Gun Control

[walksalone]

if you want to make a difference, take the guns away from those who aren't supposed to have them...

[Enhance]

To me, before you ask me to pay taxes to fund a program requiring enforcement, I'd like to see some evidence that the program will achieve its stated goal.

That would be a lovely and welcomed sight, wouldn't it?

 

The only problem is that legislation, pro-gun lobbyists and the NRA have effectively blocked the CDC from studying gun violence for the last 15-20 years.

 

That means we've had to rely on incomplete information from outside sources.

[knapplc]

Would everyone agree with the idea that we should allow the CDC to collect data on this subject so we could all look at it from a more-informed perspective?

 

Isn't that the most logical first step?

[Danny Bateman]

So, the dynamics of this discussion make my head spin.

 

Trump breaks from orthodoxy and suggests no weapons for those on the No Fly list.

 

Congressional 'Pubs flinch and dissent. They want to make this a 100% terrorism discussion and completely leave guns out of it.

 

McCain even went so far as to pin Orlando on Obama for his "failed policies allowing ISIS to grow" before walking that back.

 

So, their repugnant figurehead makes probably the first statement I find myself on common ground with him on, and these clowns in Congress are so far in the NRA's pocket that they practically sprint the other direction. Despite the fact it's a common sense measure with broad public support that COULD be a step in the right direction, the want to keep tossing out red herrings and burying their heads in the sand.

 

It's instances like these that should make it very clear to these dolts why their approval rating is barely scraping double digits.

[TGHusker]

http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/7408750/howard-stern-gun-debate-orlando-shooting

Very interesting article about Howard Stern's Wolf, Sheep, Sheep dog analogy and gun control. I've copied it below. I think he makes a great point.

As others have noted, the current discussion isn't about 'out right banning' of guns. But my concern is that any limits we place on ownership of guns don't limit

the general law abiding population (us sheep) from protecting ourselves.

 

 

From the article, :

Howard Stern went on a long rant about gun rights on Wednesday on his SiriusXM show in the wake of the killing of 49 people at the Pulse gay nightclub in Orlando, during which he said the "sheep" need to arm themselves against the "wolves."

The vocal Second Amendment supporter spent a portion of all three of his shows this week railing against the 29-year-old perpetrator of the incident and the horror of the mass shooting. Stern made his point with a number or references to the controversial 2014 film American Sniper. In the movie, the lead character played by Bradley Cooper discusses the different types of people in the world, breaking them down into predatory wolves, sheep who don't believe evil exists in the world and sheepdogs, who are "blessed with the gift of aggression."

"I’m so upset about Orlando and what went down," he said. "But I can’t believe these people who come out afterwards and their answer to Orlando is to take away guns from the public. It’s f---ing mind-blowing to me." Stern posted a link to the Sniper "sheep" speech on his official site and referred to the analogy several times during Wednesday's conversation (which you can hear below).

 

 

"I hate the world that has been created," Stern said, admitting that he's anti-violence and could likely not even "hurt a fly" if confronted. "[but] there are such horrible monsters in our world."

Stern came out strongly against limiting Americans' access to guns, both pistols and semi-automatic rifles, saying, "Do you want a fighting chance or not?" The segment led to a number of gun-rights-supporting sites praising Stern's position, with such headlines as "Howard Stern Just Dropped a Lot of Truth About Gun Control" on the Federalist and "Howard Stern Dismantles Calls for Gun Control After Orlando Attack With Chilling 'Sheep' and 'Wolves' Analogy," on The Blaze.

"I'm just a sheep; I'll admit it," he said, labeling most people as sheep, the military and police officers as sheepdogs, and those who would harm them as wolves, while pointing to the terror attack on 9/11 as another example of his Sniper analogy. "I'm gonna tell you about the most gun-free zone on the planet," he said, referring to the planes used as weapons during those terror attacks. "So what did the wolves do? They said, 'This is great. We’ll just kill the sheep with boxcutters.' They went on the plane with boxcutters and all the sheep went, 'Baaaa.'... See, the wolves are always plotting. They’ll use boxcutters. They’ll use an airplane to fly it right into a building. They don’t need AR-15s." A spokesperson for Stern declined further comment.

Stern said he doesn't like or condone violence but knows that he's a sheep himself and that, unlike politicians who have security to protect them, the rest of us are "sitting duck."

"I’m not for taking away people’s rights," he concluded. "I think the answer doesn't lie in taking any kind of ability of the sheep to protect themselves from the wolves. I wish it was that simple."

[Saunders]

 

 

 

and a large portion of you are hypocrites if you are not just as loud for getting rid of abortions. Hundreds of thousands of babies a year are killed in the name of choice.. Perfect example of sanctioned mass murder!

 

No love for human life at all!

This is not the place for that discussion.

Yeah, it's just gonna derail the thread.

Hey at least when I derail a thread I try to stay on topic! I'm an MVP like that.

 

[Saunders]

Would everyone agree with the idea that we should allow the CDC to collect data on this subject so we could all look at it from a more-informed perspective?

 

Isn't that the most logical first step?

100% agree.

[ZRod]

if you want to make a difference, take the guns away from those who aren't supposed to have them...

I was wondering where you've been. Real glad you're here to answer this issue for us with such a simple yet elegant solution.

[TAKODA]

Obviously everyone here has some sort of opinion as to what is needed to stifle some of the criminal activities (shootings) that the US has suffered in the recent past.

 

The fact is, we all know that some changes need to be made in our gun many laws to potentially reduce gun deaths. The accidental discharges that have killed or maimed children is one aspect, suicides and mental illness are the others where certain improvements to our laws may have some impact.

 

I will say that I am all for deeper scrutiny prior to allowing someone to purchase a fire arm and think this more intrusive check will in fact reduce a small percentage of illegal gun purchasing, yet no matter how small the %, to keep one gun out of the hands of someone who should not have one, is in itself is a worthy result.? I do not have current stats on the outcome of background checks but in 2010, it is purported that 77,000 people who submitted for background checks were denied because of false information on the application. 47% of these people were felons or awaiting a felony conviction. 19% were fugitives running from the law.

 

Yet, even though I would be agreeable to deeper checks, I would ask you all to read this article and then come back and give the rest of us an opinion. This article has many many different issues that shows how complex things can be. It shows deficiencies in our system as well as issues that infringe upon medical records being released.

 

Rather than me relating all the details and pointing out the issues, read this and then respond.

 

Hope this adds some value to this already long thread, so we can all talk as rational US citizens who are looking for the proper answers to our counties gun problem (without the bickering)?

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/03/us/how-mass-shooters-got-their-guns.html?_r=0

 

 

Read this ↑ link please. Facts to consider!

 

 

[zoogs]

Repeal the 2nd amendment.

It's absurd, and it's been perverted. It's what stops conversation and legislation in their tracks. It's what pushes both parties towards the alternative easiest viable path of stripping due process and civil liberties instead, because we can't all simply decide that maybe guns are a dangerous thing that should be subject to regulation on those merits alone. It's what empowers the NRA-ILA to perpetuate these fanciful myths about resisting tyranny (how'd that go, Oregon guys?) and pretending it is anything more than what it is: a hobby they'd like to keep unrestricted. It's what leads us all to say, "No minds are changing. Let's end this once again by throwing up our arms and wistfully complaining about all we can't do."

 

Keep the part about states having militias, fine. But break this absurd reality where an entire class of (dangerous) commodity is singularly designated as sacred and essential to our liberty, above all the other ones which we nonetheless enjoy.

 

We'd still have guns without the post-'08/'10 2nd amendment. But theirs will be a negotiated privilege, and not a civil right.

[zoogs]

I mean, just 2 quick examples of privileges that are not Constitutionally Protected™, and that the government can and does freely restrict:

 

-voting

-driving

[TAKODA]

Repeal the 2nd amendment.

 

It's absurd, and it's been perverted. It's what stops conversation and legislation in their tracks. It's what pushes both parties towards the alternative easiest viable path of stripping due process and civil liberties instead, because we can't all simply decide that maybe guns are a dangerous thing that should be subject to regulation on those merits alone. It's what empowers the NRA-ILA to perpetuate these fanciful myths about resisting tyranny (how'd that go, Oregon guys?) and pretending it is anything more than what it is: a hobby they'd like to keep unrestricted. It's what leads us all to say, "No minds are changing. Let's end this once again by throwing up our arms and wistfully complaining about all we can't do."

 

Keep the part about states having militias, fine. But break this absurd reality where an entire class of (dangerous) commodity is singularly designated as sacred and essential to our liberty, above all the other ones which we nonetheless enjoy.

 

We'd still have guns without the post-'08/'10 2nd amendment. But theirs will be a negotiated privilege, and not a civil right.

 

Zoogs, did you read my link above and then formulate your opinion, or is your opinion based on the thread and past conversations?

 

I just want to know why your opinion (needed corrective measure) got so specific?

 

That link I laid out really, really lines things up for all to follow along! Shows many issues that need to be addressed!

[huskerfan2000]

Repeal the 2nd amendment.

 

It's absurd, and it's been perverted. It's what stops conversation and legislation in their tracks. It's what pushes both parties towards the alternative easiest viable path of stripping due process and civil liberties instead, because we can't all simply decide that maybe guns are a dangerous thing that should be subject to regulation on those merits alone. It's what empowers the NRA-ILA to perpetuate these fanciful myths about resisting tyranny (how'd that go, Oregon guys?) and pretending it is anything more than what it is: a hobby they'd like to keep unrestricted. It's what leads us all to say, "No minds are changing. Let's end this once again by throwing up our arms and wistfully complaining about all we can't do."

 

Keep the part about states having militias, fine. But break this absurd reality where an entire class of (dangerous) commodity is singularly designated as sacred and essential to our liberty, above all the other ones which we nonetheless enjoy.

 

We'd still have guns without the post-'08/'10 2nd amendment. But theirs will be a negotiated privilege, and not a civil right.

 

 

This has got to be the single dumbest post in the history of message boards. The fact that you totally ignore the history man and the relationship with government tyanny is beyond words.

[zoogs]

I just want to know why your opinion (needed corrective measure) got so specific?

 

It's been coming around to that since I learned about the history of the 2nd amendment, and I believe Justice Souter's recommendation, which is specifically to clarify the 2nd amendment in the way described.

 

The problem isn't really that people are getting guns. They're just exercising their rights freely. The problem is the kinds of guns they can get and the proliferation that results, which then so often end up either illegally in wrong hands, or legally in careless hands. With all due respect to AR-15 aficionados and people who enjoy using high capacity mags, we really can't make like the UK and say "That's not a Section 1 firearm. Sorry." ?? ...

[zoogs]

This has got to be the single dumbest post in the history of message boards. The fact that you totally ignore the history man and the relationship with government tyanny is beyond words.

You're really invested in this (gun violence and all) status quo of ours. Forgive me if I'm not.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/03/us/how-mass-shooters-got-their-guns.html?_r=0

 

 

Read this ↑ link please. Facts to consider!

TAKODA, by the way, I think that's great coverage from the Times. Thanks for posting.

 

To a large extent I think it illustrates the folly of trying to distinguish between "bad guys" and "good guys".

 

All bad guys were by any reasonable measure indistinguishable from good at some point. The idea that they aren't is folly. The idea that we just haven't cast the net widely and aggressively enough is simply dangerous; we're talking about denying fundamental rights here.

 

Let's take a look at any number of privileges which aren't fundamental rights. Think of the hoops you'd have to jump through to drive a car, drive a motorcycle, pilot a helicopter, vote, own a business.

 

But buying an AR-15 sporting rifle that happens to be an extremely efficient tool of mass murder? That's a fundamental right that can't be questioned, and it can't be stopped unless we expand civilian monitoring on all levels -- from their internet activity, to their financial activity, to the threshold at which "due process" is thrown out the window. How far does that go before we can "get to" every radical or troubled individual before they go on a killing spree with a weapon considered legal and whose private ownership is considered as sacrosanct as free speech?