To Arm or to Disarm.

[smmatrix 11]

Ha ha. You are way off the mark. Cute chick though.

 

Ignorance is bliss.

 

Are you suggesting there isn't' 260 million guns in the hands of U.S. citizens? I think you need to go back to study hall.

[smmatrix 11]

 

GUN KILLINGS CONTINUE IN STRICT GUN CONTROL CHICAGO

 

The magical shield of strict gun control laws in Chicago continues to fail. Perhaps they need to declare Chicago a “gun-free zone”?

 

CHICAGO- Authorities are investigating the shooting deaths of five people in a single day of bloodshed in Chicago.

 

Police Officer Daniel O’Brien says Saturday’s first killing occurred at around 2:15 a.m. on the city’s west side when a gunman opened fire on two men who were sitting in a parked car, killing one and wounding the other.

 

Investigators say a few hours later, someone opened fire on three men near a South Side eatery, killing two of them and wounding the third.

 

Detectives were called to the scene of another shooting Saturday afternoon in which a man in his 30s and a teenager were shot to death. There had been no arrests.

 

Chicago’s homicide count eclipsed 500 last year for the first time since 2008.

[MightyMouse 12]

Are you suggesting there isn't' 260 million guns in the hands of U.S. citizens? I think you need to go back to study hall.

 

... That no one was murdered today. I thought you could follow along a little better. I'll be more specific, sparkey

[zdo 20]

I am not a legislator so anything I say is going to sound dictatorial.

 

Make people responsible for the disposal of their gun.

 

Make it so that they can only sell guns back to authorized dealers to make certain that they do not end up in the wrong hands.

 

Make people responsible for keeping their guns under lock and key at all times. If there house isn't safe enough to hold a gun, then they should keep it somewhere where it is safe.

 

If most guns that bad guys have are obtained illegally, then actions should be taken to minimize the supply of illegal guns. If the guns originated in the US, then measures should be taken to prevent hand guns from being stolen. I don't know enough of how guns enter the illegal gun market. Stolen is my guess.

 

Related, but probably more important, is to do something about the drug issue in the US. crime would cease to exist as we know it.

 

Once again, I am not a legislator.

 

 

"A few weeks ago, author and Manhattan-based lawyer Brett Joshpe penned a pro-gun-control piece whose thrust was that conservatives need to be sensible with respect to firearms legislation. It's not sensible, said he, to oppose any and all further restrictions on Second Amendment rights. Well, let's discuss what's "sensible."

 

For much of the US' history, we had virtually no gun-control laws (for white people). But then came Prohibition, gangsters, and Tommy guns, and people wanted to be sensible. So we ended up with the 1934 National Firearms Act, which restricted ownership of fully automatic weapons. Al Capone was unimpressed.

 

But there still was crime, and we had to be sensible. Thus were spawned 5,000 gun-control laws.

Man's nature, though, is a mighty intractable thing. Crime still existed - and so did calls to be sensible.

The result was 10,000 gun-control laws.

Then the strangest thing happened.

There still was crime.

People still demanded, "Be sensible!" And then there were 15,000....

But there was still...well, now we have more than 22,000 guns laws. And guess what.

That's right. Again there are those asking us to be "sensible."

Now, one might question the sense of these sensible people. Are they so ignorant of history that they're damned to repeat it inexorably? As to this, you might, Mr. Joshpe, remember those math problems in school in which you had to finish a progression. Well, finish the one I outlined above. Let's say the left (and you) gets exactly what they claim to want right now. Will we:

A. Have no more crime.

B. Still have crime.

 

After tackling that, proceed to question two: how will the left (and maybe you?) respond?

A. They will say we already have sensible gun-control laws and seek solutions elsewhere.

B. They will again ask us to be "sensible."

 

Mr. Joshpe, I don't call your prescribed capitulation "sensible," but something else.

Insanity - which, as that apocryphal saying tells us, "is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result." What result, Mr. Joshpe, do you hope to achieve with your shape-shifting gun-control proposals?

 

As to this, you peppered your American Thinker article with references to the need to restrict "automatic" weapons, clearly indicating that you'd fallen victim to what gun-grabbing propagandist Josh Sugarman called the public's highly exploitable "confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons," the former of which have been largely unavailable to the citizenry for almost 80 years. You now seem to know better and thus have switched gears, pushing what you call an "assault weapons" ban. This is very fashionable, of course, but what do you hope to achieve with it?

Since it's "sensible" to be informed, please consider certain facts before answering. First, firearms such as the AR-15 (and I'm bored to tears of having to point this out) are not "assault weapons"; that is simply an emotionally charged term left-wing activists and the media have applied to demonize them. An assault weapon would have a "selective fire" feature, allowing it to be operated semi-automatic, fully automatic, in three-shot bursts, or in two of those three modes. In contrast, the weapons unfairly targeted here are merely semi-automatic rifles, meaning, they release one bullet with every trigger pull - like most guns owned in America.

 

In addition, AR-15-class weapons are used in less than two percent of all gun crimes, and legally owned ones in approximately zero percent of all gun crimes. Moreover:

• They aren't large-caliber weapons. They're small - the same as a .22 Marlin target rifle.

• While their .223 ammunition (the gun's default caliber) is nothing to sneeze at, it's not even close to being the highest powered. The .30-06, .416 Remington Magnum, .308 Winchester - and many, many other rifle calibers - are more powerful. Note that, as this video explains and illustrates, while AR-15-class weapons are made to wound a 170-pound man, the aforementioned hunting rifles are designed to kill a 300 to 1000-pound deer or moose.

• In fact, .223 chambered AR-15s are so relatively ineffective that certain states and countries actually prohibit their use for deer hunting.

• Thus, it isn't surprising that they aren't close to the most devastating firearms available. For example, as even The New York Times pointed out, shotguns are more effective in close-quarters attacks against soft targets (as in a massacre). Note here that most of the wounds in the Aurora, Colorado rampage were inflicted with a shotgun.

• Any firearm with a magazine port can be fitted with a high-capacity magazine. Fifty-round magazines are readily available, for instance, for the Ruger 10/22.

So now let's place Mr. Joshpe's sensible policy initiative in perspective. He doesn't propose outlawing the largest caliber weapons. He doesn't propose outlawing the highest powered weapons. He doesn't propose outlawing the most devastating weapons. He doesn't propose outlawing the weapons most often used in crimes. Instead?

He insists we outlaw or restrict a class of small-caliber, lower-powered, less-effective rifles that have the same rate of fire as the more effective ones all so that we can, supposedly, eliminate weapons used in a staggering zero percent of all crimes.

(The ones used in two percent of crimes are already illegal.)

Is this sensible?

Or insane?

 

Of course, even targeting the other kinds of aforementioned weapons would only remove them from law-abiding hands, so that wouldn't be sensible, either. But my point is that there is a particularly severe disconnect between policy and reality here. I'm going to explain why it exists.

 

Mr. Joshpe has scoffed at gun advocates' slippery slope warning. And in a sense he is right. His proposal is not a slide down a slippery slope. Rather, he's suggesting that we take a huge leap of blind faith, land in the middle of the slope, and then hope we stop. That is to say, if it makes sense to outlaw firearms used in less than two percent of gun crimes, why not handguns, which are used in 86 percent of gun crimes? Why not more devastating shotguns, which are used in 7.5 percent of gun crimes? Why not rifles in general, which are used in 8.8 percent of them? Why the focus on the one (plus) percent?

Is this Occupy the Second Amendment?

 

Answer: the left focuses on zero-percent guns (the legal ones) because they can. You see, there's a lot of prejudice right now against the "scary black gun," and, as scary black-heart Rahm the Assault Mayor has said, "Never let a good crisis go to waste." But if you accept the supposition that outlawing guns stops outlaws from using guns and that a certain point on that slippery slope is the right level of legislation, it logically follows that everything above it in the hierarchy of "dangerousness" should be outlawed, too. Is this what you propose, Mr. Joshpe? If not, why pick on the AR-15? What sense, other than nonsense, does that make?

 

And on a related note, Mr. Joshpe, you advocate the reinstitution of the Bill Clinton disgorged zero-percent weapons ban. Can you explain what this would accomplish?

Another proposal Mr. Joshpe fancies sensible is something that became reality in New York just last week: a prohibition against high-capacity magazines. But NY state senator and former NYPD captain Eric Adams explained, quite inadvertently, at least part of the reason why it isn't sensible at all. While addressing the law's failure to grant police officers an exemption from the ban, he said, "You can't give more ammo to the criminals." But, wait, isn't the ban supposed to keep these magazines out of criminals' hands? And if it's wrong to thus handicap the cops, Mr. Joshpe, how is it sensible to give the criminals more ammo than good citizens have?

 

That said, I'm not at all opposed to being sensible; I just define it a bit differently than does Mr. Joshpe. Conservatives have a history of playing defense - and compromising their way to culture-war defeat and tyranny. Liberals will come to the bargaining table demanding some change and conservatives, being reasonable, will give the liberals a percentage of what they want. The problem? The liberals will come back again and again, demanding more and more, and the conservatives will continually yield more ground. And, ultimately, after enough time, the whole loaf will have been relinquished.

 

So here's my proposal: I want the total number of gun laws reduced from 22,000 to 5,000 (it's a good start, anyway). If the opposition finds this unpalatable, however, I'm willing to be sensible and reasonable and accept a reduction to 10,000. Don't ever say I'm not amenable to compromise.

 

While I have far more ammunition in my magical mystery magazine, word control dictates that I hold further fire (for now) and cede the floor to Mr. Joshpe. Suffice it to say, though, that his proposals are of the left and should be left behind. They reflect large-caliber misunderstandings fed with high-capacity emotionalism which cycle out fully automatic knee-jerk reactions."

 

 

Articles: The Great Gun Debate: Selwyn Duke vs. Brett Joshpe

Edited January 28, 2013 by zdo

[Patuca 13]

"A few weeks ago, author and Manhattan-based lawyer Brett Joshpe penned a pro-gun-control piece whose thrust was that conservatives need to be sensible with respect to firearms legislation. It's not sensible, said he, to oppose any and all further restrictions on Second Amendment rights. Well, let's discuss what's "sensible."

 

For much of the US' history, we had virtually no gun-control laws (for white people). But then came Prohibition, gangsters, and Tommy guns, and people wanted to be sensible. So we ended up with the 1934 National Firearms Act, which restricted ownership of fully automatic weapons. Al Capone was unimpressed.

 

But there still was crime, and we had to be sensible. Thus were spawned 5,000 gun-control laws.

Man's nature, though, is a mighty intractable thing. Crime still existed - and so did calls to be sensible.

The result was 10,000 gun-control laws.

Then the strangest thing happened.

There still was crime.

People still demanded, "Be sensible!" And then there were 15,000....

But there was still...well, now we have more than 22,000 guns laws. And guess what.

That's right. Again there are those asking us to be "sensible."

Now, one might question the sense of these sensible people. Are they so ignorant of history that they're damned to repeat it inexorably? As to this, you might, Mr. Joshpe, remember those math problems in school in which you had to finish a progression. Well, finish the one I outlined above. Let's say the left (and you) gets exactly what they claim to want right now. Will we:

A. Have no more crime.

B. Still have crime.

 

After tackling that, proceed to question two: how will the left (and maybe you?) respond?

A. They will say we already have sensible gun-control laws and seek solutions elsewhere.

B. They will again ask us to be "sensible."

 

Mr. Joshpe, I don't call your prescribed capitulation "sensible," but something else.

Insanity - which, as that apocryphal saying tells us, "is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result." What result, Mr. Joshpe, do you hope to achieve with your shape-shifting gun-control proposals?

 

As to this, you peppered your American Thinker article with references to the need to restrict "automatic" weapons, clearly indicating that you'd fallen victim to what gun-grabbing propagandist Josh Sugarman called the public's highly exploitable "confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons," the former of which have been largely unavailable to the citizenry for almost 80 years. You now seem to know better and thus have switched gears, pushing what you call an "assault weapons" ban. This is very fashionable, of course, but what do you hope to achieve with it?

Since it's "sensible" to be informed, please consider certain facts before answering. First, firearms such as the AR-15 (and I'm bored to tears of having to point this out) are not "assault weapons"; that is simply an emotionally charged term left-wing activists and the media have applied to demonize them. An assault weapon would have a "selective fire" feature, allowing it to be operated semi-automatic, fully automatic, in three-shot bursts, or in two of those three modes. In contrast, the weapons unfairly targeted here are merely semi-automatic rifles, meaning, they release one bullet with every trigger pull - like most guns owned in America.

 

In addition, AR-15-class weapons are used in less than two percent of all gun crimes, and legally owned ones in approximately zero percent of all gun crimes. Moreover:

• They aren't large-caliber weapons. They're small - the same as a .22 Marlin target rifle.

• While their .223 ammunition (the gun's default caliber) is nothing to sneeze at, it's not even close to being the highest powered. The .30-06, .416 Remington Magnum, .308 Winchester - and many, many other rifle calibers - are more powerful. Note that, as this video explains and illustrates, while AR-15-class weapons are made to wound a 170-pound man, the aforementioned hunting rifles are designed to kill a 300 to 1000-pound deer or moose.

• In fact, .223 chambered AR-15s are so relatively ineffective that certain states and countries actually prohibit their use for deer hunting.

• Thus, it isn't surprising that they aren't close to the most devastating firearms available. For example, as even The New York Times pointed out, shotguns are more effective in close-quarters attacks against soft targets (as in a massacre). Note here that most of the wounds in the Aurora, Colorado rampage were inflicted with a shotgun.

• Any firearm with a magazine port can be fitted with a high-capacity magazine. Fifty-round magazines are readily available, for instance, for the Ruger 10/22.

So now let's place Mr. Joshpe's sensible policy initiative in perspective. He doesn't propose outlawing the largest caliber weapons. He doesn't propose outlawing the highest powered weapons. He doesn't propose outlawing the most devastating weapons. He doesn't propose outlawing the weapons most often used in crimes. Instead?

He insists we outlaw or restrict a class of small-caliber, lower-powered, less-effective rifles that have the same rate of fire as the more effective ones all so that we can, supposedly, eliminate weapons used in a staggering zero percent of all crimes.

(The ones used in two percent of crimes are already illegal.)

Is this sensible?

Or insane?

 

Of course, even targeting the other kinds of aforementioned weapons would only remove them from law-abiding hands, so that wouldn't be sensible, either. But my point is that there is a particularly severe disconnect between policy and reality here. I'm going to explain why it exists.

 

Mr. Joshpe has scoffed at gun advocates' slippery slope warning. And in a sense he is right. His proposal is not a slide down a slippery slope. Rather, he's suggesting that we take a huge leap of blind faith, land in the middle of the slope, and then hope we stop. That is to say, if it makes sense to outlaw firearms used in less than two percent of gun crimes, why not handguns, which are used in 86 percent of gun crimes? Why not more devastating shotguns, which are used in 7.5 percent of gun crimes? Why not rifles in general, which are used in 8.8 percent of them? Why the focus on the one (plus) percent?

Is this Occupy the Second Amendment?

 

Answer: the left focuses on zero-percent guns (the legal ones) because they can. You see, there's a lot of prejudice right now against the "scary black gun," and, as scary black-heart Rahm the Assault Mayor has said, "Never let a good crisis go to waste." But if you accept the supposition that outlawing guns stops outlaws from using guns and that a certain point on that slippery slope is the right level of legislation, it logically follows that everything above it in the hierarchy of "dangerousness" should be outlawed, too. Is this what you propose, Mr. Joshpe? If not, why pick on the AR-15? What sense, other than nonsense, does that make?

 

And on a related note, Mr. Joshpe, you advocate the reinstitution of the Bill Clinton disgorged zero-percent weapons ban. Can you explain what this would accomplish?

Another proposal Mr. Joshpe fancies sensible is something that became reality in New York just last week: a prohibition against high-capacity magazines. But NY state senator and former NYPD captain Eric Adams explained, quite inadvertently, at least part of the reason why it isn't sensible at all. While addressing the law's failure to grant police officers an exemption from the ban, he said, "You can't give more ammo to the criminals." But, wait, isn't the ban supposed to keep these magazines out of criminals' hands? And if it's wrong to thus handicap the cops, Mr. Joshpe, how is it sensible to give the criminals more ammo than good citizens have?

 

That said, I'm not at all opposed to being sensible; I just define it a bit differently than does Mr. Joshpe. Conservatives have a history of playing defense - and compromising their way to culture-war defeat and tyranny. Liberals will come to the bargaining table demanding some change and conservatives, being reasonable, will give the liberals a percentage of what they want. The problem? The liberals will come back again and again, demanding more and more, and the conservatives will continually yield more ground. And, ultimately, after enough time, the whole loaf will have been relinquished.

 

So here's my proposal: I want the total number of gun laws reduced from 22,000 to 5,000 (it's a good start, anyway). If the opposition finds this unpalatable, however, I'm willing to be sensible and reasonable and accept a reduction to 10,000. Don't ever say I'm not amenable to compromise.

 

While I have far more ammunition in my magical mystery magazine, word control dictates that I hold further fire (for now) and cede the floor to Mr. Joshpe. Suffice it to say, though, that his proposals are of the left and should be left behind. They reflect large-caliber misunderstandings fed with high-capacity emotionalism which cycle out fully automatic knee-jerk reactions."

 

 

Articles: The Great Gun Debate: Selwyn Duke vs. Brett Joshpe

:shocked: :thumbs up: :applaud: :applaud: :applaud:

[MightyMouse 12]

"A few weeks ago, author and Manhattan-based lawyer Brett Joshpe penned a pro-gun-control piece whose thrust was that conservatives need to be sensible with respect to firearms legislation. It's not sensible, said he, to oppose any and all further restrictions on Second Amendment rights. Well, let's discuss what's "sensible."

 

For much of the US' history, we had virtually no gun-control laws (for white people). But then came Prohibition, gangsters, and Tommy guns, and people wanted to be sensible. So we ended up with the 1934 National Firearms Act, which restricted ownership of fully automatic weapons. Al Capone was unimpressed.

 

But there still was crime, and we had to be sensible. Thus were spawned 5,000 gun-control laws.

Man's nature, though, is a mighty intractable thing. Crime still existed - and so did calls to be sensible.

The result was 10,000 gun-control laws.

Then the strangest thing happened.

There still was crime.

People still demanded, "Be sensible!" And then there were 15,000....

But there was still...well, now we have more than 22,000 guns laws. And guess what.

That's right. Again there are those asking us to be "sensible."

Now, one might question the sense of these sensible people. Are they so ignorant of history that they're damned to repeat it inexorably? As to this, you might, Mr. Joshpe, remember those math problems in school in which you had to finish a progression. Well, finish the one I outlined above. Let's say the left (and you) gets exactly what they claim to want right now. Will we:

A. Have no more crime.

B. Still have crime.

 

After tackling that, proceed to question two: how will the left (and maybe you?) respond?

A. They will say we already have sensible gun-control laws and seek solutions elsewhere.

B. They will again ask us to be "sensible."

 

Mr. Joshpe, I don't call your prescribed capitulation "sensible," but something else.

Insanity - which, as that apocryphal saying tells us, "is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result." What result, Mr. Joshpe, do you hope to achieve with your shape-shifting gun-control proposals?

 

As to this, you peppered your American Thinker article with references to the need to restrict "automatic" weapons, clearly indicating that you'd fallen victim to what gun-grabbing propagandist Josh Sugarman called the public's highly exploitable "confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons," the former of which have been largely unavailable to the citizenry for almost 80 years. You now seem to know better and thus have switched gears, pushing what you call an "assault weapons" ban. This is very fashionable, of course, but what do you hope to achieve with it?

Since it's "sensible" to be informed, please consider certain facts before answering. First, firearms such as the AR-15 (and I'm bored to tears of having to point this out) are not "assault weapons"; that is simply an emotionally charged term left-wing activists and the media have applied to demonize them. An assault weapon would have a "selective fire" feature, allowing it to be operated semi-automatic, fully automatic, in three-shot bursts, or in two of those three modes. In contrast, the weapons unfairly targeted here are merely semi-automatic rifles, meaning, they release one bullet with every trigger pull - like most guns owned in America.

 

In addition, AR-15-class weapons are used in less than two percent of all gun crimes, and legally owned ones in approximately zero percent of all gun crimes. Moreover:

• They aren't large-caliber weapons. They're small - the same as a .22 Marlin target rifle.

• While their .223 ammunition (the gun's default caliber) is nothing to sneeze at, it's not even close to being the highest powered. The .30-06, .416 Remington Magnum, .308 Winchester - and many, many other rifle calibers - are more powerful. Note that, as this video explains and illustrates, while AR-15-class weapons are made to wound a 170-pound man, the aforementioned hunting rifles are designed to kill a 300 to 1000-pound deer or moose.

• In fact, .223 chambered AR-15s are so relatively ineffective that certain states and countries actually prohibit their use for deer hunting.

• Thus, it isn't surprising that they aren't close to the most devastating firearms available. For example, as even The New York Times pointed out, shotguns are more effective in close-quarters attacks against soft targets (as in a massacre). Note here that most of the wounds in the Aurora, Colorado rampage were inflicted with a shotgun.

• Any firearm with a magazine port can be fitted with a high-capacity magazine. Fifty-round magazines are readily available, for instance, for the Ruger 10/22.

So now let's place Mr. Joshpe's sensible policy initiative in perspective. He doesn't propose outlawing the largest caliber weapons. He doesn't propose outlawing the highest powered weapons. He doesn't propose outlawing the most devastating weapons. He doesn't propose outlawing the weapons most often used in crimes. Instead?

He insists we outlaw or restrict a class of small-caliber, lower-powered, less-effective rifles that have the same rate of fire as the more effective ones all so that we can, supposedly, eliminate weapons used in a staggering zero percent of all crimes.

(The ones used in two percent of crimes are already illegal.)

Is this sensible?

Or insane?

 

Of course, even targeting the other kinds of aforementioned weapons would only remove them from law-abiding hands, so that wouldn't be sensible, either. But my point is that there is a particularly severe disconnect between policy and reality here. I'm going to explain why it exists.

 

Mr. Joshpe has scoffed at gun advocates' slippery slope warning. And in a sense he is right. His proposal is not a slide down a slippery slope. Rather, he's suggesting that we take a huge leap of blind faith, land in the middle of the slope, and then hope we stop. That is to say, if it makes sense to outlaw firearms used in less than two percent of gun crimes, why not handguns, which are used in 86 percent of gun crimes? Why not more devastating shotguns, which are used in 7.5 percent of gun crimes? Why not rifles in general, which are used in 8.8 percent of them? Why the focus on the one (plus) percent?

Is this Occupy the Second Amendment?

 

Answer: the left focuses on zero-percent guns (the legal ones) because they can. You see, there's a lot of prejudice right now against the "scary black gun," and, as scary black-heart Rahm the Assault Mayor has said, "Never let a good crisis go to waste." But if you accept the supposition that outlawing guns stops outlaws from using guns and that a certain point on that slippery slope is the right level of legislation, it logically follows that everything above it in the hierarchy of "dangerousness" should be outlawed, too. Is this what you propose, Mr. Joshpe? If not, why pick on the AR-15? What sense, other than nonsense, does that make?

 

And on a related note, Mr. Joshpe, you advocate the reinstitution of the Bill Clinton disgorged zero-percent weapons ban. Can you explain what this would accomplish?

Another proposal Mr. Joshpe fancies sensible is something that became reality in New York just last week: a prohibition against high-capacity magazines. But NY state senator and former NYPD captain Eric Adams explained, quite inadvertently, at least part of the reason why it isn't sensible at all. While addressing the law's failure to grant police officers an exemption from the ban, he said, "You can't give more ammo to the criminals." But, wait, isn't the ban supposed to keep these magazines out of criminals' hands? And if it's wrong to thus handicap the cops, Mr. Joshpe, how is it sensible to give the criminals more ammo than good citizens have?

 

That said, I'm not at all opposed to being sensible; I just define it a bit differently than does Mr. Joshpe. Conservatives have a history of playing defense - and compromising their way to culture-war defeat and tyranny. Liberals will come to the bargaining table demanding some change and conservatives, being reasonable, will give the liberals a percentage of what they want. The problem? The liberals will come back again and again, demanding more and more, and the conservatives will continually yield more ground. And, ultimately, after enough time, the whole loaf will have been relinquished.

 

So here's my proposal: I want the total number of gun laws reduced from 22,000 to 5,000 (it's a good start, anyway). If the opposition finds this unpalatable, however, I'm willing to be sensible and reasonable and accept a reduction to 10,000. Don't ever say I'm not amenable to compromise.

 

While I have far more ammunition in my magical mystery magazine, word control dictates that I hold further fire (for now) and cede the floor to Mr. Joshpe. Suffice it to say, though, that his proposals are of the left and should be left behind. They reflect large-caliber misunderstandings fed with high-capacity emotionalism which cycle out fully automatic knee-jerk reactions."

 

 

Articles: The Great Gun Debate: Selwyn Duke vs. Brett Joshpe

 

If we had responsible gun owners, all this wouldn't be a problem. There would be no need for laws. Especially not 10,000 laws, but we don't have responsible gun owners.

 

If we had responsible drinkers, we also wouldn't need all the drinking and driving laws. But we don't have enough responsible drinkers. So we need laws.

[TheDude 10]

Interesting....

 

Department of Homeland Security to Purchase 7,000 "Assault Weapons" | Zero Hedge

[zdo 20]

Interesting....

 

Department of Homeland Security to Purchase 7,000 "Assault Weapons" | Zero Hedge

 

orig and 'opinion' pieces

http://www.nysenate.gov/press-release/department-homeland-security-la...

Department of Homeland Security: Sport rifle (AR-15) ?suitable for personal defense? (Updates) | Radio Vice Online...

Who Needs an AR-15?

[zdo 20]

U.S. Government Claims ? Just Like the Nazis ? that the Truth Is Too Complicated and Dangerous to Disclose to the Public - Washington's Blog

[zdo 20]

If we had responsible gun owners, all this wouldn't be a problem. There would be no need for laws. Especially not 10,000 laws, but we don't have responsible gun owners.

 

 

One more time, responsible people aren’t generally the ones doing these horrible, triggering acts. Insane, crazy, deluded wackos are… Ultimately, further laws for ‘responsible’ people will NOT move your stats and certainly won’t ‘remove’ isolated events.

To you, we have yet to pass the point where more laws wouldn’t be effective

To me we have long ago passed the threshold. Real returns on further gun laws towards eliminating the acts we’re all concerned about would be nil.

 

You’re still thinking like the prohibitionist ladies.

’ This is awful. We must do something. Never let a dead child go to waste. We must be willing to say anything whether it has reasonable basis in human behavior or not to convince people to join our special crowd… and let’s get the gov’t more involved. That will fix it.’

 

“but we don't have responsible gun owners” You’re losing rationality fast here. I’m now starting to be relieved you don’t have a gun.

First, if we didn't have responsible gun owners wouldn't gun deaths be so much higher frequency and up closer to the top of the list of death 'causes' in the US - instead of at the very bottom? Second, check your posts - your thinking and arguments are lumping all the situational accidental acts of stupidity that responsible gun users make in with the wacks who have lost moorings to conscience and mammalian mores.

 

Your emotions have taken you over the top so much that you have lost touch with the real issue – criminal insanity ! Temporary or chronic – excaserbated by reactive situational thinking disorders and / or (prescription,legal(including alcohol), and or ‘illegal’) drugs. Criminal insanity which, in the moment, does not give one tiny little fk about the ‘laws’ and will not be deterred one dam bit by further requirements on responsible gun owners to have their weapons ‘legally’ secured.

You can keep wishing and enrolling others to wish with you but it is just wishing at this point…

We’re WAY past the point of getting any increasing returns on more gun laws.

 

MM you have great intentions…but some seriously fucked up premises… and you are so teetering on the edge - be careful you don’t get sucked into “the most patriotic thing a Vichy can do is collaborate”

 

 

 

 

...If we had responsible drinkers, we also wouldn't need all the drinking and driving laws. But we don't have enough responsible drinkers. So we need laws.

Articles: Drunk and Defenseless finds silly ways to put guns and alcohol in the same post too.

Actually, by and large, we do have responsible drinkers. Most drunks are quite sensitive, compassionate humans. Natural consequences and conscience keeps most drunks from doing damage to others – not laws.

Occasionally a young or chronic one is extremely irresponsible. Guess what? - those laws, which according to you, that we so desparately “need” have negligible effect on them in those situations…

useless laws = past a certain point further laws have no effects on the frequency or seriousness of any of these horrible crimes. Nothing you have proposed and none of Obama's executive orders would have stopped ANY of the horrible murders that triggered

To Arm or to Disarm

[MightyMouse 12]

One more time, responsible people aren’t generally the ones doing these horrible, triggering acts. Insane, crazy, deluded wackos are… Ultimately, further laws for ‘responsible’ people will NOT move your stats and certainly won’t ‘remove’ isolated events.

 

You need to think it through.

 

A criminal can't legally buy a gun. We already have a ton of rules in place to prevent him from buying guns. We also have rules in place to prevent him from voting. So, he can't even vote to allow him the right to have a gun. But, he can buy one illegally from a person who can buy one legally. He cal also steal one from someone who bought a gun legally.

 

Criminals steal guns from irresponsible law abiding people. If the guns that are owned by irresponsible law abiding citizens were safely stored, then the criminals couldn't steal them. Irresponsible people leave their guns out or do not store them properly or sell them to the wrong people or give them to the wrong people. Nancy Lanza was one such irresponsible law abiding citizen. The person who sold the assault pistol to one of the Columbine killers was one such person. The friend who gave a gun to David Berkowitz (son of sam) was one such person. We need laws to make these people responsible for their poor actions.

 

You will see many may times homeowners reporting stolen guns and knowing only that the last time they saw guns in the home was 3 months ago. You have an instrument that can kill and you don't know it is missing?

 

Just because you have a right to own a gun, does not give you the right to be irresponsible with it. Your irresponsibility with a gun puts others at risk.

[MightyMouse 12]

—

 

On Dec. 15, a Cross Highway resident reported to police that three different parts to her shotgun were missing. She said she last saw them four years ago.

 

—

 

This is from a town which happens to be very near Newtown, CT

[Tams 20]

georgia-man-guns-down-immigrant-after-gps-sends-him-to-wrong-driveway/

 

Georgia man guns down immigrant after GPS sends him to wrong driveway | The Raw Story

[smmatrix 11]

[smmatrix 11]

georgia-man-guns-down-immigrant-after-gps-sends-him-to-wrong-driveway/

 

Georgia man guns down immigrant after GPS sends him to wrong driveway | The Raw Story

 

That's good. Trespassers should get shot.

 

Same with my land... if a trespasser comes, I shoot first, ask questions later. If the trespasser was so stupid to not realize he was trespassing, then he shouldn't be living anyway.

 

The strongest of all breeds shall evolve. Stupidity shall perish.

[Patuca 13]

That's good. Trespassers should get shot.

 

Same with my land... if a trespasser comes, I shoot first, ask questions later. If the trespasser was so stupid to not realize he was trespassing, then he shouldn't be living anyway.

 

The strongest of all breeds shall evolve. Stupidity shall perish.

the problem with that is now the ole man has screwed up his life. he will go to prison for murder. you can't just shoot someone because they are on your property. they have to have a deadly or at least you have to believe they do. he should have just let them leave after firing in the air and they were trying to get away. now he is in a pickle himself.

[Vince50 10]

Arming citizens "and teachers" is a valid solution.

 

This is why there is no school shootings in Israel:

 

 

You dont have the kind of thugs in Israel nor the insane use of freedoms we have here in the US,IN Israel either. But it is a good point.

[Vince50 10]

the problem with that is now the ole man has screwed up his life. he will go to prison for murder. you can't just shoot someone because they are on your property. they have to have a deadly or at least you have to believe they do. he should have just let them leave after firing in the air and they were trying to get away. now he is in a pickle himself.

 

Patuca, you are an eloquent writer so Im not picking an argument, ok? But...do you realize that if your statement were shown on TV that youd shoot a trespasser and ask questions later, we'd have 99% of our gun rights revoked within a year.

 

Personally I think thats insane, although you are not doing it out of anger, but precaution and fear. Now what I notice is that most pro-gun people are always the ones to shoot first and ask questions later.......sadly in 2/3 of all things. And I own a gun,myself!

 

Now, you also mentioned that before prohibition that all "white men" had complete freedom with guns. That statement reveals something. Why was it necessary to bring that up although I dont even believe it is a fact. May I ask what nationality you are? (not that it changes my feelings about guns. lol ) I also want to say that today....and today not in sam crow days, abolition times or anything relevant but today am I concerned about...........and let me say that the most reputable non-attorney on gun laws in ALL 50 states is a man called Massad Ayoob, an American Born policeman who has been called as an expert witness involving gun crimes more than anyone in the country. He is very pro-gun. However let me point out, that whether you arer black white or green, he not only writes books, but gives weekend ,entire week-end seminars about how to not get locked up when you have to use your gun. Even in self defense. Even if someone is climbing thru your window! It is so easy for the victims family to play the "money" card(not race card) and sue you for absolute nonsense so they can make money while you rot in jail for 12 months until your trial. And even then you may be facing serious charges...all in self defense. This is what the white man faces every day today. Just so you know. And what is sad is gun laws vary soooo widely state to state its a lawyers dream, and a handgun owners nightmare. Why is it in 95% of cases of clear self defense when you shoot someone you are advised to get a lawyer. Why dont they just give you a medal, a thank you and send you ohn your way? Because our system is insane...and I think...in the end its always about money. From both ends and both sides.

 

What I learned from this thread though, is that since we all have such different opinions on gun laws and their place in society, that sadly I think many more people are insane than I ever thought possible percentage wise. Lets say we are split down the middle as to if gund should be allowed to be owned by civilians, ok? Then lets cut that in half as to WHEN guns should be allowed to be both carried, kept in the home and used, that the variance on these topics is soooo wide, one portion of us is completely insane. I truthfully cant make out who is who. I dont have clear cut answers. The ones that do are the ones that really worry me. I am over 50 and the older I get the less I know. But some of us here are rational as hell when talking pips and moving averages, and totally beserk on guns. Now what I need to figure out is..........AM I ONE OF THE INSANE ONES, OR DOES THE 25% OF US THAT LOOK INSANE, ARE THEY REALLY THE INSANE ONES? No one here ,regardless of side seems to want to re-think(as in re-load, re-call) their position. THta makes for a very dangerous America,regardless of whether guns existed at all. Look at many African countries. Theyve managed to genocide themselves with no guns at all!!!!

 

I also want to thank again.....the gentleman who started this thread in the first place. He is someone who "hears" not just listens ,but hears both sides.

 

Would anyone know what thread number the situation of 3 sets of men arguing would be on? I think we need to re-visit that again. You klnow where 2 men are arguing, both have guns. 2 men are arguing, one has a gun. 2 men are arguing and none of them have a gun. Which situation has the best chance of no fatalities!!!!! This is a huge point made for no guns. I wish I knew where it was posted. Despot, was that your post?

 

Personally this thread (to my insane self anyway) does more to point to us being in a civil war of some kind or anarchy within 5 years than anything else Ive seen. Look at what started the first civil war. It really wasnt about race. It was more about the huge chasm of moral opinions both sides of the country had........just like now.

 

peace,

[MightyMouse 12]

That's good. Trespassers should get shot.

 

Same with my land... if a trespasser comes, I shoot first, ask questions later. If the trespasser was so stupid to not realize he was trespassing, then he shouldn't be living anyway.

 

The strongest of all breeds shall evolve. Stupidity shall perish.

 

Yes, I simply love your logical disconnect. "Someone is on my land, they must be here to harm me". You guns make you big and strong. The fact is that you wouldn't shoot shit if it was crawling up your leg you are so scared.

[MightyMouse 12]

ATF Raids Gun Shop Where CT Shooter?s Mother Bought Gun Used in Massacre | Video | TheBlaze.com

 

30 rifles stolen from this store. Imagine! The case of a law abiding citizen who has a permit to sell firearms acting irresponsibly. He has instruments which can kill and he doesn't even watch the front door. And, for all the NRA loving jackasses, a firearm is very different than a hammer even though a hammer can kill. This so happens to be the store where Nancy Lanza bought her weapon.

[MightyMouse 12]

Arrests in theft of 111 handguns from Springfield Smith & Wesson plant | WWLP.com

 

Wow! Just like stealing a case of milk. I guess it costs too much to properly secure weapons at the S&W plant.

 

Way to mind those profits. I am not sure why they are skimping. You can charge anything for a gun. they should have no problem getting more money from fearful gun buyers.

 

I suppose S&W supports the NRA and is a responsible gun manufacturer. keep in mind that these guys got caught. We aren't considering the guys that don't get caught.

[MightyMouse 12]

Florida man learns lesson when stolen gun returned with a message | The Sideshow - Yahoo! News

[Tams 20]

Florida man learns lesson when stolen gun returned with a message | The Sideshow - Yahoo! News

 

watch the TV news until the end...

 

the reporter says the police is looking for the guy who did this, he could face charges of armed burglary.

 

LOL

[MightyMouse 12]

watch the TV news until the end...

 

the reporter says the police is looking for the guy who did this, he could face charges of armed burglary.

 

LOL

 

Precisely the irony. The gun owner will face no charge. He did nothing wrong except endangering the world. He is a law abiding citizen who has a right to own a gun.

[SunTrader 10]

Florida man learns lesson when stolen gun returned with a message | The Sideshow - Yahoo! News

Disturbing message left behind. :rofl:

 

Take better care of your weapon, there are children in area is DISTURBING!! :doh:

 

And the suspect could face charges, but not the idiot gun nut.

 

Can't make this stuff up or the fact that over 1400 Americans have been killed by guns since Newtown. :bang head: