Gun Control Compromise
- Thread starter Zoombie
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2010
- Messages
- 3,057
- Reaction score
- 574
- Location
- The Swamplands
- Website
- www.galehaut.com
So then, why come into an unoriginal discussion jaded and unwilling to discuss anything?
I disagree with you on so many levels, and I don't think that recognizing the Second Amendment as being antiquated is a tired or totally invalid argument. Nor do I think that a nineteenth century interpretation of the the Second Amendment is tired or boring either. I think it's scary as hell.
At least we agree that there are mental health issues at play. Probably, I think those issue have more to do with our social attitudes towards guns, the government, and the role of the media in shootings.
You DO realize, that the phrase "it can't happen here" is an expression, right? It is an expression which gets invoked. And so I was ..... invoking.
You DO understand the very deep and historical message that is meant when that exact expression gets invoked, right??
(Please say yes.)
.
An irrelevant point. Speech has incited millions to violence and murder. Should it thus be regulated?
Despite stances on each side of the issue, the greatest factor effecting gun control is that the box is open and will never be closed.
Much like drunken driving, where we are not going to ban cars or booze, we are stuck with figuring out how to keep irresposible (for whatever reason) users from the implements of death.
A good start is better enforcemant of law and stiffer punishement. It would also help to reverse the trend of mainstreaming the mentally disturbed and denying any likelyhood that they can go on killing sprees until they do. That's a big enough problem to tackle for right now.
Much like drunken driving, where we are not going to ban cars or booze, we are stuck with figuring out how to keep irresposible (for whatever reason) users from the implements of death.
A good start is better enforcemant of law and stiffer punishement. It would also help to reverse the trend of mainstreaming the mentally disturbed and denying any likelyhood that they can go on killing sprees until they do. That's a big enough problem to tackle for right now.
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2012
- Messages
- 11,202
- Reaction score
- 3,257
- Location
- Walking the Underworld
- Website
- www.richardgarfinkle.com
Then please be more careful in what you write. Your first post above puts the responsibility to protect themselves on the victims as well as on others.
As for your second scenario:
I would blame someone who did not even call 911, not someone who only called 911.
It's inevitable with what happened yesterday that the pro-gun anti-gun discussion is going to be brought up. But if we are to look at the situation realistically, there is no way to remove guns from America even if you change the U.S. Constitution. Think about what that would entail, first the Constitution would have to be changed, and even if everyone is in agreement that's a long drawnout legal procedure. The guns that are currently legally owned in the US would all have to be confiscated.
Does anyone really think all legal gun owners will willingly turn over all of their firearms? It would absolute impossibility to remove them all. That fact is every single home and building in the United States would have to be thoroughly searched because some states don't require gun licenses so there is no way of knowing, how many guns are in any US home at any given time. How many people would hide their guns, bury their guns or find some other way to conceal them? It could be as simple as taking the gun apart and hiding the different pieces in different places.
And what about the illegal guns on the streets the US today?
To search every home and building in the US Martial Law would have to be imposed. US gun manufacturers will have to be shut down and those who make US military and US police weapons will have to be guarded and monitored 24 hours a day, seven days a week to assure that no gun goes missing.
Which brings us to the importing of guns, both legal and illegal. Every inch of the US border between the US and Canada and US-Mexico will have to be sealed, guarded and monitored 24 hours a day seven days a week. All packages, commerce, travelers and their luggage coming into the United States will have to be physically searched.
Books are going to have to be removed from libraries, homes and bookstores because there are books out there that detail gun making. Internet access is going to have to limited to only preapproved sites that the government will monitor because on the Internet is gun making material.
When mass shootings such as what happened yesterday people always start the anti-gun argument. And no one has actually given a truly viable way to completely reform gun laws or to remove guns from the American society.
Personally am I pro-gun, no. But realistically I don't think reform really is the answer.
I think reforming the mental healthcare system is.
Does anyone really think all legal gun owners will willingly turn over all of their firearms? It would absolute impossibility to remove them all. That fact is every single home and building in the United States would have to be thoroughly searched because some states don't require gun licenses so there is no way of knowing, how many guns are in any US home at any given time. How many people would hide their guns, bury their guns or find some other way to conceal them? It could be as simple as taking the gun apart and hiding the different pieces in different places.
And what about the illegal guns on the streets the US today?
To search every home and building in the US Martial Law would have to be imposed. US gun manufacturers will have to be shut down and those who make US military and US police weapons will have to be guarded and monitored 24 hours a day, seven days a week to assure that no gun goes missing.
Which brings us to the importing of guns, both legal and illegal. Every inch of the US border between the US and Canada and US-Mexico will have to be sealed, guarded and monitored 24 hours a day seven days a week. All packages, commerce, travelers and their luggage coming into the United States will have to be physically searched.
Books are going to have to be removed from libraries, homes and bookstores because there are books out there that detail gun making. Internet access is going to have to limited to only preapproved sites that the government will monitor because on the Internet is gun making material.
When mass shootings such as what happened yesterday people always start the anti-gun argument. And no one has actually given a truly viable way to completely reform gun laws or to remove guns from the American society.
Personally am I pro-gun, no. But realistically I don't think reform really is the answer.
I think reforming the mental healthcare system is.
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2009
- Messages
- 9,251
- Reaction score
- 7,297
Call me gullible, but no I don't think it will happen in the US in the next few decades. Why that makes me high-minded I do not know. I prefer to think of myself as realistic and not clutching at reasons why people should have military grade weapons in their possession.
I don't know... "Hey honey, call 911 and grab the popcorn, the neighbor's house is on fire," just seems a bit too selfish to me.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2009
- Messages
- 6,902
- Reaction score
- 3,781
- Age
- 50
- Location
- MA
- Website
- www.rebeccaburrell.com
William K Elliott -- who would be your leader when you decide to march toward Washington? Who would say: listen, this government is bad, let's bring it down? And don't you think the second half of the nation would think the current government is OK?
You're talking about an alien invasion scenario.
You're talking about an alien invasion scenario.
Most of those murders are done by the cartels to other cartel's members, with guns bought in the U.S. There are very few firearm murders among civilians, and certainly none civilian massacres with easily obtained weapons, of which the U.S. has had seven this year alone.
Not with guns, I'd say. First we'd need to get rid of the "you can shoot your problems away" mentality.
As for overthrowing the government if necessary, how's that worked out for every armed-to-the-teeth wacko who has tried so far?
I'm all for keeping a weapon handy for defending your home, but you don't need an AK-47 for that.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2009
- Messages
- 6,902
- Reaction score
- 3,781
- Age
- 50
- Location
- MA
- Website
- www.rebeccaburrell.com
The type of speech that incites millions to violence and murder? Let me put it simply.
Fuck yes.
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2009
- Messages
- 9,251
- Reaction score
- 7,297
I dunno, assault rifles?
Do you really need those?
Oh wait, when the Big Bad Evil Government turns against the People.
Silly me.
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2010
- Messages
- 3,057
- Reaction score
- 574
- Location
- The Swamplands
- Website
- www.galehaut.com
This!
I suggested as much to a friend and she started bombarding me with a gun control argument that I already agreed with. Why do people see these ideas as if they're at odds with each other? Is it impossible for a complex problem to have multiple enablers?
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2012
- Messages
- 11,202
- Reaction score
- 3,257
- Location
- Walking the Underworld
- Website
- www.richardgarfinkle.com
How about "Police, help, my neighbor's being attacked. Please hurry." followed by name and address to speed response.
As should be noted, Egypt and Libya had gun control laws. They are still able to overthrow their governments.
So-called "assault rifles" are little more than hunting rifles with cool black outer clothing. In fact, .30-06 and larger deer and elk rifles are much more lethal to humans than .223 "assault rifles."
Unless by "assault rifle" you mean "fully automatic." Those already require serious background checks and licensing, and have only been used once (that I know of) in recent memory for the commission of a crime (few criminals will pay 30K for a gun to rob a bank). Further, if I recall correctly, the one time they were used (the North Hollywood bank robbery) the weapons were illegally converted to full auto.
Does not the problem here become one of definition creep? You say your book does not do that, the government says it does. Exactly why books none of us agree with are still legally sold in the US. Head down to any library or book store and you can still pick up Marx or Hitler.
Frankly, I have a lot of opinions about violence in our culture, and its aggrandizement. I also have opinions about morality as well. I resent seeing TV shows movies and books which have heroes who are sneaky, snarky, and deceptive. And poor Kaiser-Kun doesn't need to see me post another rant against the violence in video games.
In the end, our leaders are also quite corrupted, this includes governmental leaders, business leaders, educational leaders, and even religious leaders. But that corruption is, I think, a larger part of the problem ---including the mental health issues-- and points toward a MUCH larger disussion of whether or not we are past the point of no return and that perhaps neither this culture nor this particular democracy can be salvaged.
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2010
- Messages
- 3,057
- Reaction score
- 574
- Location
- The Swamplands
- Website
- www.galehaut.com
And then you can shoot someone with the book... Oh wait, that's a gun that does that.
As an experiment, I have had my .45 here on the desk for the last few hours. It hasn't shot a single person yet...
- Status