Court Hears Second Amendment Debate On City Ban

[BigBadBrian]

Court Hears Second Amendment Debate On City Ban
Daley Defends Chicago's Gun Laws As Prohibition Comes Under ChallengeWASHINGTON (CBS)


As they hear arguments in a case to against Chicago's nearly 30-year-old handgun ban, the U.S. Supreme Court appears willing to say that the Constitution's right to possess guns limits state and local regulation of firearms.

But the justices also suggested that some gun control measures might not be affected.

The court heard arguments Tuesday in McDonald v. Chicago, a case that challenges handgun bans in the City of Chicago and in Oak Park. The suit also asks the high court to extend to state and local jurisdictions the sweep of its 2008 decision in the District of Columbia v. Heller case, which struck down a gun ban in the federal enclave of Washington, D.C.

The biggest questions before the court seemed to be how, rather than whether, to issue such a ruling and whether some regulation of firearms could survive. On the latter point, Justice Antonin Scalia said the majority opinion he wrote in the 2008 case "said as much."

In Heller v. D.C., the court ruled that the Second Amendment gives individuals a right to possess guns for self-defense and other purposes, but presently, that decision only applied to federal laws, such as those of Washington, D.C.

The court has ruled that most of the rest of the Bill of Rights applies to state and local governments.

The plaintiffs in the case were all present for as their attorneys argue the lawsuit before the Supreme Court.

The plaintiffs are:
--Otis McDonald, a retiree who says he wants protection after his Far South Side house has been broken into repeatedly and he has been threatened.
--David and Colleen Lawson, whose involvement stems from a scare in 2006 when Colleen Lawson was home alone with the flu and three men tried to jimmy open her back door. They ran off when they saw her through a window.
--Adam Orlov, a businessman who was previously a police officer for four years, and believes that people hurt by the city's handgun ban are those obeying it.

McDonald said last year that the possibility of confronting an armed would-be victim might make a criminal think twice.

"We should have, at least, a deterrent, and I think that that will give the would-be robbers, or what have you, something to think about when they get ready to break into a house on an elderly person," McDonald said in September 2009.

The handgun ban has been on the books for some 28 years.

Several aldermen were calling for a freeze on handgun registration in the late 1970s, as gun violence in the city skyrocketed. Morton Grove passed a handgun ban in 1981, and soon afterward, Ald. Edward Burke (14th) proposed an ordinance to ban the further sale and registration of handguns in the City of Chicago, the Encyclopedia of Chicago recounts.

The legislation was approved in 1982, with strong support from Mayor Jane Byrne, and coming just after President Ronald Reagan and Pope John Paul II were wounded by gunfire assassination attempts.

The ban has been weathering legal challenges ever since it was instituted. But it gained newfound attention after the Heller decision.

Within days of the Heller vs. D.C. ruling, suburban Wilmette, Morton Grove and Winnetka did away with their handgun bans altogether, and Evanston repealed parts of its ban.

But in Chicago and Oak Park, the ban remained. A federal judge dismissed lawsuits by the National Rifle Association to overturn the bans, and in June of last year, a three-judge federal appeals court upheld that ruling.

Mayor Richard M. Daley wants the ban to remain in place. He says local officials need flexibility to decide how best to protect their communities.

"We have the right for health and safety to pass reasonable laws dealing with the protection and health of the people of the city of Chicago," Daley said.

He also said the rollback of the city's handgun ban could lead to further erosion of legislation having to do with guns.

"This is the first time; once you start doing this, you'll start breaking down local laws, county and even state laws – unlawful use of a weapon," Mayor Daley said.

The mayor is backed by community groups and Chicago's congressional delegation.

"Many of my friends talk about the fact that they hunt in their state and I will tell them that many of the people who are hunting in Chicago are not hunting wild game -- they are hunting each other," U.S. Rep. Danny Davis (D-Ill.) said.

Paul McGrath was an aide to Mayor Byrne who helped craft the city's anti-gun legislation. He believes doing away with the gun restrictions would be a bad idea.

"If our gun control law is struck down, there will be more guns," McGrath said. "Do we want more guns?"

McDonald, Orlov and the Lawsons are not the only plaintiffs -- the Second Amendment Foundation, an anti-gun control group, and the Illinois State Rifle Association are also named.

If Chicago's ban is overturned and the city passes another gun law, the National Rifle Association's Todd Vandermyde predicts a flurry of lawsuits against the city.

"They'd better understand that Supreme Court opinions are not advisory in nature," he said. "They're either going to comply or they're going to find themselves on the long end of a lot of litigation."

http://http://cbs2chicago.com/local/chicago.handgun.ban.2.1530231.html

[sadaist]

These gun laws just prevent law abiding citizens from having them. If you are a criminal and going to kill, rob, rape, etc... you sure as hell aren't going to register a gun with the government. They will just be stolen or brought in from other places and sold on the black market. The only way to truly ban them is to ban them globally. As long as they are available somewhere, they will be available everywhere. Isn't marijuana illegal? How many of you either currently have or have had a bag? Bans don't work.

Personally, I don't have a problem with registering my firearms. I don't even mind the fact that I had to get a safety course certificate & take a test for my CA firearms card. Or that I have to own trigger locks for all my guns. But once they remove my right to own them, that's when I have a problem.

As far as the assault weapon bans in California, I'm still undecided about those to tell the truth. I used to think what the fuck would anyone need one of those powerful weapons for? Then I rented one at a firing range. WOW! That Bushmaster AR-15 was the most awesome thing ever. I can see why people would want one. All we did was shoot targets and it was so much fun.

[ELVIS]

Self defense is a right...

[Seshmeister]

The Raw Story | More kids killed by guns in US in single year than total Iraq war casualties (http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/More_kids_killed_by_guns_in_0613.html)


More kids killed by guns in US in single year than total Iraq war casualties



RAW STORY
Published: Tuesday June 13, 2006


A report released today by the Children's Defense Fund (CDF,) and based upon data collected by the Center for Disease Control (CDC) finds that more children and teens died as a result of gun violence in 2003 than American fighting men and women killed in hostile action in the first three years of the Iraq war combined.

In all, 2,827 kids and teens were killed in the United States during the calendar year that marked the US invasion of Iraq. At last count, the Department of Defense reports 2,497 US soldiers killed in Iraq.

In addition to that gruesome statistic, other facts detailed in the report about gun violence and America's children:

-- The rate of firearm deaths among children under age 15 is far higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized countries combined. "We have many more handguns and much weaker gun laws than any other country," says Harvard Professor David Hemenway, who has worked to develop strategies to combat illegal firearms.

-- In 2003, 56 preschoolers were killed by firearms, compared to 52 law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty.

-- More 10- to 19-year-olds die from gunshot wounds than from any other cause except motor vehicle accidents.

-- Almost 90 percent of the children and teens killed by firearms in 2003 were boys.

-- Boys ages 15 to 19 are nearly nine times as likely as girls of the same age to be killed by a firearm.

-- In 2003, there were more than nine times as many suicides by guns among white children and teens as among black children and teens.

-- The firearm death rate for black males ages 15 to 19 is more than four times that of white males the same age.

-- The seven states that recorded the most deaths among children and teens by firearms in 2003 were California, Texas, Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania, Florida and North Carolina. The state with the fewest child gun deaths was Hawaii with one.

The full report can be read at the Children's Defense Fund website.

[Seshmeister]

-- In 2003, 56 preschoolers were killed by firearms, compared to 52 law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty.

Incredible...

[ELVIS]

2003 was a very bad year...

[Seshmeister]

In 2006 it had gone up to 63

[sadaist]

The seven states that recorded the most deaths among children and teens by firearms in 2003 were California....


California has very strict gun laws compared to most other states. Yet ranked top?

Your source is just a whole lot of anti-gun propaganda. How many deaths/murders were committed by other means? How many of the gun deaths were caused by a registered gun vs. a gun that was possessed illegally? How many of these deaths were caused by criminals that the justice system failed to keep locked up on other charges?

Anyone that has been convicted of a felony is unable to own a gun...ever. Does anyone honestly believe that law is being followed? Doubtful. If people are willing to commit murder, the biggest crime of all, they aren't going to flinch when it comes to owning a gun illegally.

I find it funny that anti-gun people use all of these crime statistics to justify banning all guns. To me it just reinforces the fact that I want a gun for self protection.

FYI - Mexico is extremely strict...NO GUNS ALLOWED...period...for anyone. Just look at the amount of murders happening there right now just in the border towns.

[ELVIS]

How can you ban criminals from having illegal guns ???

[knuckleboner]

How can you ban criminals from having illegal guns ???

every illegal gun a criminal uses was at one point in time legal. the more legal guns, the more potential illegal guns.

[Dr. Love]

In 2006 it had gone up to 63

2006 was a very bad year...

[sadaist]

the more legal guns, the more potential illegal guns.


The more penises, the more potential for rapes.

[Nitro Express]

Gun prohibition laws are like locks. They keep the honest people out. Felons obtain guns all the time and use them. They are available on the black market or they steal them. What probably is the most effective gun crime deterrent is severe punishment. How about sending those who use a firearm in a crime to an Alaskan gulag with day after day full of hard labor? We could make the housing out of ice and put barbed wire around it all. :biggrin:

[Blackflag]

How about sending those who use a firearm in a crime to an Alaskan gulag with day after day full of hard labor?

http://thm-a01.yimg.com/nimage/7e872b20fa9d766c

:eatit:

[sadaist]

What probably is the most effective gun crime deterrent is severe punishment.


Another problem is the justice system. Prison is a badge of honor for a lot of criminals. And when they are there, they get TV, 3 meals, medical/dental, Internet, etc... Prison is supposed to suck. Bring the hammer down on violent offenders and quit wasting the cell space on pot heads.

[BigBadBrian]

every illegal gun a criminal uses was at one point in time legal. the more legal guns, the more potential illegal guns.

So you're saying ban all guns?

[hideyoursheep]

every illegal gun a criminal uses was at one point in time legal. the more legal guns, the more potential illegal guns.

AK's, UZI's and other assorted assault weapons are NOT legal, nor should they be.

Find me that guy who needs to hunt wild game with an automatic or semi-auto weapon....


...there isn't one.

[Nickdfresh]

How can you ban criminals from having illegal guns ???

You can't. But they often steal them (having guns actually makes you a target for burglars, my brother has had several firearms stolen) or use mules to buy them in states with reckless gun laws (or lack of therein)...

Incidentally, a Chicago resident can own a "long-gun" such as a shotgun...

[Nickdfresh]

Another problem is the justice system. Prison is a badge of honor for a lot of criminals. And when they are there, they get TV, 3 meals, medical/dental, Internet, etc... Prison is supposed to suck. Bring the hammer down on violent offenders and quit wasting the cell space on pot heads.

I've met people who've been in prison, I'm pretty sure it sucks....

Part of the problem with prisons is that you're essentially forced to join a gang, and for younger offenders, it becomes the college of criminal skills chock full of great courses...

[Seshmeister]

California has very strict gun laws compared to most other states. Yet ranked top?

Your source is just a whole lot of anti-gun propaganda. How many deaths/murders were committed by other means? How many of the gun deaths were caused by a registered gun vs. a gun that was possessed illegally? How many of these deaths were caused by criminals that the justice system failed to keep locked up on other charges?


I didn't want to start that circular debate again so I was just pointing out the dead kids under 5.

If you keep a gun you are statistically far far far far more likely for your kid to accidently get shot than you are to ever use it to defend yourself.

This mythical scenario where the bad guys come to your house and you threaten or shoot them with your legal handgun is incredibly rare.

[ELVIS]

having guns actually makes you a target for burglars

Having anything makes you a target for burglars, DFB...

[ELVIS]

..and what are "reckless gun laws" ??

[LoungeMachine]

..and what are "reckless gun laws" ??

Those are gun laws which are reckless.....

:gulp:

[ELVIS]

Such as ??

[Blackflag]

statistically far far far far more likely

I'm pretty sure he got this info from a CDC report. It just has that indicia of credibility about it.

[FORD]

AK's, UZI's and other assorted assault weapons are NOT legal, nor should they be.

Find me that guy who needs to hunt wild game with an automatic or semi-auto weapon....


...there isn't one.

And if there is, he's probably not much of a hunter. :biggrin:

[kwame k]

Geez, we've been over this so many times before......close the loopholes in the gun/trade shows and enforce the laws already on the books.

Waiting 7 days to buy a gun isn't trampling on anyone's right to bear arms. Even though a close inspection on that Right will show it was more about militias than anything else.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Make anyone wanting an assault type rifle, with a banana clip, adhere to the same special license that anyone who wants to use a fully automatic weapon has to adhere to.
Yes, you can legally have fully automatic weapons in the US, if you have a special permit.

[ELVIS]

Why should guns be registered anyway ??

[kwame k]

Why should guns be registered anyway ??

Registration of guns, per say, I'm not for but having to have a background check to purchase a gun.....I'm all for.

[jhale667]

Registration of guns, per say, I'm not for but having to have a background check to purchase a gun.....I'm all for.

I think they should be registered. Why not? And background checks are good - especially if they keep guns out of the hands of people like ELVIS... ;)

[LoungeMachine]

Why should guns be registered anyway ??

Why should cars then?

Why should voters?

Why should citizens in general?

We're a SOCIETY, that's why.


YOUR "right" to own a gun puts ME and MY family in danger.

:gulp:

Being an alkie and a drug addict should also prevent you from owning one, IMO

[Blackflag]

Why should cars then?

Pretty sure it's just for the revenue.


Why should citizens in general?

They're not.


YOUR "right" to own a gun puts ME and MY family in danger.

Not unless I commit a crime with it. So it's crime that puts your family in danger. Go figure.

Do you think your family will be any safer if we register everything I could commit a crime with? It's already illegal to commit crimes.

[Igosplut]

I think they should be registered. Why not? And background checks are good - especially if they keep guns out of the hands of people like ELVIS... ;)

Gun registration has historically been used for confiscation, and it does nothing to prevent illegal uses.

[LoungeMachine]

Not unless I commit a crime with it. .

wtf???

Really?

So the only gun deaths in this country are from "crimes"

how naive.

You dont lock your gun, and my kid is playing with your kid in your house, and your kid decides to play with your gun....

or

how about while you're out at the movies yourgun is stolen and used to rob me?

I'm not against gun ownership, I'm against irresponsible gun owners, and I think those who buck registration, gun safes, and safety locks are irresponsible gun owners.

:gulp:

[LoungeMachine]

Pretty sure it's just for the revenue.



.

It's not.

It's also to track who owns the vehicle.

Otherwise any Yakima citizen could steal your 78 pinto with the primered hood and missing back window and claim it is their's

:gulp:

[Igosplut]

AK's, UZI's and other assorted assault weapons are NOT legal, nor should they be.

They are legal in most states.


Find me that guy who needs to hunt wild game with an automatic or semi-auto weapon.... Ask that of the guys who hunt wild boar. There are plenty of dangerous animals hunted where your life could be at stake without the ability of repetitive fire.

[Blackflag]

wtf???

Either way, a crime occurred. Either you recklessly stored your gun, which is a crime - or somebody stole it and committed a crime. Your kid could come to my house and play with my chainsaw, too.

If you really want to keep your family safe, I have a suggestion for you. And it doesn't have anything to do with me.

[Blackflag]

It's not.

It's also to track who owns the vehicle.



No, that would be when you title the car. That doesn't have anything to do with your yearly registration fee. :hee:

[Igosplut]

..and what are "reckless gun laws" ??

Gun laws that target legal owners with overly heavy/harsh laws treating them like criminals, whilst doing nothing to the people that actually commit gun crimes.

Most of these are heralded in the press as "the means to cut down on gun crime" when realistically it's just aimed at legal owners who are not the problem.

[LoungeMachine]

No, that would be when you title the car. That doesn't have anything to do with your yearly registration fee. :hee:

:rolleyes:

you're a dolt.

[ELVIS]

Gun registration has historically been used for confiscation.

Exactly...

Whether I have a gun or not is no business of big brother or anyone...

[jhale667]

I'm not against gun ownership, I'm against irresponsible gun owners, and I think those who buck registration, gun safes, and safety locks are irresponsible gun owners.

:gulp:

Agree. And let's not forget gun owners are statistically more likely to have their own weapons used on them than using them for self-protection in cases of home invasion robberies, etc.

[ELVIS]

Gun laws that target legal owners with overly heavy/harsh laws treating them like criminals, whilst doing nothing to the people that actually commit gun crimes.

Most of these are heralded in the press as "the means to cut down on gun crime" when realistically it's just aimed at legal owners who are not the problem.

Thank you again, Igo...


:elvis:

[Igosplut]

I'm not against gun ownership, I'm against irresponsible gun owners, and I think those who buck registration, gun safes, and safety locks are irresponsible gun owners.

:gulp:

MA has all these laws and many more. And since the laws have been in effect, gun crime has skyrocketed. The storage laws are strict to the point someone could kick my door in and stab/shoot me before I could even get to a gun (not that I could legally shoot them in my house anyway=Felony) Two sides to that issue also.

[Blackflag]

:rolleyes:

you're a dolt.

Persuasive argument.

[Igosplut]

Agree. And let's not forget gun owners are statistically more likely to have their own weapons used on them than using them for self-protection in cases of home invasion robberies, etc.

That statistic does not ring true. Like all info, it depends on the interests of the people who "claim" the statistic.

[kwame k]

Agree. And let's not forget gun owners are statistically more likely to have their own weapons used on them than using them for self-protection in cases of home invasion robberies, etc.

The whole keeping a gun loaded in the house for safety is about useless.....get a fucking dog, most professional criminals won't even touch a house with a dog in it. Plus, it gives you an opener when you see a hot chick while walking your dog. Called a win win!

All of my guns are stored in a safe that's bolted down to the floor and I have never found a reason to keep my guns loaded in the house.

Having said that....I kept a loaded 45 in my tool box when I was rehabbing houses in Detroit :0

[Igosplut]

The whole keeping a gun loaded in the house for safety is about useless.....get a fucking dog, most professional criminals won't even touch a house with a dog in it. Plus, it gives you an opener when you see a hot chick while walking your dog. Called a win win!

All of my guns are stored in a safe that's bolted down to the floor and I have never found a reason to keep my guns loaded in the house.

Having said that....I kept a loaded 45 in my tool box when I was rehabbing houses in Detroit :0

And your luck enough to live in an area that that is possible. But what about people living in other parts of your state that don't? Should they not have the right to have a loaded gun because you don't have the need?

[Igosplut]

One of the biggest problems with the gun argument is that only moral people follow laws.

You can't force morality.

[jhale667]

You can't force morality.

Or legislate it, but that never stops Republicans from trying to... ;)

[LoungeMachine]

One of the biggest problems with the gun argument is that only moral people follow laws.

You can't force morality.

Yet we try every day in this country.

Like abortion, no one ever changes their mind on this subject, and I'm not about to waste time trying.

There's a reason why there's 30,000 gun deaths in this country, and 30 in Canada every year, and it aint because they can't shoot straight.

:gulp:

[kwame k]

And your luck enough to live in an area that that is possible. But what about people living in other parts of your state that don't? Should they not have the right to have a loaded gun because you don't have the need?

Actually, here in Colorado they have an Open Carry Law.....you can carry a handgun as long as it's visible and you lawfully own it. Denver is the only exception.

Detroit.....fuck, do whatever you want....it's fucking Detroit after all.

Hey, I'm all for gun ownership....just make it as difficult as getting a Drivers License.

Really, thinking about it, I'll take back my stance on registration. I'll register all the old guns that were handed down to me. All the guns I've bought are already registered. I mean, I'll get a heads up if they start taking away our guns because that'll make national news and give me plenty of time to get to my super-secret bunker ;)

[binnie]

How do you decide what guns are legal, and what guns are not?

[kwame k]

How do you decide what guns are legal, and what guns are not?

By the guns that are legally for sale here.......

[LoungeMachine]

How do you decide what guns are legal, and what guns are not?

If it can stop a plane at 30,000 feet they usually frown upon it...

Otherwise, you're pretty much free to Rambo Up

:gulp:

[binnie]

By the guns that are legally for sale here.......

But if I have handgun and the criminal has an Uzi, surely I need a more powerful gun to be able to defend myself effectively?

(I am joking, BTW.)

[Blackflag]

There's a reason why there's 30,000 gun deaths in this country, and 30 in Canada every year, and it aint because they can't shoot straight.

It probably has something to do with there being 1/10 as many people in Canada?

And the 30 number is wrong. If you're going to argue statistics, you have to at least make sure they're in the ballpark. :hee:

[LoungeMachine]

But if I have handgun and the criminal has an Uzi, surely I need a more powerful gun to be able to defend myself effectively?

(I am joking, BTW.)

I actually think you're struck on something there, Bin...

I think many gun owners are like the guys with jacked up trucks, they're overcompensating for other "shortages"

Ammo Envy if you will....

:gulp:

[chefcraig]

There's a reason why there's 30,000 gun deaths in this country, and 30 in Canada every year, and it aint because they can't shoot straight.

"If you combine the populations of Great Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark and Australia, you'll get a population roughly the size of the United States. We had 32,000 gun deaths last year. They had 112. Do you think it's because Americans are more homicidal by nature? Or do you think it's because those guys have gun control laws?"


http://img519.imageshack.us/img519/754/btoby.jpg (http://img519.imageshack.us/i/btoby.jpg/)

[Blackflag]

There's more than 112 just in Australia. But at least now I know where LoungeQueen gets his bad statistics.

[LoungeMachine]

And the 30 number is wrong. If you're going to argue statistics, you have to at least make sure they're in the ballpark. :hee:

Like when you argued that most people were against the Patriot Act, but couldnt find a poll backing your position?

:lmao:

Homicides by gun


# 8 United States: 0.0279271 per 1,000 people

# 20 Canada: 0.00502972 per 1,000 people

[kwame k]

I actually think you're struck on something there, Bin...

I think many gun owners are like the guys with jacked up trucks, they're overcompensating for other "shortages"

Ammo Envy if you will....

:gulp:

I could see that but.....as far as the people who hunt.....you're not going to use a fully auto gun or an elephant gun to kill a deer. You're just wasting good venison. You're not going to use double ought buckshot to hunt Pheasant, either. So unless you're a complete fool, you use the proper caliber gun for whatever you're hunting.

I see no reason for people to have assault type weapons....if you're into collecting and target shooting you can get a special permit for fully automatic weapons but it's costly and an extensive process, as it should be.

Other than that and I don't care about the argument that the assault weapons you can buy now are semi-automatic....converting them is fucking simple and if you want even a semi-automatic you should have to get a special permit.

[Blackflag]

Like when you argued that most people were against the Patriot Act, but couldnt find a poll backing your position?

Oh, you really expected me to go read a newspaper for you and report back? I thought that was a joke. Type "patriot act poll" into google.




Homicides by gun


# 8 United States: 0.0279271 per 1,000 people

# 20 Canada: 0.00502972 per 1,000 people

Well, we're getting closer, because that's a factor of 5:1, rather than the factor of 1000:1 that you first posted. Just a slight error on your part. (Hell, there's probably a 5:1 difference between D.C. and Nebraska, so I'm not even sure what your point is anymore.)

But you still get a big fail, because you didn't cite any source for your sweet contradictory statistic. Let me guess...Wiki again, lounge? :hee:

[LoungeMachine]

:lmao:

pot? meet kettle.

:gulp:

I can be just as lazy as you if I choose. I'm not going out of my way for you, Yakima. King of the 3 word review.

[Blackflag]

Do you see me quoting statistics, genius? Saying "look it up" and just plain making it up are two different things.

Tell us where your '30 deaths in Canada' statistic came from. Right out of your ass.


I know you'd like to compare yourself to me. I understand that. But you really can't. Sorry.

[LoungeMachine]

Well, we're getting closer, because that's a factor of 5:1, :

50 :1

:gulp:

[Blackflag]

And, by your silence, I'm going to assume Wiki. :biggrin:

[Blackflag]

50 :1

:gulp:

.027 / .005 = 5

http://www.rotharmy.com/forums/customavatars/avatar19824_10.gif

[LoungeMachine]

And, by your silence, I'm going to assume Wiki. :biggrin:

assume whatever you want, Yakima :D

Google Gun Homicides Canada

:gulp:

[LoungeMachine]

.027 / .005 = 5

http://www.rotharmy.com/forums/customavatars/avatar19824_10.gif

You're right, read that wrong.

:gulp:

[Blackflag]

Actually, I did. I found 4:1.

Bow down before your Wiki gods, dumbass.

[Blackflag]

I don't know what the fuck to say here other than, "I pity the foo'."

I got shit to do.

[LoungeMachine]

:lmao:

Gee, must be because Canada has 1/10th the poluation, eh?

[LoungeMachine]

I don't know what the fuck to say here other than, "I pity the foo'."

I got shit to do.

In Yakima?

unlikely, but go pretend....

:gulp:

[chefcraig]

What I'm going to relate here needs no stats to back it up, as the research is based purely upon my own personal experience. In 1992, I was beaten and robbed at gunpoint by a trio of hoods. The weapon these creeps used was roughly the size of Dirty Harry's 44 Magnum, and was purchased the night before the planned robbery at a park in South Miami. The cost of this weapon (including ammunition) was a nifty $19. One week previously, these same bastards made a similar purchase, using a weapon to murder an off duty policeman who was trying to earn some extra cash for his family by guarding a bank overnight in North Miami. I'm alive only because these guys chose to drive the van they'd thrown me into the wrong way down a one way street, right in front of two City of Miami policemen who promptly gave chase.

The long and short of it is, no amount of gun control legislation is going to get the guns already out there off of the street. Gun manufactures could all go out of business tomorrow, and there would still be plenty of weapons to go around, be they legally registered or not. People that say that guns aren't the issue, it's the people using them are only half correct. With so many guns already in existence, the law of probability allows for bad things to happen. So getting rid of the guns is the only solution. The problem is that at this point, it's a damned near impossible task to fulfill, and is hopelessly unrealistic as well.

[Nickdfresh]

Having anything makes you a target for burglars, DFB...

Um, really GESC? No shit! You mean burglars (besides you, whom targets turds :) )target everybody and everything? They don't have specific hot-button items and prefer to ransack people with money? Guns are one of they most sought after booty aside from the obvious. Many find their way to criminals and to Mexican drug gangs, whom directly threaten U.S. national security.

[Nickdfresh]

Why should guns be registered anyway ??

I dunno. Maybe because they are a potentially hazardous item that can easily fucking kill people?

Just a theory though. I mean, we register motor vehicles, nurses, mechanics, hazardous materials, etc. So, it might just be appropriate to register items that can be used to go into a school and waste half of the eleventh grade...

[Nickdfresh]

Pretty sure it's just for the revenue.


Oh please, not even you're this stupid. Registrations are suspended all the time for law or safety violations...



Not unless I commit a crime with it. So it's crime that puts your family in danger. Go figure.

Do you think your family will be any safer if we register everything I could commit a crime with? It's already illegal to commit crimes.

More libertard horseshit...

I mean, why can't anyone just teach your children? I mean, even if they're a convicted child molester whose served his/her sentence, they haven't actually committed a crime until they molest your children...

[Nickdfresh]

Gun registration has historically been used for confiscation, and it does nothing to prevent illegal uses.

I'm pretty sure no legally registered guns have ever been confiscated within the United States. And the control and accountability of firearms does indeed inhibit access by criminals...

Incidentally, I actually believe this old guy SHOULD BE ABLE TO OWN a pistol, and that there should be exceptions to city gun bans for those who feel threatened and have been the victims of criminals.

But let's not pretend that guns are no different than a Dewalt drill or an air compressor. That just insults everyone's intelligence. We restrict drivers and motor vehicles, I can't see why any sane person would think of firearms as any different...

[Nickdfresh]

MA has all these laws and many more. And since the laws have been in effect, gun crime has skyrocketed. The storage laws are strict to the point someone could kick my door in and stab/shoot me before I could even get to a gun (not that I could legally shoot them in my house anyway=Felony) Two sides to that issue also.

What point is it for MA or NY to restrict firearms when drug dealers can pay some college drop out asshole with no criminal record to walk into a gun store in VA and buy out the stock of assault weapons so Jamal can have his AK-47?

Again, comparing laws in states with more restrictions is silly when you have reckless states that allow universal ease of access to firearms and the free-for-alls known as gun shows...

[jhale667]

But let's not pretend that guns are no different than a Dewalt drill or an air compressor. That just insults everyone's intelligence. We restrict drivers and motor vehicles, I can't see why any sane person would think of firearms as any different...

Yeah, you can't really compare an air compressor to a multi-ton vehicle capable of taking out a family of four or guns that fire flesh-penetrating projectiles...

[Blackflag]

But let's not pretend that guns are no different than a Dewalt drill or an air compressor. That just insults everyone's intelligence. We restrict drivers and motor vehicles, I can't see why any sane person would think of firearms as any different...

What shitty arguments. First, can you name a single state that doesn't restrict guns more than it does motor vehicles? Say, one state that allows a felon or insane person to purchase a gun? You can't -- so what is the point of your comparison?

But even if your comparison had any merit, there is a reason firearms are different: you don't have a significant Constitutional right to own an air compressor (?) or a car. That's why you "would think of firearms as any different," as you so eloquently phrased it. It's a Constitutional right that implicates personal protection.

Hale, stop being Nick's dickrest and use your brain.

[Blackflag]

I'm pretty sure no legally registered guns have ever been confiscated within the United States.

Ever? Your arguments are just wall-to-wall shit. Off the top of my head, if you're accused of domestic violence, states with registration will check if you have any guns and take them away. Just one example.

[jhale667]

Hale, stop being Nick's dickrest and use your brain.


Oh, I'm "emulating" Nick now? I wish dumbasses like you and Brie would settle on who it is I'm supposedly borrowing from, how am I supposed to keep it straight if you can't? :hee:
Constitutional right aside, you can't compare guns to cars and air compressors, as neither of the latter items are specifically designed to kill people...

And there is the argument to be made that the founding fathers couldn't have anticipated Uzis....

[Blackflag]

Constitutional right aside, you can't compare guns to cars

Then why are you agreeing with somebody who's comparing the registration of guns to the registration of cars, dumbass?

He's also the one who brought up air compressors, which as you pointed out, has fuck all to do with guns.

[LoungeMachine]

Why anyone is arguing with someone too stupid to move out of Yakima is beyond me....

:gulp:

I'm starting to see why he "lives" there. Trailer rent is cheap.

and pickin' season is coming up.......

G'night Jimbob

[Igosplut]

I'm pretty sure no legally registered guns have ever been confiscated within the United States. And the control and accountability of firearms does indeed inhibit access by criminals...

That's because there never HAS been gun registration in the US. Other than fully auto guns that have already been mentioned. And those Are more heavily regulated than any other.



But let's not pretend that guns are no different than a Dewalt drill or an air compressor. That just insults everyone's intelligence. We restrict drivers and motor vehicles, I can't see why any sane person would think of firearms as any different...

The simple truth of that is that gun rights are written into the constitution, while obviously motor vehicles are not. Most all states treat (or regulate) Motor vehicle licensing as a "privilege while it's universally accepted that it is a "right" to bear arms..

[Seshmeister]

But the second ammendment was written hundreds of years ago when as an American you were also allowed to keep slaves and rape their children.

I don't get this quasi religious worship of the text.


Robertson v. Baldwin

In Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275 (1897), the Court stated that laws regulating concealed arms did not infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms, and thus were not a violation of the Second Amendment. Specifically, the Supreme Court stated:

“The law is perfectly well settled that the first ten amendments to the Constitution, commonly known as the "Bill of Rights," were not intended to lay down any novel principles of government, but simply to embody certain guaranties and immunities which we had inherited from our English ancestors, and which had, from time immemorial, been subject to certain well recognized exceptions arising from the necessities of the case. In incorporating these principles into the fundamental law, there was no intention of disregarding the exceptions, which continued to be recognized as if they had been formally expressed. Thus, the freedom of speech and of the press (Art. I) does not permit the publication of libels, blasphemous or indecent articles, or other publications injurious to public morals or private reputation; the right of the people to keep and bear arms (Art. II) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;..."

Since your Constitution England on whose common law it was based have enacted much stricter guns laws basically restricting people to hunting rifles/shotguns only subject to a quite difficult to get license.

You could argue that such a strict law could also be enacted by States in the US without being in contradiction of of the Second Amendment following the decision of the court in the case above.

The whole point of a handgun is that it is convenient and easy to conceal. A proper 'militia' would surely be armed with (hunting)rifles.

[Igosplut]

What point is it for MA or NY to restrict firearms when drug dealers can pay some college drop out asshole with no criminal record to walk into a gun store in VA and buy out the stock of assault weapons so Jamal can have his AK-47?

Again, comparing laws in states with more restrictions is silly when you have reckless states that allow universal ease of access to firearms and the free-for-alls known as gun shows...

I get your point, but it is a valid comparison for the fact it shows that draconian laws have the opposite affect. We (the states with the strictest laws) suffer a huge rise in gun-related crime just from the fact "now there's nothing to fear". A good example is Florida a few years back. There was a rash of violent gun related robbery's of tourists driving rent-a-cars from airports. Florida has just enacted a "right to defend/carry" which many southern states have (which means in the face of a life threatening crime, you have the legal right to use deadly force to defend yourself.) This is a specific law that many states won't pass (in fact if I shoot someone in my house in MA. threatening my life, I not only do not have that right, Now I've committed a felony worst than the guy who broke in and threatened me). When they finally got the guys, they asked why they targeted that group of people. The answer was "Simple, we knew they were from out of state and wouldn't be armed"...

[Igosplut]

But the second ammendment was written hundreds of years ago when as an American you were also allowed to keep slaves and rape their children.

I don't get this quasi religious worship of the text.



Since your Constitution England on whose common law it was based have enacted much stricter guns laws basically restricting people to hunting rifles/shotguns only subject to a quite difficult to get license.

You could argue that such a strict law could also be enacted by States in the US without being in contradiction of of the Second Amendment following the decision of the court in the case above.

The whole point of a handgun is that it is convenient and easy to conceal. A proper 'militia' would surely be armed with (hunting)rifles.

And it also has been argued that the right was to be protected from governments and "threats to the people". I can get the texts but it's rather long.

[Igosplut]

Constitutional right aside, you can't compare guns to cars and air compressors, as neither of the latter items are specifically designed to kill people...



At the end of the day every guy has the capability to kill. There are many that follow the line of logic that you should ban handguns because they are the problem. Then it will be semi-auto rifles. Now, if you've gone that far, Shotguns are as bad because you can load them with buckshot (which is roughly 30 pieces of 30 cal size projectiles) and come in semi-auto, so that's like a semi auto rifle. Next there are 22s that have twenty round tubes ( and clip capability's) so those are bad. Then on to whatever.

[Igosplut]

And there is the argument to be made that the founding fathers couldn't have anticipated Uzis....

You could make the comparison that the 1st amendment didn't anticipate the internet or texting..

[Seshmeister]

And it also has been argued that the right was to be protected from governments and "threats to the people". I can get the texts but it's rather long.

Of course they make that argument but it beats me what a little group of weekend pretend solider survivalists could do against the million strong US military with it's thousands of aircraft, tanks , drones and so on.

It's a ludicrous implausible argument which plainly no longer applies if it ever did.

If they think having a semi auto rather than a hunting rifle is going to make a big differnce when a smart bomb arrives at their door good luck to them.

[Nickdfresh]

What shitty arguments.

I'm sure you can do better...


First, can you name a single state that doesn't restrict guns more than it does motor vehicles? Say, one state that allows a felon or insane person to purchase a gun? You can't -- so what is the point of your comparison?

Every state that doesn't force gun owners to register their weapons, dumbass!!

One has to register and title a car in every state, whereas gun owners don't and can "wash" their guns through sales at shows. Cars must also be insured, pass mechanical & emissions inspection, and their owners must show a basic competency when they get their liscense. Name me the states that do anything approaching that in regards to guns, and maybe I won't own you so hard next time..

I'll admit that Mr. Pibb is the shit, but does it make one delusional? Is it a hallucinogen?


But even if your comparison had any merit, there is a reason firearms are different: you don't have a significant Constitutional right to own an air compressor (?) or a car. That's why you "would think of firearms as any different," as you so eloquently phrased it. It's a Constitutional right that implicates personal protection.

The "Constitutional right" has to do with a regulation and restriction of a (peoples') militia, not firearms directly...


Hale, stop being Nick's dickrest and use your brain.

Moi? Go fuck yourself. First, you ask me to name who regulates their cars more than firearms, then you make the case that they cannot regulate firearms so it doesn't matter? Right, idiot. Another contradick-tion. The Constitution can be read to implicitly state that the gov't SHOULD REGULATE firearms...

[Nickdfresh]

Ever? Your arguments are just wall-to-wall shit. Off the top of my head, if you're accused of domestic violence, states with registration will check if you have any guns and take them away. Just one example.

So, maybe you should beat your wife in a state that doesn't register them?

[Seshmeister]

At the end of the day every guy has the capability to kill.

The thing is most murders are not premeditated, whatever is to hand is used. Britain is a violent place too but when the drunken fights in bars or domestics start people end up getting knocked about or even slashed or stabbed but usually survive.

A gun is a machine designed to kill humans so if one is around it kind of makes sense that humans will be killed. The US murder stats completely back me up.

[Nickdfresh]

That's because there never HAS been gun registration in the US. Other than fully auto guns that have already been mentioned. And those Are more heavily regulated than any other.


You don't have to get a permit for, and register, your handguns?


The simple truth of that is that gun rights are written into the constitution, while obviously motor vehicles are not. Most all states treat (or regulate) Motor vehicle licensing as a "privilege while it's universally accepted that it is a "right" to bear arms..

There is no precedent of anything not being expressly permitted in the Constitution being banned. There are even restrictions on speech in regards to "crying fire in a crowded theater," or selling classified state secrets to the Russians. We have copyright infringements, liable awards and suits, and of course you can't tell your boss to go "fuck himself" and expect to keep your job. So, in reality there are restrictions on the First Amendment.

And whose in the "militia?" I am! I am! :)

[Igosplut]

You don't have to get a permit for, and register, your handguns?

Permitting? Oh yea (and everything that has to do with it goes to the "criminal history board" and the FBI ,palm prints, ect)

Registration? no All gun transactions have to by law be destroyed after 6 months (although if you believe that, I have a bridge for you to buy).




There is no precedent of anything not being expressly permitted in the Constitution being banned. There are even restrictions on speech in regards to "crying fire in a crowded theater," or selling classified state secrets to the Russians. We have copyright infringements, liable awards and suits, and of course you can't tell your boss to go "fuck himself" and expect to keep your job. So, in reality there are restrictions on the First Amendment.

And whose in the "militia?" I am! I am! :)

But again, if you define the constitution to that degree, then the internet could be considered to not be 'free speech" because it's not (obviously) mentioned.

[Seshmeister]

This is very much an academic argument anyhoo as nothing is going to change any time soon especially at a federal level.

To me there isn't much point in bringing in stricter gun control in say Maryland to try and reduce Baltimore murders if you can pop over to VA and buy a 50 cal machine gun at a gun fair.

[ELVIS]

With so many guns already in existence, the law of probability allows for bad things to happen.

That's not how the law of probability works...

[chefcraig]

That's not how the law of probability works...

How do you figure that? If you have a large amount of weapons floating around in an illegal market, and an equal or less amount of people subscribing to that illegal market, how can the result be anything other than probable?

[Igosplut]

This is very much an academic argument anyhoo as nothing is going to change any time soon especially at a federal level.

It's more than that, but I know what you mean.


To me there isn't much point in bringing in stricter gun control in say Maryland to try and reduce Baltimore murders if you can pop over to VA and buy a 50 cal machine gun at a gun fair.

Actually it come down to plea bargaining more than anything else. Most gun related charges are plea-bargained out before they get to being prosecuted on the laws with real consequences. You can have minimum-mandatory laws, but that doesn't prevent the attorneys (both sides) from hammering out a plea to "Save the taxpayers the cost of a trial".

MA. has a 1 year mandatory sentence for being caught with a handgun without being properly licensed. The law was passed in 1976 and as of last year NOBODY had ever been sentenced under that law. ALL were pleaed out.

But yet they continue to heap more laws saying that last didn't go far enough....

[Igosplut]

How do you figure that? If you have a large amount of weapons floating around in an illegal market, and an equal or less amount of people subscribing to that illegal market, how can the result be anything other than probable?

See my post above.

[ELVIS]

Just a theory though. I mean, we register motor vehicles, nurses, mechanics, hazardous materials, etc. So, it might just be appropriate to register items that can be used to go into a school and waste half of the eleventh grade...

Vehicle registration is for government regulation, punishment and taxation of vehicle owners...

Gun registration is similar and Obama has even proposed a firearm tax...

The federal government does not register nurses, mechanics, hazardous materials or even sexual predators, as you should already know...


:elvis:

[jhale667]

You could make the comparison that the 1st amendment didn't anticipate the internet or texting..

Not really. I can't (literally) kill people via internet or text at 90 rounds a minute.

[ELVIS]

So, in reality there are restrictions on the First Amendment.



No there is not. There are consequences for one's actions which may include spoken words...

[Igosplut]

Not really. I can't (literally) kill people via internet or text at 90 rounds a minute.

I was talking about the interpretation of the Amendments as they are written, not the physical aspect of it.

[ELVIS]

I'm pretty sure no legally registered guns have ever been confiscated within the United States.

Ummm...

Hurricane Katrina comes to mind...

[chefcraig]

See my post above.

To an extent, but my point is more toward the abundance of guns themselves. Granted, if you arrest one guy for possession of one gun, well great, that gets the single gun off the street. But what about the others the illegal seller (not the purchaser) has in his car trunk, or the hundreds he has at his warehouse? Multiply that one dealer by any number, and you see where the problem lies in any city of the nation.

Like I said earlier, I'm unsure of what approach would remedy the situation. Years ago, municipalities were making deals where a person could trade in a weapon for a pair of sneakers on a day of brief amnesty. The law enforcement community made a big show in these townships of the guns that were retrieved, yet failed to make note of how many more weapons were truly out there, perhaps in the possession of the same people that decided to trade one of their less favored guns for a pair of shiny new Nikes.

Like all things, legislation is not the be all and end all of solving a given situation. The effective implementation and follow through of the law is what will make a difference. And just how to implement such measures is the big question here.

[Igosplut]

Ummm...

Hurricane Katrina comes to mind...

They have recently struck down laws aimed at "Disarming the public during times of martial law"

Another example of how gun registration would work in reverse. The people being disarmed would only be the legal owners that obeyed the law and exactly the one's that would be put at most risk.

[ELVIS]

I'm unsure of what approach would remedy the situation.

Nothing. If anything, it would create a much larger problem. Look up prohibition...

[chefcraig]

Nothing. If anything, it would create a much larger problem. Look up prohibition...

You are equating people wanting to drink alcohol with wanting to shoot people? I guess I can see your point, as both serve to help cope with keeping the idiots away...

[ELVIS]

I'm saying you will create a much larger black market than what already exists, and with that more organized crime will blossom...

[chefcraig]

I'm saying you will create a much larger black market than what already exists, and with that more organized crime will blossom...

I know what you were saying, and I agree with you. I was just trying to add some levity to what is ultimately a hopeless, no-win situation.

[ELVIS]

The answer lies in rebuilding our society with a strong nuclear family unit as the core...

[Seshmeister]

So now you want to give people the right to arm themselves with nukes?

[ELVIS]

Sure, why not...

[chefcraig]

The answer lies in rebuilding our society with a strong nuclear family unit as the core...

I don't see that happening, man. Our society has become too fragmented, our attention span too narrow. Today families do not even get the chance to develop, as all you need to do to see this is acknowledge the amount of unwed or single mothers trying to raise kids today. Divorce isn't even in the cards, when many times the "father" of these children is long gone before they are even born. And what of women that choose not to be married? Isn't it their right to do so? What of same sex unions? Does this somehow fail as a recognizable nuclear family, and if so, who is making that assessment in the first place?

Sure, it would be great to revisit the days of Ozzy and Harriet or Leave It To Beaver. But this thinking also ignores the idea that not everyone was doing just wonderful in the fifties/early sixties, particularly minorities and women. Besides that, do you really think that the Andy Griffith show served as a model for a nuclear family? As I recall, Andy was a single dad, yet Ron Howard seems to have grown up fairly well. ;)

[Igosplut]

To an extent, but my point is more toward the abundance of guns themselves. Granted, if you arrest one guy for possession of one gun, well great, that gets the single gun off the street. But what about the others the illegal seller (not the purchaser) has in his car trunk, or the hundreds he has at his warehouse? Multiply that one dealer by any number, and you see where the problem lies in any city of the nation.

Again, if guys are selling out of their trunk they are violation of their FFLs (federal firearms license) and are basically criminals themselves (FFL regulations are strict no matter what is said, and that's what you need to sell firearms legally in any state).


Like I said earlier, I have no answers for the situation. Years ago, municipalities were making deals where a person could trade in a weapon for a pair of sneakers on a day of brief amnesty. The law enforcement community made a big show in these townships of the guns that were retrieved, yet failed to make note of how many more weapons were truly out there, perhaps in the possession of the same people that decided to trade one of their less favored guns for a pair of shiny new Nikes.

Good idea, but one that is only good for political publicity. Most of what's turned in are family heirlooms. Very few illegal guns are ever recovered this way.


Like all things, legislation is not the be all and end all of solving a given situation. The effective implementation and follow through of the law is what will make a difference. And just how to implement such measures is the big question here.

Exactly right...

[sadaist]

Sure, it would be great to revisit the days of Ozzy and Harriet or Leave It To Beaver. But this thinking also ignores the idea that not everyone was doing just wonderful in the fifties/early sixties, particularly minorities and women. Besides that, do you really think that the Andy Griffith show served as a model for a nuclear family? As I recall, Andy was a single dad, yet Ron Howard seems to have grown up fairly well. ;)


Okay, switch Ozzy & Harriet to The Cosby's and you can remove the minority argument and switch the decade to the 80's. And little Opies mom died, Andy wasn't "single". Aunt Bea filled the role of the mother influence on him.

FYI - Andy carried a loaded gun. :)

[chefcraig]

And little Opies mom died, Andy wasn't "single". Aunt Bea filled the role of the mother influence on him.

FYI - Andy carried a loaded gun. :)

If Andy filled out a U.S. census, he would be listed as a single father. Barney carried a weapon as well. Thankfully, he only had one bullet. :)

[Igosplut]

Okay, switch Ozzy & Harriet to The Cosby's and you can remove the minority argument and switch the decade to the 80's. And little Opies mom died, Andy wasn't "single". Aunt Bea filled the role of the mother influence on him.

FYI - Andy carried a loaded gun. :)

Nope, remember Andy was "The Sheriff without a gun"????

And Barney kept his one bullet in his shirt pocket..

Guess that should have been it the entertained by dead guys thread..

[ELVIS]

I don't see that happening, man. Our society has become too fragmented, our attention span too narrow. Today families do not even get the chance to develop, as all you need to do to see this is acknowledge the amount of unwed or single mothers trying to raise kids today. Divorce isn't even in the cards, when many times the "father" of these children is long gone before they are even born. And what of women that choose not to be married? Isn't it their right to do so? What of same sex unions? Does this somehow fail as a recognizable nuclear family, and if so, who is making that assessment in the first place?



So, what would you say is the cause of the disintegration if the family and society as a whole ??

What would you list as the effects ??

Click! (http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=disintegration+of+family&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8)

Click! (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&q=neo-liberal+globalism&aq=f&aqi=g-s1g-sx1g1g-s1g-msx4&aql=&oq=)


:elvis:

[LoungeMachine]

So, what would you say is the cause of the disintegration if the family and society as a whole ??

What would you list as the effects ??

[

:elvis:


Not enough guns?

[chefcraig]

So, what would you say is the cause of the disintegration if the family and society as a whole ??

What would you list as the effects ??

Click! (http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=disintegration+of+family&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8)

Click! (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&q=neo-liberal+globalism&aq=f&aqi=g-s1g-sx1g1g-s1g-msx4&aql=&oq=)


:elvis:

The cause is not what is at issue, it is the effect. There are so many things to be factored into the decay of the nuclear family that to merely list them and attempt to make sense of them is about as helpful as giving a patient some chicken soup for a gunshot wound. Recognizing a problem is a step in the right direction, but at this point it is no more practical (or applicable) as wishing to make things so. Granted there is much to be said about groups of people pulling together in one concentrated entity to evoke change, be it Lynne McTaggart's endeavors in the area of human consciousness (The Intention Experiment) or the age old concepts of prayer. But until such energies are harnessed and used to a means that is beneficial to all on the planet, there is still an inherent risk of manipulation or exploitation of these very benign principles.

So in the meantime, society is stuck in a moral quagmire, waiting for the arrival of a change that is still so far away as to not even be a blip on the horizon. Maybe that's a fatalistic way of looking at things, but it is also grounded in reality. Sadly, faith is only going to get you so far.

[ELVIS]

The cause is very important as there is a much larger picture to look at...

[Nitro Express]

We will continue to blab about guns until they become obsolete. When that happens they can come take my guns, because I will have a condensed microwave beam weapon. Then we can blab about those.

[Nitro Express]

Sam Colt basically made all the idiots equal. Before that the skill level of killing was higher. Ammo is cheaper than training rifle men so now we have assault weapons, also they are good for ammo sales because they waste it. Idiots plus bullets is modern killing. But don't let that alarm you, killing a person is easy. We are amazingly fragile so it's still skills and knowledge. The average person has stuff in their home that could cause a lot of destruction and mayhem. Will and creativity still rule.

[Nitro Express]

Drain cleaner, steel wool, bleach, ammonia, propane, gasoline, rat poison, kitchen knives, lawnmowers, chainsaws, rakes, battery chargers. Oh all the stuff a sick mind can play with.

[Seshmeister]

So, what would you say is the cause of the disintegration if the family and society as a whole ??

What would you list as the effects ??

Click! (http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=disintegration+of+family&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8)

Click! (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&q=neo-liberal+globalism&aq=f&aqi=g-s1g-sx1g1g-s1g-msx4&aql=&oq=)


:elvis:

Sorry I was aiming for the quote button and hit the jackasser! :)

I don't really buy the idyllic world of the 40s, 50s and 60s thing. I think it was all a bit miserable and repressed. People left their doors open because they didn't have much to steal.

I also wonder that maybe because the young in those days got to shoot Japanese, Germans, Italians, Koreans, Chinese and Vietmanese it got it out their system.

[Seshmeister]

Drain cleaner, steel wool, bleach, ammonia, propane, gasoline, rat poison, kitchen knives, lawnmowers, chainsaws, rakes, battery chargers. Oh all the stuff a sick mind can play with.

Over 100 000 Americans were shot last year. How many were run over by lawnmowers?

[chefcraig]

We will continue to blab about guns until they become obsolete. When that happens they can come take my guns, because I will have a condensed microwave beam weapon. Then we can blab about those.

I still agree with Dennis Miller (back when he was funny) that the phasers on Star Trek should have had some more cerebral settings. Other than stun or kill, you could blast somebody with "overwhelming melancholy". Rather than hurting people, you could merely depress the living shit out of them.


"Jim, what are we doing with our lives, here? I gotta get off of this ship."

http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/281/bkirkphaser.jpg (http://img72.imageshack.us/i/bkirkphaser.jpg/)

[LoungeMachine]

How many were run over by lawnmowers?

Too few.....

Especially my neighbor who likes to mow his at 8am on Sundays,,,,,

Take away lawnmowers, and only criminals will mow their lawns....

:gulp:

[LoungeMachine]

Drain cleaner, steel wool, bleach, ammonia, propane, gasoline, rat poison, kitchen knives, lawnmowers, chainsaws, rakes, battery chargers. Oh all the stuff a sick mind can play with.

Hear of alot of convenience stores knocked over with Drain-o?

There's a great old line from Jake Johannsen about how guns dont kill people, bullets kill people....it's just guns make the bullets go real fast.

Give me all your money or I'm going to throw this bullet at you

[kwame k]

Part of me asks the question are we a society being ruled by fear?

How can other countries have guns but not have an equal proportion of gun related deaths/injuries per capita.

They have used so many excuses like violence on TV or in the movies. Glorifying the gang mentality through music. Even in the 80's Judas Priest and AC/DC were sued because people actually thought their music caused people to go out and kill.

Is it the fact that daily we are inundated with doom and gloom news 24 hrs a day, 7 days a week? Have we bought into that to the point where we are so paranoid and desensitized to death and violence that we judge human life so cheaply?

I grew up in a small town, till my late teens, and there was never a killing or even an injury due to guns. Yet, every single person had guns and I mean guns plural. Everyone hunted and carried guns in their vehicles. I know per capita we didn't have the number of people for an average of say 1 out of every 10,000 people are effected by gun violence. There wasn't 10,00 people in our town but take my town and add all the other small towns together and you could come up with a population close to a small to mid-size city. Yet that violence was never seen.

It wasn't till I moved to Metro-Detroit that I seen real violence and shootings. Hell, it wasn't a Saturday night if someone didn't get stabbed or shot. We had a few bar owners tell us not to stop playing if a shooting or a fight occurred because it would draw attention to it and it was better to let the bouncers handled it and to act as if nothing was going on. Why such a drastic difference between rural areas and metropolitan areas.

Even now, I'm only 15 miles away from Colorado Springs and here in Manitou people actually walk down the streets with guns, yet I haven't heard of one shooting or injury. In Colorado Springs they are reported daily. It can't be about sheer numbers because we get hundreds of thousands of people a year visiting.

We had one the worst school shootings ever in Columbine, so that throws my small town theory out the window but I still have the question why can one town have little to no violent crime and the next town over be a war zone.

I firmly believe that even if you could wave a magic wand and take all the guns away in America we'd just see a rise in stabbings and beatings. Is it poverty that breeds this violence? Having no hope of any type of future except crime and an early death because that's the culture you grew up in. Burying 5 of your friends before you're even 16 years old, so life to you is meaningless because you'll either end up in prison or dead before you reach 20.

Why the disparity?

[Blackflag]

How can other countries have guns but not have an equal proportion of gun related deaths/injuries per capita.

Good point. That's the point I was driving at earlier. People compare two disparate places - one with guns and one without - and show that one has four times as many gun deaths.

But you can also look at two places in the U.S. - say D.C. and Nebraska - and see a difference in the per capita number of gun deaths.

Or you can also look at two countries that both allow guns, and see a difference in the number of per capita gun deaths.

Some places just raise their kids such that they're ok with killing. That's the root cause. The people who want to ignore that root cause are the same people who don't like to deal with personal responsibility.

[Seshmeister]

I firmly believe that even if you could wave a magic wand and take all the guns away in America we'd just see a rise in stabbings and beatings. Is it poverty that breeds this violence? Having no hope of any type of future except crime and an early death because that's the culture you grew up in. Burying 5 of your friends before you're even 16 years old, so life to you is meaningless because you'll either end up in prison or dead before you reach 20.

Why the disparity?

It's not poverty that causes violence it's the difference in wealth. Countries like the US or UK where you huge disparities between the rich and power are the ones with the most crime.

Polarised societies are the problem.

[kwame k]

That's the point I was driving at earlier. People compare two disparate places - one with guns and one without - and show that one has four times as many gun deaths.

But you can look at two places in the U.S. - say D.C. and Nebraska - and see a difference in the per capita number of gun deaths.

Or you can look at two countries that both allow guns, and see a difference in the number of per capita gun deaths.

Some places just raise their kids such that they're ok with killing. That's the root cause. The people who want to ignore that root cause are the same people who don't like to deal with personal responsibility.

But that argument flies out the window when you look at some of the smaller towns like Columbine......

Sure, you can say that there are more deaths per capita in Rwanda or Darfur but it doesn't get you any closer to why we as a non-occupied, no wars in our country.... our population has more violent crimes.

Yes, LA and neighborhoods where there is abject poverty have huge crime rates. Detroit is usually number one and it's population has declined by at least 500,000 over the last 30 years, so purely population isn't the cause.

You can say that I was raised right and that would be true. You can say that growing up in a small town, raised with small town values had a huge impact on why there was no violent crime. Yet violence in small towns continues to rise.

I do think if we addressed the huge problems in the inner cities and gave kids and parents a better education or a shot at the American Dream we'd have fewer violent crimes. Like Zappa said about drug abuse, if you give people a better reality they wouldn't want to escape it.

I'm not sure what the answer is......if regulating and restricting guns to people who have an actual need for them was the answer, I'm all for it. Yet, in this country I don't see that as the answer because we as a nation will find illegal means to get what we want. We always have.

Really, I have no problem if they made it more expensive and had you go through more hoops to get your hunting license and to purchase guns but I still don't think that will solve anything.

[kwame k]

It's not poverty that causes violence it's the difference in wealth. Countries like the US or UK where you huge disparities between the rich and power are the ones with the most crime.

Polarised societies are the problem.

Possibly and as I just posted. If you give people a shot at the American Dream and a better education, violent crimes may drop.

[LoungeMachine]

BF's theory also doesnt account for all of the accidental gun death [many involving children]

I'm not against responsible gun ownership, and for the life of me I can't fathom why gun "enthusiests" are fo afraid of some regulations preventing unsafe storage, limiting WHO [the mentally unstable, violent ex felons, etc] is allowed to own them ,etc....

The Gun Lobby has fought HARD against the most basic safeguards, with the weakest arguments.

The 2nd Amendment only being most obvious.

We're a violent society who loves wars, death penalties, and weapons, and it is run by lobbyists hell bent on selling FEAR to John Q. Public

:gulp:

Get a gun before an illegal immigrant breaks into your house, and hang onto that gun tight or else the Government will take it away....

[kwame k]

BF's theory also doesnt account for all of the accidental gun death [many involving children]

I'm not against responsible gun ownership, and for the life of me I can't fathom why gun "enthusiests" are fo afraid of some regulations preventing unsafe storage, limiting WHO [the mentally unstable, violent ex felons, etc] is allowed to own them ,etc....

The Gun Lobby has fought HARD against the most basic safeguards, with the weakest arguments.

The 2nd Amendment only being most obvious.

We're a violent society who loves wars, death penalties, and weapons, and it is run by lobbyists hell bent on selling FEAR to John Q. Public

:gulp:

Get a gun before an illegal immigrant breaks into your house, and hang onto that gun tight or else the Government will take it away....

Anyone who inadvertently let's a child get their hands on a gun should be tried for murder, attempted murder or reckless endangerment, whatever the case may be and mandatory imprisonment, period.

There's no excuse for it but having said that......we were taught gun safety at an early age 6 or 7 maybe. We had no illusions about what a gun could do. We knew that a gun could kill and what that meant at a very young age. There was no....we saw Bugs Bunny do it among the kids I grew up with.

My parents owned a store at a time when the meat and seasonal produce was still grown locally. I knew what shooting a gun at an animal would do to it because I'd see stacks of dead deer in the back room of our store waiting to be processed. Shit, I start processing deer so young I can't remember never not doing it or when I was actually taught to do it. Had to be around 6 or 7.

My friend's parents were the ones growing the produce or livestock, so we all knew what killing was and it wasn't a big deal. Real guns weren't toys and no one I was around ever even treated an unloaded gun carelessly. If you were around an adult or my friends and being careless with a gun, you'd get your ass kicked because you were not only endangering your life but quite possibly ours.

As far as this culture of fear that has been shoved down our throats....they scare you into buying a gun and then scare you into believing they'll take the gun that they told you you needed in the first place. I agree, it makes no sense :pullinghair:

I also agree that having a background check and a waiting period is the responsible thing to do and not everyone has the right to own a gun, period.

These fucking loopholes at trade shows have got to stop....if these criminals are bribing people without a record to buy them guns, then the punishment has to be in accordance with the crime committed by that gun. Sure, they can say the gun was stolen but they damn well better have the proof before the fact and if they haven't reported it stolen, they should be charged as an accessory. If it was stolen and it wasn't properly secured or stored they should be charge with neglect.

[Blackflag]

BF's theory

Now you want to make a serious argument? Fuck off and learn to spell enthusiast. :hee:

[Blackflag]

I also agree that having a background check and a waiting period is the responsible thing to do and not everyone has the right to own a gun, period.


Every state requires a background check. Every state denies ownership to certain people. Let's keep it real.

[kwame k]

Every state requires a background check. Every state denies ownership to certain people. Let's keep it real.

That's what I said.......

[Nickdfresh]

Vehicle registration is for government regulation, punishment and taxation of vehicle owners...

And for infrastructure upkeep and to fund the massively costly problems resulting from universal vehicle ownership...


Gun registration is similar and Obama has even proposed a firearm tax...

The federal government does not register nurses, mechanics, hazardous materials or even sexual predators, as you should already know...


:elvis:

The Federal gov't does register HAZMAT, and I never said they did register the above. A gov't does, however...

[sadaist]

:biggrin:

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/OuX-nFmL0II&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/OuX-nFmL0II&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

[Nickdfresh]

The cause is very important as there is a much larger picture to look at...

Or the disintegration is exaggerated, and it was never all that strong to begin with...

[Nickdfresh]

Ummm...

Hurricane Katrina comes to mind...

Specifically, how?

[Nickdfresh]

They have recently struck down laws aimed at "Disarming the public during times of martial law"

Another example of how gun registration would work in reverse. The people being disarmed would only be the legal owners that obeyed the law and exactly the one's that would be put at most risk.

Um, quite the opposite. In fact, law abiding people with firearms in crises such as Katrina are often de facto "deputized." The purest form of the Second Amendment actually...

[Nickdfresh]

....

FYI - Andy carried a loaded gun. :)

He was also a peace officer...

[Nitro Express]

Over 100 000 Americans were shot last year. How many were run over by lawnmowers?

Good. America is getting too crowded and I'm sure some bum sleeping in a park got driven over by the stoned Mexican driving the lawnmower.

[Nitro Express]

BF's theory also doesnt account for all of the accidental gun death [many involving children]

I'm not against responsible gun ownership, and for the life of me I can't fathom why gun "enthusiests" are fo afraid of some regulations preventing unsafe storage, limiting WHO [the mentally unstable, violent ex felons, etc] is allowed to own them ,etc....

The Gun Lobby has fought HARD against the most basic safeguards, with the weakest arguments.

The 2nd Amendment only being most obvious.

We're a violent society who loves wars, death penalties, and weapons, and it is run by lobbyists hell bent on selling FEAR to John Q. Public

:gulp:

Get a gun before an illegal immigrant breaks into your house, and hang onto that gun tight or else the Government will take it away....

It gives people something to do. Plus, paranoid born again Christians make awsome gun parts and accessories. It's actually one of the few things the US is still good at.

[Nickdfresh]

Good. America is getting too crowded and I'm sure some bum sleeping in a park got driven over by the stoned Mexican driving the lawnmower.

It's posts like this that make me think you're an agent provocateur shithead...

[Nitro Express]

Gun control means hitting the urnal and not pissing on the wall.

[Nitro Express]

I still agree with Dennis Miller (back when he was funny) that the phasers on Star Trek should have had some more cerebral settings. Other than stun or kill, you could blast somebody with "overwhelming melancholy". Rather than hurting people, you could merely depress the living shit out of them.


"Jim, what are we doing with our lives, here? I gotta get off of this ship."

http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/281/bkirkphaser.jpg (http://img72.imageshack.us/i/bkirkphaser.jpg/)

You could stun them and then force them to drink Drano.

[LoungeMachine]

Now you want to make a serious argument? Fuck off and learn to spell enthusiast. :hee:

Go fuck yourself, Yakima.

:gulp:

[Blackflag]

Sure, you can say that there are more deaths per capita in Rwanda or Darfur but it doesn't get you any closer to why we as a non-occupied, no wars in our country.... our population has more violent crimes.

But it's stupid to compare to a war zone. Compare to a civilized country that allows guns, and they have a lower murder rate, per capita. It's this society.