Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Sign in to follow this  
wulf42

Gun Control Doesn't work...Never did, Never will!

Recommended Posts

It's almost Christmas and I, unlike you apparently, do not have a lot of time to waste on the Forums right now. Lots of visitors and parties, they take a higher priority than answering some foolish post.

Amazing. You devote time for two separate posts to explain that "you don't have the time" to reply. Just label everything false without explaining why. Anyhow, party-on, Garth...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wonder why our so-called anti-gun registry Conservative government insists that gun violence IS an epidemic then?

Anytime I get close to the crux of the issue it seems to change.

Exactly my sentiments too.

Because all governments operate on the assumption of gaining more power. Taking away guns is like giving the government a "I can do whatever the hell i please" badge. I don't care if its a conservative government that goes Fascist or a Liberal government that goes Socialist, its all about gathering power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems like gun control debates always generate the most irrational arguments, the most extreme paranoia and the most polarized positions. I really don't get why it's so controversial.

Cars have been registered for decades. I don't see people protesting that "the government is trying to take away my car". There are bans on all kinds of toxic chemicals. I've never seen anyone wear a t-shirt saying "You can have my weed killer after you pry it from my cold dead fingers". But guns seem to occupy a spot deep in the psyche of the anti-government crowd. There seems to be the notion that gun control is part of some nefarious plot. Do you really think that some dictator is going to seize control and you're going to fight back with Grandpa's old .303?

The anti-gun control crowd seem to believe that you can neatly divide the world into law-abiding citizens and hardened criminals/serial killers/drug-addled rapists. The truth, though, is that most murders and rapes are committed by someone known to the victim. People do stupid things when they are angry, drunk or both.

Gun control isn't the answer - the answer is building a saner society where people don't feel the urge to kill each other. Until we have the answer, though, gun control is a useful stop-gap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It seems like gun control debates always generate the most irrational arguments, the most extreme paranoia and the most polarized positions. I really don't get why it's so controversial.

Because the 2A in the states influences the thoughts of canucks up here.

Cars have been registered for decades. I don't see people protesting that "the government is trying to take away my car".

While true, a gun is not used on a state/prov paid for road.And thats why a licence/plate is required.

Do you really think that some dictator is going to seize control and you're going to fight back with Grandpa's old .303?

Hurricane Katrina , Louisiana , 2005. Guns confiscated for no reason in violation of the 2A .

The anti-gun control crowd seem to believe that you can neatly divide the world into law-abiding citizens and hardened criminals/serial killers/drug-addled rapists. The truth, though, is that most murders and rapes are committed by someone known to the victim. People do stupid things when they are angry, drunk or both.

Yes, it does seem that anti's think crime will go away if guns are banned. It doesnt and they wont be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because the 2A in the states influences the thoughts of canucks up here.

Why would that make any difference? Do American state and local laws also influence Canuck thoughts?

While true, a gun is not used on a state/prov paid for road.And thats why a licence/plate is required.

They are often used on such roads.

Hurricane Katrina , Louisiana , 2005. Guns confiscated for no reason in violation of the 2A .

Guns are often confiscated, regardless of the "2A".

Yes, it does seem that anti's think crime will go away if guns are banned. It doesnt and they wont be.

Besides, guns are just cool! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why would that make any difference? Do American state and local laws also influence Canuck thoughts?

Because Canadians watch American movies & TV; and read American magazines. Many assume that it applies to them without thinking about it. There was a time when I could recite the Miranda rights from watching American police shows.

Guns are often confiscated, regardless of the "2A".

No idea to what you are referring. Unless you can be more specific, this is a random sequence of words.

BTW, I'm sure you're aware that there is a longstanding controversy over exactly what the second amendment means - whether it is the right for anyone to bear arms or whether the right exists only within the context of a militia. The wording is far from clear.

See this link for details. (See how easy it is to add credibility to your opinions? You should try it once in a while).

Besides, guns are just cool! :lol:

I grew up in rural Alberta. I found the people who thought guns were cool were the same ones who would brag about blowing apart small animals with shotguns. IOW, the paradox of guns is that the people who want them most are too immature to be trusted with them. Not to mention all of the paranoid, mentally unstable wackos out there armed to the teeth. In a sane society, guns wouldn't be huge problem. But in a sane society, people wouldn't feel the need to arm themselves.

In particular, countries will histories of solving problems through bloodshed should seriously consider gun control or outright gun bans. Sound like any country you know of, BC?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because Canadians watch American movies & TV; and read American magazines. Many assume that it applies to them without thinking about it. There was a time when I could recite the Miranda rights from watching American police shows.

No idea to what you are referring. Unless you can be more specific, this is a random sequence of words.

BTW, I'm sure you're aware that there is a longstanding controversy over exactly what the second amendment means - whether it is the right for anyone to bear arms or whether the right exists only within the context of a militia. The wording is far from clear.

See this link for details. (See how easy it is to add credibility to your opinions? You should try it once in a while).

The Constitution should be taken literally. The right to bare arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. The reason people try to add conjecture and confusion to that is to forward there own agenda. Besides the supreme court has already upheld the 2nd amendment.

I grew up in rural Alberta. I found the people who thought guns were cool were the same ones who would brag about blowing apart small animals with shotguns. IOW, the paradox of guns is that the people who want them most are too immature to be trusted with them. Not to mention all of the paranoid, mentally unstable wackos out there armed to the teeth. In a sane society, guns wouldn't be huge problem. But in a sane society, people wouldn't feel the need to arm themselves.

Thats your own Conjecture and generalizations. I assure you I dont shoot liittle animals. And I have all the maturity I need. Guns are not a problem in Switzerland. Every active person in the military (everyone is forced to serve) owns an assault rifle. One of the lowest crime rates in the civilized world.

In particular, countries will histories of solving problems through bloodshed should seriously consider gun control or outright gun bans. Sound like any country you know of, BC?

Yeah that worked out wonderfully in Russia, Stalin had fun killing off the defenseless population

Edited by moderateamericain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Constitution should be taken literally. The right to bare arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. The reason people try to add conjecture and confusion to that is to forward there own agenda. Besides the supreme court has already upheld the 2nd amendment.

The 2nd amendment wasn't in question, only its interpretation. The supreme court narrowly decided that the 2nd amendment enshrined the right to own guns for hunting and self-defence but that right has limitations. The court overturned the outright ban but did not rule out regulation of handgun ownership and usage.

And I have all the maturity I need.

I don't know you so I can't comment. All I know is I've met lots of gun owners who don't. I also read the news and see that nutbars like Bruce Pardos are all too common in your home country.

Guns are not a problem in Switzerland. Every active person in the military (everyone is forced to serve) owns an assault rifle. One of the lowest crime rates in the civilized world.

Every time there is a gun control debate, some NRA apologist brings up Switzerland. Do you live in Switzerland? No? Then, I guess it isn't relevant, is it? Maybe the NRA should spend its resources figuring out why gun crime in Switzerland is so much lower than the USA. Trying to increase the number of guns in an already extremely violent society is like pouring gasoline on a fire.

Yeah that worked out wonderfully in Russia, Stalin had fun killing off the defenseless population

If you're making the case that things would have turned out differently had individuals under the rule of the Soviets been better armed, then let's hear your argument. All you've done so far is made a relatively meaningless inference.

BTW, you should realize that about half of the army officers were executed by Stalin in 1937. If anyone could muster the might to stand up to him, it should have been them. Most tyants stay in power by playing off factions against each other. Saddam stayed in power well after the U.S. stopped giving him aid and Iraq is one of the most heavily armed countries on the planet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because Canadians watch American movies & TV; and read American magazines. Many assume that it applies to them without thinking about it. There was a time when I could recite the Miranda rights from watching American police shows.

So what...sounds like an identity crisis for some folks. Vicarious Americans need to get a grip (pun intended).

No idea to what you are referring. Unless you can be more specific, this is a random sequence of words.

BTW, I'm sure you're aware that there is a longstanding controversy over exactly what the second amendment means - whether it is the right for anyone to bear arms or whether the right exists only within the context of a militia. The wording is far from clear.

Save it for those who don't know any better...including details of Federalist Papers. More pretense as a vicarious American?

Some of you guys have it real bad....

I grew up in rural Alberta. I found the people who thought guns were cool were the same ones who would brag about blowing apart small animals with shotguns. IOW, the paradox of guns is that the people who want them most are too immature to be trusted with them. Not to mention all of the paranoid, mentally unstable wackos out there armed to the teeth. In a sane society, guns wouldn't be huge problem. But in a sane society, people wouldn't feel the need to arm themselves.

Then be afraid...very afraid. I grew up on the streets of Philadelphia....small animals were the least of our worries. America wouldn't exist without guns....some Canadians can pretend they know better.

In particular, countries will histories of solving problems through bloodshed should seriously consider gun control or outright gun bans. Sound like any country you know of, BC?

Gosh...I sure hope so. Happiness is a warm gun (J. Lennon).

Edited by bush_cheney2004

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
....Every time there is a gun control debate, some NRA apologist brings up Switzerland. Do you live in Switzerland? No? Then, I guess it isn't relevant, is it?...

Whereas gun control debates in Canada always include references to the USA. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whereas gun control debates in Canada always include references to the USA. :lol:

Yes, it's a perfect example of what can happen when you mix a violent culture with too many weapons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, it's a perfect example of what can happen when you mix a violent culture with too many weapons.

It's criminals using guns to kill people in the inner cities by a vast majority. Not law abiding gun owners.

I own guns and bows and I haven't gone on a murderous rampage or even killed one person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, it's a perfect example of what can happen when you mix a violent culture with too many weapons.

So is that a bad thing? Sounds like you just lost a chicken and egg argument....to yourself.

Pass the guns please.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The 2nd amendment wasn't in question, only its interpretation. The supreme court narrowly decided that the 2nd amendment enshrined the right to own guns for hunting and self-defence but that right has limitations. The court overturned the outright ban but did not rule out regulation of handgun ownership and usage.

Are we talking about Gun Regulation or Out right banning of firearms. I have no problem with Regulation, I do have a problem with Banning of Firearms

I don't know you so I can't comment. All I know is I've met lots of gun owners who don't. I also read the news and see that nutbars like Bruce Pardos are all too common in your home country.

Military, live in Michigan, own guns. Shoot Reguarly. Job, family, well adjusted. Enough Said

Every time there is a gun control debate, some NRA apologist brings up Switzerland. Do you live in Switzerland? No? Then, I guess it isn't relevant, is it? Maybe the NRA should spend its resources figuring out why gun crime in Switzerland is so much lower than the USA. Trying to increase the number of guns in an already extremely violent society is like pouring gasoline on a fire.

If you're making the case that things would have turned out differently had individuals under the rule of the Soviets been better armed, then let's hear your argument. All you've done so far is made a relatively meaningless inference.

I cant say for certain that it would have turned out different, But I would like to think if the Russian people had been armed it might have made stalin be more selective in his executions, instead of just everyone. Its better to have the ability to fight for your life, then die on your knees.

BTW, you should realize that about half of the army officers were executed by Stalin in 1937. If anyone could muster the might to stand up to him, it should have been them. Most tyants stay in power by playing off factions against each other. Saddam stayed in power well after the U.S. stopped giving him aid and Iraq is one of the most heavily armed countries on the planet.

Sadam also controlled almost all of the firearms

Edited by moderateamericain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's criminals using guns to kill people in the inner cities by a vast majority. Not law abiding gun owners.

I own guns and bows and I haven't gone on a murderous rampage or even killed one person.

This sums it all up guys, soak it up last word freaks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's criminals using guns to kill people in the inner cities by a vast majority. Not law abiding gun owners.

I own guns and bows and I haven't gone on a murderous rampage or even killed one person.

Did you even read what I wrote? Do you even read what you write?

Bruce Pardo was an electrical engineer with no previous criminal record. Marc Lepine was a university student with no previous criminal record. You can't neatly divide the world into 'law-abiding citizens" and "criminals".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Did you even read what I wrote? Do you even read what you write?

Bruce Pardo was an electrical engineer with no previous criminal record. Marc Lepine was a university student with no previous criminal record. You can't neatly divide the world into 'law-abiding citizens" and "criminals".

Ok, that's 2 out of hundreds even thousands. Hardly going against what I'm saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why would that make any difference? Do American state and local laws also influence Canuck thoughts?

Yes, and vice versa. Ideas , thoughts and so forth can flow across borders.

Guns are often confiscated, regardless of the "2A".

Sad but true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No idea to what you are referring. Unless you can be more specific, this is a random sequence of words.

The second amendment .

BTW, I'm sure you're aware that there is a longstanding controversy over exactly what the second amendment means - whether it is the right for anyone to bear arms or whether the right exists only within the context of a militia. The wording is far from clear.

See Heller case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...