertise would help, and I believe it would too, but, in all honesty I am on the fence.

Thanks for asking, GW!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Why is killing people with a gun a right? Why isn't food a right or education a right???

The world would be a better place if education and food was a right...The world sucks because of all the assholes wanting to kill each other.

Killing people with a gun is a right provided you are using death for self-defense. However if you are referring to criminals having the right to kill people, no, they don't. There is no right for criminals to attack, assault or kill anybody.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Frankly and with all sincerity, I don't care. December marks the 16th anniversary of Columbine and it marks the fact we have done nothing....at all. Reasonable people could have had a national discussion, but we haven't, lawmakers could have had hearings but we didn't, the gun problem can be boiled down to the basic fact that it is now at the intersection of crazy and easy, all magnified by the media fear that without a gun you surely will be a victim.

The gun problem is a human problem, we could fix it but we don't want to. So if government gets all big and bad over this problem just remember we could have done something once and now others may do it for you. Next time don't wait or let others do your talking for you.

Thank you for your mostly honest post. The claim the media fear mongers that you will be a victim w/o the right to bear arms is a complete and utter lie since we both know your leftist stations demand our rights be taken every time there is a shooting but say nothing when someone does defend themselves.

But thanks for showing your hatred of the Constitution and ignorance of why we have rights.

Of course you argue from the point of opinion so I'll take it with a grain of salt. I honestly never heard a leftist station of any kind demand that rights be taken away. I don't hate gun rights nor do I hate the constitution. I hate laziness and the inability to fix a problem that has grown worse and if that means you lose rights you only have yourself to blame for never showing at the table.

Of course you argue from the point of opinion so I'll take it with a grain of salt. I honestly never heard a leftist station of any kind demand that rights be taken away. thats a lie, it's impossible to watch the news and not know. I don't hate gun rights nor do I hate the constitution. clearly a lie, your statements make it clear. I hate laziness and the inability to fix a problem that has grown worse and if that means you lose rights you only have yourself to blame for never showing at the table this statement proves you have our Constitution and have no grasp of why we have the 2nd.

Well now you're arguing crazy. We are going to have peace in this country and I don't care what rights you have that get trampled. You had a chance to talk, you had a chance to introduce your own rules or law, you chose nothing. You hunkered down and said we need to arm every one. I'm simple tired of it. I am a gun owner, I have taught my children how to handle guns, but I want some sanity back in this country and we let an evil go on and have done nothing about it. You have an opportunity to get out in front of this to control the conversation. If you don't others will make decisions for you. That shouldn't be hard to understand. If you want your rights get out and talk, left wing, right wing, we are part of the same eagle. you know?

Well, fine! Since so much has escalated since Hollyweird and other "entertainment" industries have been ramping up the glorification of graphic violence of all types, I think we should go ahead and implement some pretty draconian limitations on those types of "communication" that incite, glorify, and otherwise normalize horrible violence.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Pass a citizenship test for citizenship, then pass a gun-ownership test for gun-ownership, whether a natural born citizen or not. It can be lawfully accomodated.
Our mass killings are out of control and it is totally un-American not to think out-of-the-box towards rectifying this issue.
We can keep our 2nd amendment rights and elevate public safety, too!

Alright! I'm open to your suggestions how we can do that.

Background checks combined/compared against an AMP (anger management profile). The AMP I have in mind has 5 scales:

-Truthfulness
-Alcohol
-Drugs
-Anger (violence)
-Stress Coping Abilities

It has been means tested since 1982, takes 25 min. to take (2 mins. to score-computer based), has a self-evolving database correction system, and a validity error factor of 2-3%.
Pass both the Background check and the AMP, get your gun. It won't completely eradicate mass killings, but maybe will lower them compared to what we have today.
My wife is on my back to contact a local congressional rep. about it, but don't know if I want to go through the hassle (am a retired counselor here in NV. that worked for the Courts for 22 yrs. and have sat on various state level committees).

I am also pro-2nd amendment rights but am also fed up with fellow Americans being gunned down too often in these mass shootings.
My wife thinks that my background, idea, and expertise would help, and I believe it would too, but, in all honesty I am on the fence.

Thanks for asking, GW!

Your ideas might merit consideration. Let me ask you this? How do you feel about mandatory ID in order to vote?

 

[nuhuh]

Frankly and with all sincerity, I don't care. December marks the 16th anniversary of Columbine and it marks the fact we have done nothing....at all. Reasonable people could have had a national discussion, but we haven't, lawmakers could have had hearings but we didn't, the gun problem can be boiled down to the basic fact that it is now at the intersection of crazy and easy, all magnified by the media fear that without a gun you surely will be a victim.

The gun problem is a human problem, we could fix it but we don't want to. So if government gets all big and bad over this problem just remember we could have done something once and now others may do it for you. Next time don't wait or let others do your talking for you.

Thank you for your mostly honest post. The claim the media fear mongers that you will be a victim w/o the right to bear arms is a complete and utter lie since we both know your leftist stations demand our rights be taken every time there is a shooting but say nothing when someone does defend themselves.

But thanks for showing your hatred of the Constitution and ignorance of why we have rights.

Of course you argue from the point of opinion so I'll take it with a grain of salt. I honestly never heard a leftist station of any kind demand that rights be taken away. I don't hate gun rights nor do I hate the constitution. I hate laziness and the inability to fix a problem that has grown worse and if that means you lose rights you only have yourself to blame for never showing at the table.

Of course you argue from the point of opinion so I'll take it with a grain of salt. I honestly never heard a leftist station of any kind demand that rights be taken away. thats a lie, it's impossible to watch the news and not know. I don't hate gun rights nor do I hate the constitution. clearly a lie, your statements make it clear. I hate laziness and the inability to fix a problem that has grown worse and if that means you lose rights you only have yourself to blame for never showing at the table this statement proves you have our Constitution and have no grasp of why we have the 2nd.

Well now you're arguing crazy. We are going to have peace in this country and I don't care what rights you have that get trampled. You had a chance to talk, you had a chance to introduce your own rules or law, you chose nothing. You hunkered down and said we need to arm every one. I'm simple tired of it. I am a gun owner, I have taught my children how to handle guns, but I want some sanity back in this country and we let an evil go on and have done nothing about it. You have an opportunity to get out in front of this to control the conversation. If you don't others will make decisions for you. That shouldn't be hard to understand. If you want your rights get out and talk, left wing, right wing, we are part of the same eagle. you know?

Well, fine! Since so much has escalated since Hollyweird and other "entertainment" industries have been ramping up the glorification of graphic violence of all types, I think we should go ahead and implement some pretty draconian limitations on those types of "communication" that incite, glorify, and otherwise normalize horrible violence.

I'm not against any reasonable subject being discussed if it means getting in front of this problem.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

The Supreme Court has already ruled that is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and illegal. So anyone suggesting we require some sort of test before buying a firearm, you are not making either a reasonable or legal suggestion.

Can you cite the case(s) to which you are referring and how you define test or testing regarding firearms. That would be helpful to fully understanding your post.

 

[B. Kidd]

Pass a citizenship test for citizenship, then pass a gun-ownership test for gun-ownership, whether a natural born citizen or not. It can be lawfully accomodated.
Our mass killings are out of control and it is totally un-American not to think out-of-the-box towards rectifying this issue.
We can keep our 2nd amendment rights and elevate public safety, too!

Alright! I'm open to your suggestions how we can do that.

Background checks combined/compared against an AMP (anger management profile). The AMP I have in mind has 5 scales:

-Truthfulness
-Alcohol
-Drugs
-Anger (violence)
-Stress Coping Abilities

It has been means tested since 1982, takes 25 min. to take (2 mins. to score-computer based), has a self-evolving database correction system, and a validity error factor of 2-3%.
Pass both the Background check and the AMP, get your gun. It won't completely eradicate mass killings, but maybe will lower them compared to what we have today.
My wife is on my back to contact a local congressional rep. about it, but don't know if I want to go through the hassle (am a retired counselor here in NV. that worked for the Courts for 22 yrs. and have sat on various state level committees).

I am also pro-2nd amendment rights but am also fed up with fellow Americans being gunned down too often in these mass shootings.
My wife thinks that my background, idea, and expertise would help, and I believe it would too, but, in all honesty I am on the fence.

Thanks for asking, GW!

Your ideas might merit consideration. Let me ask you this? How do you feel about mandatory ID in order to vote?

Well, since we need an ID for most larger consumer transactions; mortgage, car, utilities, smartphones, etc.., I'm all for it.

 

[nuhuh]

Pass a citizenship test for citizenship, then pass a gun-ownership test for gun-ownership, whether a natural born citizen or not. It can be lawfully accomodated.
Our mass killings are out of control and it is totally un-American not to think out-of-the-box towards rectifying this issue.
We can keep our 2nd amendment rights and elevate public safety, too!

Alright! I'm open to your suggestions how we can do that.

Background checks combined/compared against an AMP (anger management profile). The AMP I have in mind has 5 scales:

-Truthfulness
-Alcohol
-Drugs
-Anger (violence)
-Stress Coping Abilities

It has been means tested since 1982, takes 25 min. to take (2 mins. to score-computer based), has a self-evolving database correction system, and a validity error factor of 2-3%.
Pass both the Background check and the AMP, get your gun. It won't completely eradicate mass killings, but maybe will lower them compared to what we have today.
My wife is on my back to contact a local congressional rep. about it, but don't know if I want to go through the hassle (am a retired counselor here in NV. that worked for the Courts for 22 yrs. and have sat on various state level committees).

I am also pro-2nd amendment rights but am also fed up with fellow Americans being gunned down too often in these mass shootings.
My wife thinks that my background, idea, and expertise would help, and I believe it would too, but, in all honesty I am on the fence.

Thanks for asking, GW!

Nicely put, one of the problems with this idea is that it only affects new purchases, as someone who visits veteran sites, I notice a lot of former soldiers who claim PTSD, also make poignant statement how their condition cannot or will not affect their gun ownership. So I'm not sure how that should be addressed if at all.

 

[toxicmedia]

When will they realize, that countries with more guns per citizen, like Canada, still don't have higher gun violence rates.

It's an easy reacton to have...stop the guns! and stop the shootings....

But it'll never stop crazy people from getting guns.

I only wish one of those Umpqua CC students that carry would have gotten a clean shot off. If they would have, we'd be having a whole different conversation

It's like I've said repeatedly:

We have two parties in this country: One believes they can legislate mortality, and the other believes they can legislate morality. The truth is neither can really be legislated.

Every time people get killed in a spectacular way, Democrats believe they have to find a solution to the problem. Well guess what, there is no solution to the problem. It's going to continue no matter what you do.

Yesterday here in Cleveland a five month old was shot and killed. She is just one of several children shot and killed over the past month. Just prior to that, the city had their gun buy-back program. They would give people gift cards if they turned in their guns legal or not. No questions asked.

Well guess what, it didn't work very well.

"Liberals measure success by their intentions. Conservatives measure success by results."
Rush Limbaugh

That post was perfect, right up to the Rush Limbauh quote.

It wholly contradicts you earlier sentence "We have two parties in this country: One believes they can legislate mortality, and the other believes they can legislate morality"

I spent an entire month one time, when I was working nights, listening to Rush's 3 hour broadcast everyday. With the intention of writing down anything he said that sounded like a lie. I did this because people on a site just like this, were quoting him, but what they were saying was often quite dissprovable.

I needed to understand how Rush gets his listeners to have it so wrong sometimes. What I needed to understand are the 2 dictionary definitions of "lie"

1. Is to knowlingly decieve.
2. Is to create false and misleading impressions.

I found appx 96.9% of the things that sounded untrue, were factually correct, on a daily basis.

I also began to keep track of the times he'd offer a fact, then offer a "possible" conclusion. About 30% of those instances, involved some kind of "those are the facts, I'll let you decide".

He would go on through the braodcast touching on pieces of these misleadng, false, or unsupported conclusions. Leaving little chance the listener could come to any other conclusion.

It is quite brilliant actually, a lot of work must go into it.

The other obstacle I had...when attempting to point out what I'd documented...was the sheer volume of material on a daly basis. Nobody has the time to analyze 3 hours of show...everyday!....and his fans accept what he says unconditionally.

So I realized I'd wasted countless hours of my life in futility.

 

[B. Kidd]

Pass a citizenship test for citizenship, then pass a gun-ownership test for gun-ownership, whether a natural born citizen or not. It can be lawfully accomodated.
Our mass killings are out of control and it is totally un-American not to think out-of-the-box towards rectifying this issue.
We can keep our 2nd amendment rights and elevate public safety, too!

Alright! I'm open to your suggestions how we can do that.

Background checks combined/compared against an AMP (anger management profile). The AMP I have in mind has 5 scales:

-Truthfulness
-Alcohol
-Drugs
-Anger (violence)
-Stress Coping Abilities

It has been means tested since 1982, takes 25 min. to take (2 mins. to score-computer based), has a self-evolving database correction system, and a validity error factor of 2-3%.
Pass both the Background check and the AMP, get your gun. It won't completely eradicate mass killings, but maybe will lower them compared to what we have today.
My wife is on my back to contact a local congressional rep. about it, but don't know if I want to go through the hassle (am a retired counselor here in NV. that worked for the Courts for 22 yrs. and have sat on various state level committees).

I am also pro-2nd amendment rights but am also fed up with fellow Americans being gunned down too often in these mass shootings.
My wife thinks that my background, idea, and expertise would help, and I believe it would too, but, in all honesty I am on the fence.

Thanks for asking, GW!

Nicely put, one of the problems with this idea is that it only affects new purchases, as someone who visits veteran sites, I notice a lot of former soldiers who claim PTSD, also make poignant statement how their condition cannot or will not affect their gun ownership. So I'm not sure how that should be addressed if at all.

I'm sure it is fraught with all kinds of specific civil legalese concerns that are outside of my know-how. Thanks, tho'.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Of course you argue from the point of opinion so I'll take it with a grain of salt. I honestly never heard a leftist station of any kind demand that rights be taken away. I don't hate gun rights nor do I hate the constitution. I hate laziness and the inability to fix a problem that has grown worse and if that means you lose rights you only have yourself to blame for never showing at the table.

Of course you argue from the point of opinion so I'll take it with a grain of salt. I honestly never heard a leftist station of any kind demand that rights be taken away. thats a lie, it's impossible to watch the news and not know. I don't hate gun rights nor do I hate the constitution. clearly a lie, your statements make it clear. I hate laziness and the inability to fix a problem that has grown worse and if that means you lose rights you only have yourself to blame for never showing at the table this statement proves you have our Constitution and have no grasp of why we have the 2nd.

Well now you're arguing crazy. We are going to have peace in this country and I don't care what rights you have that get trampled. You had a chance to talk, you had a chance to introduce your own rules or law, you chose nothing. You hunkered down and said we need to arm every one. I'm simple tired of it. I am a gun owner, I have taught my children how to handle guns, but I want some sanity back in this country and we let an evil go on and have done nothing about it. You have an opportunity to get out in front of this to control the conversation. If you don't others will make decisions for you. That shouldn't be hard to understand. If you want your rights get out and talk, left wing, right wing, we are part of the same eagle. you know?

So you have no respect for Constitutional rights??

OK, let's establish an IQ test for voting, to eliminate the idiots...

If we do, a Democrat won't be able to get elected dog catcher...

Nap time Bedowin you're falling flat.

Why???

Check the OP.

If it takes a "test" for one Constitutional right, it can take one for ANY of them.....

Otherwise, the only answer is stricter laws for gun crime


Use a gun in a crime, get an extended stay in prison




Actually shoot someone, get life...


Kill someone, FRY!!!

OMG! Given the state of many of today's so-called high school graduates writing abilities, most of them would not be able to pass a test in English language communications. Would that curtail their First Amendment rights?

 

[FA_Q2]

Pass a citizenship test for citizenship, then pass a gun-ownership test for gun-ownership, whether a natural born citizen or not. It can be lawfully accomodated.
Our mass killings are out of control and it is totally un-American not to think out-of-the-box towards rectifying this issue.
We can keep our 2nd amendment rights and elevate public safety, too!

Alright! I'm open to your suggestions how we can do that.

Background checks combined/compared against an AMP (anger management profile). The AMP I have in mind has 5 scales:

-Truthfulness
-Alcohol
-Drugs
-Anger (violence)
-Stress Coping Abilities

It has been means tested since 1982, takes 25 min. to take (2 mins. to score-computer based), has a self-evolving database correction system, and a validity error factor of 2-3%.
Pass both the Background check and the AMP, get your gun. It won't completely eradicate mass killings, but maybe will lower them compared to what we have today.
My wife is on my back to contact a local congressional rep. about it, but don't know if I want to go through the hassle (am a retired counselor here in NV. that worked for the Courts for 22 yrs. and have sat on various state level committees).

I am also pro-2nd amendment rights but am also fed up with fellow Americans being gunned down too often in these mass shootings.
My wife thinks that my background, idea, and expertise would help, and I believe it would too, but, in all honesty I am on the fence.

Thanks for asking, GW!

"but maybe will lower them"

Gun control has been tried a thousand times a thousand different ways and it never works. Homicide rates continue to rise or fall as though the laws did not exist weather the restrictions are increased or lowered.

A post from awhile ago that shows further control of the weapon used is irrelevant:

So, here we go again.

Clearly I am going to have to remake this argument in a few places so I am going to rework another post I did in one of these other threads. For those of you that heave read this from me, skip it. For the rest of the slow class: gun control advocates have no evidence supporting their demands. I ask the OP, how are the gun advocates on the 'wrong' side when you have no data to support your point where they have tons.

All over the place on this board I am seeing people demanding gun control and making a wide variety of claims about what we need or do not need but one thing is utterly lacking IN EVERY FUCKING THREAD: facts. I can count the number of facts used in the 10+ threads calling for gun reforms on one hand. Get educated, we have passed laws already and we have metrics to gauge their effectiveness.

First, common misinformation techniques must be addressed because you still find all kinds of false claims about higher 'death' rates with lax gin laws that are outright false. The metric we need to be looking at is homicides. Lots of people like to use 'gun' deaths but that is a rather useless term because you are not really measuring anything. That term is not fully defined and it is not as easily tracked and compared with different years as a solid statistic. I also hope that we can agree that what instrument kills the victim is irrelevant. If gun deaths are cut by 25% but knife deaths increase the same number by 50% we have not made progress. Rather, we regressed and are worse off. The real relevant information here is how many people are killed overall and whether or not stricter gun laws results in fewer deaths or crimes. That is what the gun control advocates are claiming.


Another common misinformation tactic is to compare US deaths to those on other countries. comparing international numbers is also utterly meaningless. Why, you ask. Well, that's simple. Scientific data requires that we control for other variables. Comparing US to Brittan is meaningless because there are thousands of variables that make a huge difference. Not only the proliferation of guns that already exists and the current gun laws but also things as basic as culture, diversity, population density, police forces and a host of other things would need to be accounted for. That is utterly impossible. Mexico and Switzerland can be used on the other side of the argument of Brittan and in the end we have learned nothing by doing this. How do we overcome this? Also, simple. You compare the crime rates before and after gun legislation has passed. We can do that here and in Brittan.
Gun Control - Just Facts

Here we see a rather large spike directly after gun laws are strengthened and no real increase after they are removed. Washington apparently did not get the memo that homicides were supposed to decrease after they passed their law.

Here we have Chicago where there is no discernable difference before and after the ban. Again, we are not seeing any real positive effects here. As a matter of fact, the rate has worsened as compared to the overall rate in the country even though it has slightly decreased. Form the caption:

Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the Chicago murder rate has averaged 17% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 25% lower.

Then we can use this same tactic in measuring the effectiveness in Britton. Lets actually look at the real numbers over there as well:

Oops, even in Brittan, when we account for other factors by using their OWN crime rates, we find that gun laws have NOT reduced the homicides they have suffered. Seems we are developing a pattern here. At least Chicago seen some reduction though it was far less than the national average decrease.


Then, you could always argue, what happens when we relax gun laws. If the gun 'grabbers' were correct, crimes rate would skyrocket (or at least go up). Does that happen:

Guess not. The homicide rate in Florida fell rather rapidly and faster than the national average. In Texas we get a similar result:

Then there are other statistics that do matter very much like the following:

* Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18]

* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun "for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 1,029,615 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[19]

* A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.[20]

* A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:[21]

• 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"
• 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"
• 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"[22]

Clearly, claiming that gun control leads to better outcomes is blatantly false. Look at the data, it is conclusive that gun laws most certainly do not have any positive impact on homicides or any other meaningful metric. If you have information that states otherwise then please post it. I have yet to see some solid statistical evidence that points to gun control as being a competent way of reducing deaths. I hope I have not wasted my time getting this information. Try reading it, it will enlighten you.


In conclusion, over 10 separate threads have simply ceased to continue because not a single lefty here has any response to the given facts. I have serious doubts that the OP will be any different but I wait with bated breath for one single person to actually support their demands with something that resembles fact. So far, I have received nothing.

 

[FA_Q2]

I think the Left needs to stop pretending they want to just ban "assault weapons" and start admitting they want to ban all guns.


But you know what? I think if we banned all guns, it would have almost no impact on the homicide or suicide rate.

We don't have a problem with guns in America. We have a problem with violence.

We are descended from a special breed of people. The kind who can't sit still. The kind who want to go and go and go. The kind who blasted their way across a continent, and once we reached the opposite side, we couldn't stop blasting. Now we turn on ourselves and each other.

This is a lie.

'The left' has no desire whatsoever to 'ban' all guns – the notion is unfounded idiocy.

Liberals accept Heller as settled and accepted jurisprudence, liberals are themselves gun owners, and liberals have no interest in enacting additional regulatory measures inconsistent with that settled, accepted jurisprudence.

Yet here in this very thread there are those that show you just lied.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Thank you for your mostly honest post. The claim the media fear mongers that you will be a victim w/o the right to bear arms is a complete and utter lie since we both know your leftist stations demand our rights be taken every time there is a shooting but say nothing when someone does defend themselves.

But thanks for showing your hatred of the Constitution and ignorance of why we have rights.

Of course you argue from the point of opinion so I'll take it with a grain of salt. I honestly never heard a leftist station of any kind demand that rights be taken away. I don't hate gun rights nor do I hate the constitution. I hate laziness and the inability to fix a problem that has grown worse and if that means you lose rights you only have yourself to blame for never showing at the table.

Of course you argue from the point of opinion so I'll take it with a grain of salt. I honestly never heard a leftist station of any kind demand that rights be taken away. thats a lie, it's impossible to watch the news and not know. I don't hate gun rights nor do I hate the constitution. clearly a lie, your statements make it clear. I hate laziness and the inability to fix a problem that has grown worse and if that means you lose rights you only have yourself to blame for never showing at the table this statement proves you have our Constitution and have no grasp of why we have the 2nd.

Well now you're arguing crazy. We are going to have peace in this country and I don't care what rights you have that get trampled. You had a chance to talk, you had a chance to introduce your own rules or law, you chose nothing. You hunkered down and said we need to arm every one. I'm simple tired of it. I am a gun owner, I have taught my children how to handle guns, but I want some sanity back in this country and we let an evil go on and have done nothing about it. You have an opportunity to get out in front of this to control the conversation. If you don't others will make decisions for you. That shouldn't be hard to understand. If you want your rights get out and talk, left wing, right wing, we are part of the same eagle. you know?

Well, fine! Since so much has escalated since Hollyweird and other "entertainment" industries have been ramping up the glorification of graphic violence of all types, I think we should go ahead and implement some pretty draconian limitations on those types of "communication" that incite, glorify, and otherwise normalize horrible violence.

I'm not against any reasonable subject being discussed if it means getting in front of this problem.

What, specifically, do you consider to be the problem? Access to firearms, lack of testing standards for firearm ownership, mental health issues, rabidly violent entertainment for all ages, but particularly for children? There have been many theories put forth that address possible causes of our current violent, numbed-down society.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

When will they realize, that countries with more guns per citizen, like Canada, still don't have higher gun violence rates.

It's an easy reacton to have...stop the guns! and stop the shootings....

But it'll never stop crazy people from getting guns.

I only wish one of those Umpqua CC students that carry would have gotten a clean shot off. If they would have, we'd be having a whole different conversation

It's like I've said repeatedly:

We have two parties in this country: One believes they can legislate mortality, and the other believes they can legislate morality. The truth is neither can really be legislated.

Every time people get killed in a spectacular way, Democrats believe they have to find a solution to the problem. Well guess what, there is no solution to the problem. It's going to continue no matter what you do.

Yesterday here in Cleveland a five month old was shot and killed. She is just one of several children shot and killed over the past month. Just prior to that, the city had their gun buy-back program. They would give people gift cards if they turned in their guns legal or not. No questions asked.

Well guess what, it didn't work very well.

"Liberals measure success by their intentions. Conservatives measure success by results."
Rush Limbaugh

That post was perfect, right up to the Rush Limbauh quote.

It wholly contradicts you earlier sentence "We have two parties in this country: One believes they can legislate mortality, and the other believes they can legislate morality"

I spent an entire month one time, when I was working nights, listening to Rush's 3 hour broadcast everyday. With the intention of writing down anything he said that sounded like a lie. I did this because people on a site just like this, were quoting him, but what they were saying was often quite dissprovable.

I needed to understand how Rush gets his listeners to have it so wrong sometimes. What I needed to understand are the 2 dictionary definitions of "lie"

1. Is to knowlingly decieve.
2. Is to create false and misleading impressions.

I found appx 96.9% of the things that sounded untrue, were factually correct, on a daily basis.

I also began to keep track of the times he'd offer a fact, then offer a "possible" conclusion. About 30% of those instances, involved some kind of "those are the facts, I'll let you decide".

He would go on through the braodcast touching on pieces of these misleadng, false, or unsupported conclusions. Leaving little chance the listener could come to any other conclusion.

It is quite brilliant actually, a lot of work must go into it.

The other obstacle I had...when attempting to point out what I'd documented...was the sheer volume of material on a daly basis. Nobody has the time to analyze 3 hours of show...everyday!....and his fans accept what he says unconditionally.

So I realized I'd wasted countless hours of my life in futility.

I found the exact opposite. But Rush was right when he said how liberals judge success.

I do know that Rush very often reads things his staff finds for him, and yes, those things tend not to be correct. But of course, when the piece comes out, nobody had time to research them.

He honestly points out his sources and even posts everything he says on his internet site. However his opinions about a policy or articles are just that--opinions.

 

[B. Kidd]

Pass a citizenship test for citizenship, then pass a gun-ownership test for gun-ownership, whether a natural born citizen or not. It can be lawfully accomodated.
Our mass killings are out of control and it is totally un-American not to think out-of-the-box towards rectifying this issue.
We can keep our 2nd amendment rights and elevate public safety, too!

Alright! I'm open to your suggestions how we can do that.

Background checks combined/compared against an AMP (anger management profile). The AMP I have in mind has 5 scales:

-Truthfulness
-Alcohol
-Drugs
-Anger (violence)
-Stress Coping Abilities

It has been means tested since 1982, takes 25 min. to take (2 mins. to score-computer based), has a self-evolving database correction system, and a validity error factor of 2-3%.
Pass both the Background check and the AMP, get your gun. It won't completely eradicate mass killings, but maybe will lower them compared to what we have today.
My wife is on my back to contact a local congressional rep. about it, but don't know if I want to go through the hassle (am a retired counselor here in NV. that worked for the Courts for 22 yrs. and have sat on various state level committees).

I am also pro-2nd amendment rights but am also fed up with fellow Americans being gunned down too often in these mass shootings.
My wife thinks that my background, idea, and expertise would help, and I believe it would too, but, in all honesty I am on the fence.

Thanks for asking, GW!

"but maybe will lower them"

Gun control has been tried a thousand times a thousand different ways and it never works. Homicide rates continue to rise or fall as though the laws did not exist weather the restrictions are increased or lowered.

A post from awhile ago that shows further control of the weapon used is irrelevant:

So, here we go again.

Clearly I am going to have to remake this argument in a few places so I am going to rework another post I did in one of these other threads. For those of you that heave read this from me, skip it. For the rest of the slow class: gun control advocates have no evidence supporting their demands. I ask the OP, how are the gun advocates on the 'wrong' side when you have no data to support your point where they have tons.

All over the place on this board I am seeing people demanding gun control and making a wide variety of claims about what we need or do not need but one thing is utterly lacking IN EVERY FUCKING THREAD: facts. I can count the number of facts used in the 10+ threads calling for gun reforms on one hand. Get educated, we have passed laws already and we have metrics to gauge their effectiveness.

First, common misinformation techniques must be addressed because you still find all kinds of false claims about higher 'death' rates with lax gin laws that are outright false. The metric we need to be looking at is homicides. Lots of people like to use 'gun' deaths but that is a rather useless term because you are not really measuring anything. That term is not fully defined and it is not as easily tracked and compared with different years as a solid statistic. I also hope that we can agree that what instrument kills the victim is irrelevant. If gun deaths are cut by 25% but knife deaths increase the same number by 50% we have not made progress. Rather, we regressed and are worse off. The real relevant information here is how many people are killed overall and whether or not stricter gun laws results in fewer deaths or crimes. That is what the gun control advocates are claiming.


Another common misinformation tactic is to compare US deaths to those on other countries. comparing international numbers is also utterly meaningless. Why, you ask. Well, that's simple. Scientific data requires that we control for other variables. Comparing US to Brittan is meaningless because there are thousands of variables that make a huge difference. Not only the proliferation of guns that already exists and the current gun laws but also things as basic as culture, diversity, population density, police forces and a host of other things would need to be accounted for. That is utterly impossible. Mexico and Switzerland can be used on the other side of the argument of Brittan and in the end we have learned nothing by doing this. How do we overcome this? Also, simple. You compare the crime rates before and after gun legislation has passed. We can do that here and in Brittan.
Gun Control - Just Facts

Here we see a rather large spike directly after gun laws are strengthened and no real increase after they are removed. Washington apparently did not get the memo that homicides were supposed to decrease after they passed their law.

Here we have Chicago where there is no discernable difference before and after the ban. Again, we are not seeing any real positive effects here. As a matter of fact, the rate has worsened as compared to the overall rate in the country even though it has slightly decreased. Form the caption:

Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the Chicago murder rate has averaged 17% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 25% lower.

Then we can use this same tactic in measuring the effectiveness in Britton. Lets actually look at the real numbers over there as well:

Oops, even in Brittan, when we account for other factors by using their OWN crime rates, we find that gun laws have NOT reduced the homicides they have suffered. Seems we are developing a pattern here. At least Chicago seen some reduction though it was far less than the national average decrease.


Then, you could always argue, what happens when we relax gun laws. If the gun 'grabbers' were correct, crimes rate would skyrocket (or at least go up). Does that happen:

Guess not. The homicide rate in Florida fell rather rapidly and faster than the national average. In Texas we get a similar result:

Then there are other statistics that do matter very much like the following:

* Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18]

* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun "for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 1,029,615 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[19]

* A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.[20]

* A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:[21]

• 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"
• 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"
• 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"[22]

Clearly, claiming that gun control leads to better outcomes is blatantly false. Look at the data, it is conclusive that gun laws most certainly do not have any positive impact on homicides or any other meaningful metric. If you have information that states otherwise then please post it. I have yet to see some solid statistical evidence that points to gun control as being a competent way of reducing deaths. I hope I have not wasted my time getting this information. Try reading it, it will enlighten you.


In conclusion, over 10 separate threads have simply ceased to continue because not a single lefty here has any response to the given facts. I have serious doubts that the OP will be any different but I wait with bated breath for one single person to actually support their demands with something that resembles fact. So far, I have received nothing.

Something, at the least, needs to be done towards the aim of harm reduction related to mass shootings.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Pass a citizenship test for citizenship, then pass a gun-ownership test for gun-ownership, whether a natural born citizen or not. It can be lawfully accomodated.
Our mass killings are out of control and it is totally un-American not to think out-of-the-box towards rectifying this issue.
We can keep our 2nd amendment rights and elevate public safety, too!

Alright! I'm open to your suggestions how we can do that.

Background checks combined/compared against an AMP (anger management profile). The AMP I have in mind has 5 scales:

-Truthfulness
-Alcohol
-Drugs
-Anger (violence)
-Stress Coping Abilities

It has been means tested since 1982, takes 25 min. to take (2 mins. to score-computer based), has a self-evolving database correction system, and a validity error factor of 2-3%.
Pass both the Background check and the AMP, get your gun. It won't completely eradicate mass killings, but maybe will lower them compared to what we have today.
My wife is on my back to contact a local congressional rep. about it, but don't know if I want to go through the hassle (am a retired counselor here in NV. that worked for the Courts for 22 yrs. and have sat on various state level committees).

I am also pro-2nd amendment rights but am also fed up with fellow Americans being gunned down too often in these mass shootings.
My wife thinks that my background, idea, and expertise would help, and I believe it would too, but, in all honesty I am on the fence.

Thanks for asking, GW!

Your ideas might merit consideration. Let me ask you this? How do you feel about mandatory ID in order to vote?

Well, since we need an ID for most larger consumer transactions; mortgage, car, utilities, smartphones, etc.., I'm all for it.

Alright! I think the possibility of adult discussion is possible. Thank you! We already have an "insta-check" program here. Even at gun shows, you have to present yourself for a check against a data base to ensure you can legally purchase a firearm. Unfortunately, unless you have a criminal record, you won't be flagged. I think there should be some provision for persons who are currently prescribed medication for mental illnesses, regardless whether they are taking them, or not. Many of those people will stop taking their meds, that's why I provide for prescribed meds.

 

[toxicmedia]

When will they realize, that countries with more guns per citizen, like Canada, still don't have higher gun violence rates.

It's an easy reacton to have...stop the guns! and stop the shootings....

But it'll never stop crazy people from getting guns.

I only wish one of those Umpqua CC students that carry would have gotten a clean shot off. If they would have, we'd be having a whole different conversation

It's like I've said repeatedly:

We have two parties in this country: One believes they can legislate mortality, and the other believes they can legislate morality. The truth is neither can really be legislated.

Every time people get killed in a spectacular way, Democrats believe they have to find a solution to the problem. Well guess what, there is no solution to the problem. It's going to continue no matter what you do.

Yesterday here in Cleveland a five month old was shot and killed. She is just one of several children shot and killed over the past month. Just prior to that, the city had their gun buy-back program. They would give people gift cards if they turned in their guns legal or not. No questions asked.

Well guess what, it didn't work very well.

"Liberals measure success by their intentions. Conservatives measure success by results."
Rush Limbaugh

That post was perfect, right up to the Rush Limbauh quote.

It wholly contradicts you earlier sentence "We have two parties in this country: One believes they can legislate mortality, and the other believes they can legislate morality"

I spent an entire month one time, when I was working nights, listening to Rush's 3 hour broadcast everyday. With the intention of writing down anything he said that sounded like a lie. I did this because people on a site just like this, were quoting him, but what they were saying was often quite dissprovable.

I needed to understand how Rush gets his listeners to have it so wrong sometimes. What I needed to understand are the 2 dictionary definitions of "lie"

1. Is to knowlingly decieve.
2. Is to create false and misleading impressions.

I found appx 96.9% of the things that sounded untrue, were factually correct, on a daily basis.

I also began to keep track of the times he'd offer a fact, then offer a "possible" conclusion. About 30% of those instances, involved some kind of "those are the facts, I'll let you decide".

He would go on through the braodcast touching on pieces of these misleadng, false, or unsupported conclusions. Leaving little chance the listener could come to any other conclusion.

It is quite brilliant actually, a lot of work must go into it.

The other obstacle I had...when attempting to point out what I'd documented...was the sheer volume of material on a daly basis. Nobody has the time to analyze 3 hours of show...everyday!....and his fans accept what he says unconditionally.

So I realized I'd wasted countless hours of my life in futility.

I found the exact opposite. But Rush was right when he said how liberals judge success.

I do know that Rush very often reads things his staff finds for him, and yes, those things tend not to be correct. But of course, when the piece comes out, nobody had time to research them.

He honestly points out his sources and even posts everything he says on his internet site. However his opinions about a policy or articles are just that--opinions.

Very few of his listeners, that I've talked with at length, seem to differentiate the facts he presents from the opinions created.

Inspite of the way Rush tells it.....he has a niche audience, and nobody who listens to him needs to be convinced to vote Republican, so I never really expected fairness.

Having said that....if anyone thinks they're being educated when they attend the advanced courses for conservative studies...they might want to diversify their educational sources. If you want to feel the outrage of conservatives, he's your man