Gun Control - More Fodder for Debate - Flame On!
Discussion
This is a partisan video from the NRA. However, there are plenty of partisan videos for the other view, so hear this one out. I particularly like the fellow at around the 6:00 minute mark, he was a former Amnesty International official. Opinions please.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDMeDmV0ufU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDMeDmV0ufU
What's the point of continuing this discussion? There is no anti-gun organization, legislation, or political movement within the United States at any level.
The pro-gun people have long-since won. The recent Supreme Court cases killed whatever chance their was for local restriction and controls.
So what's the point? Habit?
The pro-gun people have long-since won. The recent Supreme Court cases killed whatever chance their was for local restriction and controls.
So what's the point? Habit?
Jimbeaux said:
This is a partisan video from the NRA. However, there are plenty of partisan videos for the other view, so hear this one out. I particularly like the fellow at around the 6:00 minute mark, he was a former Amnesty International official. Opinions please.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDMeDmV0ufU
Well, let's think about this.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDMeDmV0ufU
What if all the member Nations of the UN voted to destroy all military armaments first?
You know, close down all manufacture.
They all claim to be peaceful.
As an example, you understand, from the Leaders.
Those who represent?
Or, dictate?
I have never owned a gun but am considering whether I should when I move to New Zealand.
As we all know, gun "laws" have never stopped criminals having them.
Laughable penalties, for illegal ownership in the UK, contributing.
Total cessation of all gun manufacture would be the only way of ensuring no illegal weapons.
Then, small village metalworkers in the subcontinent can produce good replicas.
Tin foil hatedness might see an ulterior motive on the part of the political class.
Tadite said:
What's the point of continuing this discussion? There is no anti-gun organization, legislation, or political movement within the United States at any level.
The pro-gun people have long-since won. The recent Supreme Court cases killed whatever chance their was for local restriction and controls.
So what's the point? Habit?
Troll. Obama himself has declared the US constitution as "flawed" what else do you need?The pro-gun people have long-since won. The recent Supreme Court cases killed whatever chance their was for local restriction and controls.
So what's the point? Habit?
Edited by Mojocvh on Monday 1st February 00:22
Tadite said:
What's the point of continuing this discussion? There is no anti-gun organization, legislation, or political movement within the United States at any level.
The pro-gun people have long-since won. The recent Supreme Court cases killed whatever chance their was for local restriction and controls.
So what's the point? Habit?
There are those in our own Congress that are in agreement with what some in the UN want. My hang up is that the UN manages to have effect on many nations yet none of them were elected.The pro-gun people have long-since won. The recent Supreme Court cases killed whatever chance their was for local restriction and controls.
So what's the point? Habit?
Jimbeaux said:
This is a partisan video from the NRA. However, there are plenty of partisan videos for the other view, so hear this one out. I particularly like the fellow at around the 6:00 minute mark, he was a former Amnesty International official. Opinions please.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDMeDmV0ufU
Vidoes like this are embarassing. They are paranoid ramblings. The UN is evil, plotting to take away your guns ... along with UNICEF. Come on. Seriously, what kind of nut case believes that? Jim, surely you don't? The idea that the UN has the power to change domestic US legislation let alone the constitution against the will of the majority of US citizens is up there with believing in alien conspiracies. Frankly anyone who swallows this kind of bullshttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDMeDmV0ufU
t isn't fit to own a fork, let alone a fire arm. The intellectual bankruptcy of the NRA is neatly illustrated, as if it needed to be, by the throw-away assertion that the increase in UK crime is linked to the tightening of UK gun law. That shows no understanding of the history of UK gun restriction, nor the nature of the growth in UK crime - but why allow minor details like that to get in the way of a dumb one-liner when preaching to the converted?ATG said:
Jimbeaux said:
This is a partisan video from the NRA. However, there are plenty of partisan videos for the other view, so hear this one out. I particularly like the fellow at around the 6:00 minute mark, he was a former Amnesty International official. Opinions please.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDMeDmV0ufU
Vidoes like this are embarassing. They are paranoid ramblings. The UN is evil, plotting to take away your guns ... along with UNICEF. Come on. Seriously, what kind of nut case believes that? Jim, surely you don't? The idea that the UN has the power to change domestic US legislation let alone the constitution against the will of the majority of US citizens is up there with believing in alien conspiracies. Frankly anyone who swallows this kind of bullshttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDMeDmV0ufU
t isn't fit to own a fork, let alone a fire arm. The intellectual bankruptcy of the NRA is neatly illustrated, as if it needed to be, by the throw-away assertion that the increase in UK crime is linked to the tightening of UK gun law. That shows no understanding of the history of UK gun restriction, nor the nature of the growth in UK crime - but why allow minor details like that to get in the way of a dumb one-liner when preaching to the converted?
No, I do not believe much of the "fear" being preached. On the other hand, there are those that want to do just what was said on the video active in my country. The majority of the contributors were, however, not US citizens; therefore, there are dissenting opinions in England, New Zealand, Canada, and Oz as well.Let's not forget that one of Hitler's first moves in Austria, after being accepted as a savior, was to stop all private gun ownership.
Jimbeaux said:
My hang up is that the UN manages to have effect on many nations yet none of them were elected.
Your hang up is justified...The UN...probably the most useless organisation in the world and, if the IPCC is anything to go by, thoroughly corrupt.
Yes, its power is more than a little worrying.
A question, mostly aimed at Jim and other US PHers: whether you use the constitution argument or not, how long should it be a valid argument? Should pro-firearms campaigners really be able to use this argument in 50, 100, 500 years? Surely the country has changed and evolved (for better or worse 
) so much that at some point the rules made when it was founded should be looked at and evolved as well?
FWIW i'm indifferent, the cases for and against are equally compelling.
) so much that at some point the rules made when it was founded should be looked at and evolved as well?FWIW i'm indifferent, the cases for and against are equally compelling.
pokethepope said:
A question, mostly aimed at Jim and other US PHers: whether you use the constitution argument or not, how long should it be a valid argument? Should pro-firearms campaigners really be able to use this argument in 50, 100, 500 years? Surely the country has changed and evolved (for better or worse ) so much that at some point the rules made when it was founded should be looked at and evolved as well?
FWIW i'm indifferent, the cases for and against are equally compelling.
I feel the argument remains valid as long as the Human condition remains constant. There are many reasons, personal protection is one. People will always agress against one another and one cannot contract out one's personal security 100%. Another valid reason IMO is that governments cannot be trusted because human nature is at work there as well. Citizens that are armed are far more difficult to control than those who are not.) so much that at some point the rules made when it was founded should be looked at and evolved as well?FWIW i'm indifferent, the cases for and against are equally compelling.
Jimbeaux said:
\
There are those in our own Congress that are in agreement with what some in the UN want. My hang up is that the UN manages to have effect on many nations yet none of them were elected.
So what? Who cares if someone in Congress wants it? Nether of the major parties have it as a platform and there is no popular movement large enough to get anywhere close to the number of votes necessary for even the most limited legislation. Not to mention that legislation would have to be a Constitutional Amendment at this point and you have no chance of getting 75% of Congress to support this type of legislation. There are those in our own Congress that are in agreement with what some in the UN want. My hang up is that the UN manages to have effect on many nations yet none of them were elected.
Just because "Bob" from "Oregon" wants gun control doesn't mean he/she has any power what-so-ever to achieve it.
Even more to the point just because congress wants it doesn't mean the Senate does and you have had no movement in that organization for any new legislation.
Heck even Obama has almost never even mentioned gun control.
The Dems have long learned that this is just a dead issue. They don't even pretend to be on the other side. The only ones still talking about gun control is the NRA. I think they need to pretend that it is a possibility to continue to get contributions.
Edited by Tadite on Monday 1st February 02:21
Jimbeaux said:
Let's not forget that one of Hitler's first moves in Austria, after being accepted as a savior, was to stop all private gun ownership.
Come on man! Goodwin's law in your own thread!http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
Tadite said:
Jimbeaux said:
\
There are those in our own Congress that are in agreement with what some in the UN want. My hang up is that the UN manages to have effect on many nations yet none of them were elected.
So what? Who cares if someone in Congress wants it? Nether of the major parties have it as a platform and there is no popular movement large enough to get anywhere close to the number of votes necessary for even the most limited legislation. Not to mention that legislation would have to be a Constitutional Amendment at this point and you have no chance of getting 75% of Congress to support this type of legislation. There are those in our own Congress that are in agreement with what some in the UN want. My hang up is that the UN manages to have effect on many nations yet none of them were elected.
Just because "Bob" from "Oregon" wants gun control doesn't mean he/she has any power what-so-ever to achieve it.
Even more to the point just because congress wants it doesn't mean the Senate does and you have had no movement in that organization for any new legislation.
Heck even Obama has almost never even mentioned gun control.
The Dems have long learned that this is just a dead issue. They don't even pretend to be on the other side. The only ones still talking about gun control is the NRA. I think they need to pretend that it is a possibility to continue to get contributions.
Edited by Tadite on Monday 1st February 02:21
Tadite said:
Jimbeaux said:
Let's not forget that one of Hitler's first moves in Austria, after being accepted as a savior, was to stop all private gun ownership.
Come on man! Goodwin's law in your own thread!http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
Again, none of this is imminent here and I am not paranoid. I am cautious however and believe in keeping a debate alive for future use. Wy are you so adament about stopping it?
Edited by Jimbeaux on Monday 1st February 02:41
Jimbeaux said:
Tadite said:
Jimbeaux said:
Let's not forget that one of Hitler's first moves in Austria, after being accepted as a savior, was to stop all private gun ownership.
Come on man! Goodwin's law in your own thread!http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
The moment you mention Hitler threads are suppose to end.
But honestly I really don't think this is more then a theoretical issue. If the Dems aren't pushing for it who is going to? They know that if they start pushing gun control they are going to lose even more seats then is already expected. It is just a losing issue. Every poll I've ever seen show that the majority (60%+) of Americans like the idea of access to guns. You can't be a national party and run against those types of numbers. It is to easy a issue to gives to the Republicans. Heck they like it so much they run on it even when the Dems have no plans what-so-ever of moving on the other side.
Remember when there was a massive run on sales of Guns when Obama got elected? All those thousands of people running around panicked that a Democratic President was going to push gun control? What happened? Nothing. It hasn't even been mentioned once. I'm honestly trying to remember the last time I've even heard a single major politician make a speech about it. Maybe back in the early 90's?
As for the secret methods... Well honestly under Bush they did do all sorts of wire taping and invasions of privacy that I thought only crazy militia guys would believe possible. But how exactly are they going to get 300 Million+ guns out of the hand of Americans? I live in New England and I can go and buy anything up to a machine gun with no problems and have enough ammo (although that got expensive!) to fight a small war. If you can do it here you can do it anywhere....
To be honest the thing that annoys me is that any attempt to legislate education and certification is destroyed by the anti-gun control people. I do not like people having access to weapons that they don't know how to use and there being no method to force them to be educated. People are so panicked by the idea of "government interference" that they are willing to let people with no training run around with weapons you need training to use. If you need a license to drive a car and a far more complicated set of certifications for upper level trucks why not for guns? But, that is dead in the water. No way you could get that past the legislation process. To much power/money on the pro-gun side.
Tadite said:
Jimbeaux said:
Tadite said:
Jimbeaux said:
Let's not forget that one of Hitler's first moves in Austria, after being accepted as a savior, was to stop all private gun ownership.
Come on man! Goodwin's law in your own thread!http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
The moment you mention Hitler threads are suppose to end.
But honestly I really don't think this is more then a theoretical issue. If the Dems aren't pushing for it who is going to? They know that if they start pushing gun control they are going to lose even more seats then is already expected. It is just a losing issue. Every poll I've ever seen show that the majority (60%+) of Americans like the idea of access to guns. You can't be a national party and run against those types of numbers. It is to easy a issue to gives to the Republicans. Heck they like it so much they run on it even when the Dems have no plans what-so-ever of moving on the other side.
Remember when there was a massive run on sales of Guns when Obama got elected? All those thousands of people running around panicked that a Democratic President was going to push gun control? What happened? Nothing. It hasn't even been mentioned once. I'm honestly trying to remember the last time I've even heard a single major politician make a speech about it. Maybe back in the early 90's?
As for the secret methods... Well honestly under Bush they did do all sorts of wire taping and invasions of privacy that I thought only crazy militia guys would believe possible. But how exactly are they going to get 300 Million+ guns out of the hand of Americans? I live in New England and I can go and buy anything up to a machine gun with no problems and have enough ammo (although that got expensive!) to fight a small war. If you can do it here you can do it anywhere....
To be honest the thing that annoys me is that any attempt to legislate education and certification is destroyed by the anti-gun control people. I do not like people having access to weapons that they don't know how to use and there being no method to force them to be educated. People are so panicked by the idea of "government interference" that they are willing to let people with no training run around with weapons you need training to use. If you need a license to drive a car and a far more complicated set of certifications for upper level trucks why not for guns? But, that is dead in the water. No way you could get that past the legislation process. To much power/money on the pro-gun side.
WhoseGeneration said:
I have never owned a gun but am considering whether I should when I move to New Zealand.
I'm not sure if thats saying a good or bad thing about NZ...
FWIW I'm a Kiwi with two rifles - a .22 for hunting rabbits, hares etc and a .308 for larger game such as deer. Handguns and military-style weapons are very strictly controlled, but hunting is a a pretty common lifestyle here so rifles and shotguns are fine provided you have a firearms license and safe storage (locked rack/cabinet).
You cannot legally buy a gun or ammunition without a license, and part of the licensing process involves a police firearms officer interviewing you and inspecting your storage. They also check for criminal record and interview referees (one of whom must be next of kin or live with you) to vouch for your sanity, trustworthiness etc as well as having to pass a (very easy) test on basic gun safety.
Edited by GravelBen on Monday 1st February 06:14
As with a lot of things in the US every State is different.
In New Jersey it is difficult to buy a handgun, first you need a firearms id, then you need to apply for an individual handgun permit, this can take from 10 to over 60 days even though the law is max 30 days. After that you have to go through the Federal check.
Buying reloading supplies and ammo is not as easy as before, many stores got forced/coerced into not renewing their licencies. Those remaining have had their magazine capacities reduced. (that's where they store powder not the bit that goes in the gun) This makes it difficult for them to stock powder for target shooters. (target shooters use much more powder than hunters)
I drive to Deleware to restock.
I am a life member of the NRA, I get calls from them to donate money quite often. I can't really type what I told them last time they called, but it was along the lines of "What have you done for me lately"
Gun rights are being eroded, it is being done by policy as well as law.
If a politician is against gun ownership he should instruct his protection detail to leave their guns at home.
I'm done
In New Jersey it is difficult to buy a handgun, first you need a firearms id, then you need to apply for an individual handgun permit, this can take from 10 to over 60 days even though the law is max 30 days. After that you have to go through the Federal check.
Buying reloading supplies and ammo is not as easy as before, many stores got forced/coerced into not renewing their licencies. Those remaining have had their magazine capacities reduced. (that's where they store powder not the bit that goes in the gun) This makes it difficult for them to stock powder for target shooters. (target shooters use much more powder than hunters)
I drive to Deleware to restock.
I am a life member of the NRA, I get calls from them to donate money quite often. I can't really type what I told them last time they called, but it was along the lines of "What have you done for me lately"
Gun rights are being eroded, it is being done by policy as well as law.
If a politician is against gun ownership he should instruct his protection detail to leave their guns at home.
I'm done
The most telling pat of this debate is mentioned in the last 30 secords. It plays on the fear of the bogeyman to ensure that 'your nation is protected from them'.
If you take it to the extreme and arm every 16 yo and above and give them an instant means of killing people, then will it make the place safer? Somehow I don't think so.
It strikes me that the US has a big beef with the UN over accountability and it's own agendering which is not the same as the US's. Well the US had a big part in creating this bastid child, but like all kids, you can teach them the bible, but when they grow up, think differently and disown their parents, there is little you can do.
If you take it to the extreme and arm every 16 yo and above and give them an instant means of killing people, then will it make the place safer? Somehow I don't think so.
It strikes me that the US has a big beef with the UN over accountability and it's own agendering which is not the same as the US's. Well the US had a big part in creating this bastid child, but like all kids, you can teach them the bible, but when they grow up, think differently and disown their parents, there is little you can do.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff