People shoot people not guns?

[Kendall69]

....it's only the fault of the radical who dropped the bomb.

Well, DUH!

 

[N80]

I get so mad when I read the anti gun peoples opinions in the local paper to create more gun laws. Some seem to think there are no gun laws the way they rant in the paper about it.

That is correct. The current US and state gun laws are already pretty robust. And as the son of a retired ATF agent, I can tell you that many of the laws are neglected and even when they aren't, very little is done even when convictions are made.

The solution is not to create more laws but to enforce the existing laws with harsher penalties.

Exactly. But that ties in perfectly with what I was saying above. Liberal judges (remember, all judges are lawyers) are equally caught up in the idea that people are not evil. They can demonize the guns, they can demonize the situation but they cannot accept that true evil exists within human beings. So the philosphy goes: this person that a jury has convicted of a gun crime is a victim of his situation and circumstance and has used a wicked tool that never should have been available to him in the first place. But he is not wicked and cannot possibly be held accountable for his actions (only society in general is guilty) so it makes no sense to punish him in such a way that renders him incapable of hurting someone else. That would be unfair. And believe me, this line of thinking permeates the legal system.

And it comes full circle folks. If people can't be evil then they can't be personally held accountable for their actions. And if the citizens cannot be held accountable by some higher notion of good and evil, then only the government can make us good. And they can only make us good if the pass enough laws. And to pass enough laws they must tread on freedom. And to tread on people's freedom you have to have power. And its easier to have power when those whose freedom you wish to restrict are unarmed.

I know I sound like a ranting lunatic, but I'm just trying to point out that all of these issues stem from people's world views (how they look at life, the world and what is valuable). None of these issues, from global warming to gun control are isolated issues. It is all tied together.

 

[thingy]

You people who worry about losing their guns,are the trip,,,you don't have to worry,,we got our guns,,they ain't going to take them away,,,relax,,,,our consitution makes this so,,,,unless there is a civil war,,we are safe,,,relax,,,calm down,,,,,get you all the things you want,,,but in 20 years you will still be able to get the same things,,,,thingy

 

[Kendall69]

...we got our guns,,they ain't going to take them away,,,relax,

Your right, they ain't going to take them away, they will just outlaw bullets, outlaw the right to shoot your gun, outlaw your gun in your house, car, or to carry it, outlaw you buying one, outlaw etc.etc.etc.
That's the problem, "they" want to get a toe hold into anything relating to not having guns.
They tried it by suing manufacturers is someone got killed by a gun.

Sorta like the guy this week that sued the cops for doing a pit maneuver to stop him during a pursuit, and made him a paraplegic - the courts threy him and his lawyer out on their tails.

 

[EddieWalker]

You people who worry about losing their guns,are the trip,,,you don't have to worry,,we got our guns,,they ain't going to take them away,,,relax,,,,our consitution makes this so,,,,unless there is a civil war,,we are safe,,,relax,,,calm down,,,,,get you all the things you want,,,but in 20 years you will still be able to get the same things,,,,thingy

I wish you were right, but they have other ways of doing this. In the East Bay of Californria, there are no more gun stores. Instead of trying to take away the guns, the closed down the gun stores. Siegels in Oakland used to but HUGE!!! It's gone. Traders in San Leandro was also HUGE. It's gone.

Each city passed massive gun taxes that put them out of business.

Never understimate what extremes a politician will go to in order to get there name out there and pass worthless, feel good laws.

Eddie

 

[Tom_H]

By your definition.. larg busses or airplanes that carry 30-300 people should be illegal because they can be used to kill more than 1-2 people.. right?

No, I did not say that and you are putting words into my mouth. No need to be defensive, I didn't say I am your opponent. I said I have mixed feelings. Just because someone doesn't hold another's strong views is not cause to rush to condemnation. I'm not here to have a war with anyone, but I am open to rational discussion in which the parties are not in full agreement.

Large planes obviously can be (and have been) used to kill many people. Nobody said anything about illegal, but it does seem prudent to put a reinforced lockable door between the cabin and cockpit. Your arguement that it goes to the person applies here, as we cannot know the full mindset of everyone who gets on a plane, regardless of no fly lists or not. Letting anybody and everybody who's simply not on the no-fly list have access to the cockpit is just too great of a risk.

I don't agree that the person is the only consideration. The arguement for concealed weapons with permits is not without merit. I don't agree with it fully, but I also don't oppose it strongly. I do, however, disagree that anybody who has no record should be allowed to buy and drive around in a loaded M1A1 (assuming he can afford it). I would apply the same arguement about the plane to the tank. The tank has the potential to do more harm than a gun, and the arguements on reasons for owning a gun are stronger than any reasons I've ever heard of for individuals owning tanks. Just like locking the cockpit door is prudent, allowing weapons of mass destruction to be available to everybody except those with a prior record is too big of a risk. There comes a point at which it is prudent to say, "too big." I think there is a point somewhere on the continuum beyond which ordinary citizens do not need to have access to weapons. I don't know where that line is, but I'm sure it's somewhere lower than the demarcation between fission and thermo-fusion nukes. My guess is that many would say it is somewhere between a semi-automatic rifle and the gattlin guns on one of those C-130 gunships.

There is a lot to be said for your statement about who should be allowed access to weapons. I agree that if you took all legal guns away from honest people that there'd still be a huge black market for crooks. The genie is out of the bottle. That makes sense to me (remember, I am not on either of the extremes on this issue). The thing is, the process of deciding who gets to buy the weapons and who doesn't is also nothing close to an exact science either. Would it only be people with a record, or should the shooter from Va Tech have been on the list due to his particular background? Life is not all black and white. There's plenty of gray. Should a person who's been in therapy be off the list? someone on anti-depressants? Some might say yes, some might say no. What if we leave this person off, but then discover the person in counseling and on anti-depressants got that way by being raped and now wants to have a gun? Do we now change her from the "denied" list to the "permitted" list? And how deeply do we allow the govt. to dig into our lives to determine whether we qualify? And if not the govt., then who does decide? There's a lot of gray and room for discussion here. Having half the population at one extreme and half at the other just doesn't help society make progress. There needs to be real talk.

Again, I am not here to make war. I am here because I do not have a fully made up mind (I don't know that I ever will, or whether it's even wise to permenantly lock all of one's opinions with no option of ever changing one's mind) and I am open to rational discussion.

 

[LMTC]

When the justice system gives a mandated jail term to everyone caught driving with a license suspended I will think about believing politicians and judges are concerned with my safety. As it is, at least in Ohio, many, perhaps most, first offenses of driving under suspension results in just more suspension. DUH!

When everyone who either opposes my right to carry a firearm or would put limitations on that right insists on strict enforcement of identification and deportation of anyone in this country unlawfully AND insists on lengthy incarceration for anyone committing a violent crime regardless of 1. their cruddy home life, 2. their cruddy upbringing, or 3. anything else, THEN I will think about believing that those people are really concerned about public safety. Until then, they are just people trying to exert power over me.

With all that said, I do acknowledge any American's right to discuss the issue and to disagree with me...but NOT, under any circumstances, to interfere with, or even advocate interfering with, a constitutional right.

 

[thingy]

THOMAS JEFFERSON,,said that a revoultion every now and than was a good thing,,,we need a revolution,,,plain and simple,,out with the old,in with the new,,,same constitution,,,just a shake up,,,this country is stagnet,I don't vote,,there is a start,,don't vote,,,,,thingy

 

[shvl73]

this country is stagnet,I don't vote,,there is a start,,don't vote,,,,,thingy

We already have a lower voter turn-out than many countries with less liberties than our own. I don't think not voting is working.
Maybe vote for a third party candidate, if there isn't one, run yourself.

 

[coffeeman]

I love this thread.
I have been preaching the core of this thread on almost every one where the subject comes up. Problem is, when are the public and law makers going to wise up? It seems that blame can be pushed over to something ... someone else at any time, and the problem with the individual becomes a "disease" that they make a new word for to describe the symptoms, so now it's OK and not your fault.
The other thing that happens is they try to make another law when they can't enforce the ones we have already. Instead of dealing severely with the criminals and eliminating them, they try to pass some dumb law that handcuffs the lawful citizen. What's up with that? We already have enough laws that tell us what is right and wrong. If offenders of those basic laws were dealt with appropriately, we'd have no problems.
There are some great comments on how stupid the logic is behind blaming guns. It is mind boggling at times to hear it. One of the best I ever heard was when the law suits against gun manufactures were happening. I don't know the exact quote, but it was from an NRA magazine many years ago. It went something like this:
"Suing the gun manufacturer for what YOU did with your gun is like suing General Electric for taking a bath with your toaster."

Lets blame the parents when kids act up. Of course, let's put the parents in jail if they spank the kid. Gee, the law makers might put parents in jail if the kid has to take the garbage out.( Don't laugh, it might not be long.) Turn the teachers into investigators and question the students on how the parents treat them. Then teach the kid, "If your parents touch you, you can sue them. The government wil help you." However, they don't have time to teach anything else; they send them home with teaching asignments for the mom and pop to do.

How about that superintendent of schools who called state attorney general into the school system to correct a 13 or 14 year old for leaving a ham bone on another students lunch table. Sure it was wrong, some kind of racial slur, but the attorney general? These are the people teaching our kids? The educator didn't know how to handle the problem on local level?

It boils down to respect. When I was in school I feared the school principal. In fact, I think many of the student teachers feared him. We respected cops or at least realized they could make it hard on us; so we feared them. We respected our parents, because they demanded respect. The parents respected us if we deserved it and usually respected us even if we didn't deserve it. (There were some exceptions then as well as now.) If the kid got in trouble we took side of teacher. We didn't run to lawyer to sue school. Of course the teachers were teachers then. (there are still a lot of good teachers today, but not like before)

Ain't no wonder some kids get twisted up in their mind. We need to get back to basics.

Enough ranting and raving for now.....Coffeeman