Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

From my cold dead hands!


WWWTT

Recommended Posts

Guest Derek L

To my knowledge, the US Constitution makes no mention of "small arms".

----

According to the NRA and the Gun-Right Activists, the Second Amendment means that any American citizen has the right to own a Tactical Nuclear Weapon.

Using the logic of the NRA, the world is a safer place if individuals in North Korea have access to nuclear weapons. ("If everyone in the world has a nuclear weapon, then criminals will be afraid to use one.")

I suppose it would be too much to ask for a cite? I’ve been receiving NRA publications with my membership for nearly twenty years and for the life of me, I don’t recall any such claim…..

edit to add:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bear

bear1 [bair] Show IPA verb, bore or ( Archaic ) bare; borneor born; bear·ing.
verb (used with object)
1.
to hold up; support: to bear the weight of the roof.
2.
to hold or remain firm under (a load): The roof will not bear thestrain of his weight.
3.
to bring forth (young); give birth to: to bear a child.
4.
to produce by natural growth: a tree that bears fruit.
5.
to hold up under; be capable of: His claim doesn't bear closeexamination.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bear+arms

arm2 [ahrm] Show IPA
noun

1.Usually, arms. weapons, especially firearms.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/firearm

fire·arm noun \ˈfī(-ə)r-ˌärm\
Definition of FIREARM
: a weapon from which a shot is discharged by gunpowder —usually used of small arms
Edited by Derek L
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 465
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest American Woman

I suppose it would be too much to ask for a cite? I’ve been receiving NRA publications with my membership for nearly twenty years and for the life of me, I don’t recall any such claim…..

That's because there is no such claim. The only ones making any claim about the right to own a Tactical Nuclear Weapon are those claiming others have claimed it, when they have not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've talked to the point before about Lanza's mental state and the pharmaceuticals he was on. Which most likely led to his rampage. Even if the intent was to kill, reducing the clip size wont prevent deaths, simply reduce the number of it, which still fails to address the main issue of the intent to kill.

This is why 'So?' without some explanation (as you provided here thanks!) is simply a useless question/reply.

This comment is wrong.

Reducing the clip size will reduce the number of deaths,therefore reducing deaths.

Many people have the intent to kill,but are unable to act upon it.Steps to reducing the ability to act upon carrying out a vicious crime must be taken very serious in order to prevent and reduce murders!

But also.mental health must be addressed and more funding into it should be done.

WWWTT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

This comment is wrong.

Reducing the clip size will reduce the number of deaths,therefore reducing deaths.

So I'm curious - how many deaths could still be accomplished by reducing the clip size? How many could one still kill with a reduced clip size? How many shots could still be fired off?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

The difference, restricting who can buy a firearm, not what firearm a legal buyer can purchase.

I don't argue that. I certainly agree with background checks. But I feel I must point out again that Lanza didn't purchase the guns he used in his shooting spree; he wasn't allowed to. I think that's the argument of many - that such people aren't law abiding citizens, and have no qualms about using illegally obtained guns.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Derek L

I don't argue that. I certainly agree with background checks. But I feel I must point out again that Lanza didn't purchase the guns he used in his shooting spree; he wasn't allowed to. I think that's the argument of many - that such people aren't law abiding citizens, and have no qualms about using illegally obtained guns.

I agree fully......one of the reasons I support safe storage laws.......Would the shooting have still have happened if the Mother had of kept them trigger locked inside a safe? Who's to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Derek L

So I'm curious - how many deaths could still be accomplished by reducing the clip size? How many could one still kill with a reduced clip size? How many shots could still be fired off?

It’s simple math AW………4 USGI steel magazines holding 120 rounds of 5.56mm NATO versus 12 LAR-15 magazines holding 120 rounds of 5.56mm NATO……….
Of course, as I mentioned earlier, Charles Whitman, killed 17 people and injured over 30 with primarily a bolt action hunting rifle with a integral 4 round magazine and a semi-auto 12 gauge with a four round tubular magazine…….
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both of those mass shootings involve guns that are still not illegal in Canada - so how have your laws made a difference?

Guns notorious for use in Canadian mass shootings still not prohibited

Neither the Ruger Mini-14 nor the Beretta Cx4 Storm are prohibited in Canada, despite the outcry from victims and their families, the occasional political grumble, and a pointed coroner's report in Montreal.

Not so much the gun laws but the culture Canadians have regarding firearms. But that does nothing to address criminals and such.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I'm curious - how many deaths could still be accomplished by reducing the clip size? How many could one still kill with a reduced clip size? How many shots could still be fired off?

I am not exactly sure anyone can give you an exact number?

I know one thing for sure.

After the seeing the massive problems the US faces,doing nothing is not the answer!

WWWTT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes something does also have to be done about mentally unstable people getting firearms, so why the objection to mandatory background checks? I hear groups like the NRA saying they are useless because very few people are prosecuted for lying on them. Well, the object of firearms background checks is not to put people in jail for lying, it's to prevent people who shouldn't have them from getting them, so lets look at that statistic. If someone is caught lying, confiscate the firearm and prosecute if you can but don't lose sight of the real reason for doing the checks. Maybe there can be improvements made to the way the checks are done but the fact some people lie sure as hell isn't a reason not to have them. Special interest groups will grab onto any argument in order to deflect from the real issue and prevent change. That's just as true as the fact some people lie. One more truth, the more firearms there are out there, the greater the chances of some one who is unstable getting their hands on one. That's just simple arithmetic

There are gun background checks now but are they effective?

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/341835/gun-background-checks-and-prosecutions-robert-verbruggen

Concoct all the theories you want but government was the prime mover when it comes to establishing vehicle safety standards, not the industry. Government did the research and identified the problems, not industry. When it came to things like mandatory airbags, industry pushed back and that's a fact. In the US at least, things like ABS, ESC, and tire pressure monitoring on certain vehicles are mandatory. In Canada, so are things like daytime running lights, and demobilizers. The argument against these things has always been that it will make products unafordable. If it isn't sexy and costs money, industry is not interested. When it comes to vehicles, competition sure hasn't been affected, there are more and better choices out there now than there have been since I can remember. I don't think anyone builds bad cars any more.

One of the purposes of government is to intervene when the interests of the public are not being served properly by the profit motive.

The same goes for vehicle emission standards. During the sixties and seventies, the Los Angeles basin was a smog bowl, now the air is clear even though the number of vehicles has more than doubled. The Fraser Valley where I live is prone to smog during temperature inversions, but it is certainly no worse and probably better than it was when I moved here 25 years ago despite the fact the population of the lower mainland has increased by more than 50%. When I back my old 66 ragtop and it's big V8 with no emission controls into the garage, I have to leave the door open for 20 minutes to let the place air out because the fumes are so bad. My two year old diesel pickup is so clean, I can shut the door right away when I bring it in. Government made that happen by imposing standards on industry.

I told you why corporations or businesses will not meet market demand and need to be forced by law to do the right thing. Because they have been granted a privilege by government in the first place. They are a cartel or a monopoly, in which case market demand will be overridden as there is no necessity to change. GM laughed at Honda and Toyota for decades, while the quality of their own products improved only under the duress of law. Their arrogance in the market was their downfall and without a bailout they would have been gone - another privilege bestowed upon them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't read through this entire thread but in the past few posts, the logic escapes me.IOW, why restrict RPGs? As you say, "all of the other does nothing to prevent it from happening".So, you would allow anyone to own a nuclear tactical weapon?

----

We are quickly moving to a world where any individual, any person in the world, can own/use a nuclear weapon.

Is this what the writers of the US Constitution had in mind when they wrote the 2nd Amendment?

A slippery slope argument I can see is non-sensical for several reasons. One being that nuclear material is not worth the effort and cost to own for individuals to protect themselves. And we are talking about individuals protecting themselves, securing their person and property.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, but the damage can be minimized.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/03/us-usa-guns-australia-idUSBRE9320C720130403

It's hard to argue with the numbers, statistics and facts.... but some people, like yourself, still do. It is like arguing religion.... your beliefs are not fact based... they are just beliefs for the sake of believing.

Here's a different set of numbers, statistics and facts.

The conclusions of these studies were "all over the place," says McPhedran. But by pulling back and looking purely at the statistics, the answer "is there in black and white," she says. "The hypothesis that the removal of a large number of firearms owned by civilians [would lead to fewer gun-related deaths] is not borne out by the evidence."

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1736501,00.html#ixzz2PhfcerJU

Now, you can pooh-pooh them, but statistics and emotion are not generally a good argument. Reason and common sense should prevail. If you can't argue

with that then you won't make your case.

It's reasonable that a person be able to protect himself from others initiating force against him and dependent upon his situation he should be able to

choose what level of protection is necessary, if any.

It is reasonable to say that governments have become oppressive in the past and a certain vigilance is necessary to maintain freedom from oppression and tyranny.

It is not reasonable to demand that all honest citizens be defenseless against force initiated against them by those that do not respect the rights of

others. No law will make them respect other's rights. It is one of the mandates of government to judge who is a threat to the safety of the individual and act accordingly.

It is reasonable to say that drugs have been a factor in most acts of random senseless violence without apparent motive. It is reasonable that the safety and efficacy of such drugs be looked into. We are talking about the behavior of individuals and what gives them self-determination and what takes away from it. Drugs obviously interfere with that self-determination and concept of reality and right and wrong. But we know that behavior is altered. Some believe to their benefit but is it overall a benefit to society? Perhaps there is be more to understand about behavior than to prescribe drugs and that is a failed course of direction for the humanities to pursue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are gun background checks now but are they effective?

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/341835/gun-background-checks-and-prosecutions-robert-

Done properly, yes. http://news.yahoo.com/gun-buyer-background-checks-both-effective-politically-achievable-174519702--politics.html I say again, the intent of background checks is to prevent the wrong people from getting firearms, not prosecute them for trying to beat the system.

I told you why corporations or businesses will not meet market demand and need to be forced by law to do the right thing. Because they have been granted a privilege by government in the first place. They are a cartel or a monopoly, in which case market demand will be overridden as there is no necessity to change. GM laughed at Honda and Toyota for decades, while the quality of their own products improved only under the duress of law. Their arrogance in the market was their downfall and without a bailout they would have been gone - another privilege bestowed upon them.

No, their quality has improved under the duress of competition, the bailout not withstanding. Safety and emissions have improved under the duress of government mandated standards.

Same thing goes for the arms industry. Gun manufacturers don't need government to tell them how to make good guns. Government comes in when it comes to setting limits on how and when they can be used.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know one thing for sure.

After the seeing the massive problems the US faces,doing nothing is not the answer!

WWWTT

Doing something equally destructive to honest citizens and ineffective to the purpose is not the answer either.

The so called "massive" problems in the US are not about guns. Their problems are more about the economy and fear of the future. They may look massive to you because the US is so influential and ten times larger in population.

They are suffering a President that is divisive and economically illiterate who believes big government is necessary and with that big government must come sacrifices to individual freedom and liberty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Done properly, yes. http://news.yahoo.com/gun-buyer-background-checks-both-effective-politically-achievable-174519702--politics.html I say again, the intent of background checks is to prevent the wrong people from getting firearms, not prosecute them for trying to beat the system.

Well, they already have background checks. It won't foil those who wish to skirt the system.

No, their quality has improved under the duress of competition, the bailout not withstanding. Safety and emissions have improved under the duress of government mandated standards.

So you are kind of telling me that there would be no environmentally conscious people or movements to promote

environmental improvement without the government?

Same thing goes for the arms industry. Gun manufacturers don't need government to tell them how to make good guns. Government comes in when it comes to setting limits on how and when they can be used.

We live in a civilization where guns are not really seen as a necessity for most people to own let alone carry around.

It seems, with criminals being released, an overburdened judicial system where resources are syphoned off to fund inefficiencies and failed programs, exorbitant public pension programs, and a drug addled populace the circumstances are changing and more people feel the need to take the protection of their persons and property into their own hands. Government of course, not seeing itself and its own largesse as a problem burdens everyone further with increased taxation, mis-allocated funds, altered priorities, arrogance and know best solutions. In other words, digging a deeper pit sending the country into an economic and cultural spiral.

Edited by Pliny
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The laws reflect the culture, both in Canada and the US.

Yeah, everyone is getting more and more confused about laws. Can't buy your own healthcare, need an accountant to figure

out your taxes, can't open a lemonade stand.

Laws you can't understand or that have some other purpose, such as buffering the coffers of government, are pretty useless laws to the average citizen. Laws that are not equally applied but allow those to get away with whatever they can as long as they don't get caught are pretty stupid.

If you want to get rid of criminals then don't make laws that incriminate honest citizens. Income tax laws, in particular, come to mind. Make laws that people can understand and that make sense, then you will be able to identify who the real criminals are.

The US culture has always been about freedom and liberty which is why people have flocked there. The laws are reflecting that less and less. If the current administration continues to "fundamentally transform America" it will be like any

other western social democracy only there won't be any stronghold against oppression left to be vigilant.

Edited by Pliny
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, they already have background checks. It won't foil those who wish to skirt the system.

They do but the current ones have flaws, so fix them so they work better. Don't just give up. It will foil some of them. Do we quit fighting cancer and other diseases just because we can't find one magical cure that will completely defeat them?

So you are kind of telling me that there would be no environmentally conscious people or movements to promote

environmental improvement without the government?

Sure there are. It was Ralph Nader's book Unsafe at Any Speed, although flawed in some respects that really got the ball rolling when it came to doing something about vehicle safety and emissions but nothing could have happened without government involvement. These kinds improvements cost manufacturers many billions over years so specific targets have to be set in stages and a reasonable amount of time given for each stage to be met. The only agency which can do that is government. In 1966 the year after his book was published, vehicle deaths in the US peaked at over 26 per hundred thousand population. In 2011 it was just over 10. The average vehicle today produces a tiny fraction of harmfull polutants it did in the mid sixties.

To maintain government is totally powerless to reduce firearms deaths is ridiculous.

We live in a civilization where guns are not really seen as a necessity for most people to own let alone carry around.

For some they are a necessity but not for nearly as many as maintain they are. I'm not in favour of banning them anyway, just tightening up rules surrounding their ownership.

As for the rest of your rant, I'll treat it for what it is, an ideological rant that offers no practical suggestions how to deal with this issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Derek L

They do but the current ones have flaws, so fix them so they work better. Don't just give up. It will foil some of them. Do we quit fighting cancer and other diseases just because we can't find one magical cure that will completely defeat them?

Sure there are. It was Ralph Nader's book Unsafe at Any Speed, although flawed in some respects that really got the ball rolling when it came to doing something about vehicle safety and emissions but nothing could have happened without government involvement. These kinds improvements cost manufacturers many billions over years so specific targets have to be set in stages and a reasonable amount of time given for each stage to be met. The only agency which can do that is government. In 1966 the year after his book was published, vehicle deaths in the US peaked at over 26 per hundred thousand population. In 2011 it was just over 10. The average vehicle today produces a tiny fraction of harmfull polutants it did in the mid sixties.

To maintain government is totally powerless to reduce firearms deaths is ridiculous.

For some they are a necessity but not for nearly as many as maintain they are. I'm not in favour of banning them anyway, just tightening up rules surrounding their ownership.

As for the rest of your rant, I'll treat it for what it is, an ideological rant that offers no practical suggestions how to deal with this issue.

And that is one of the reasons why groups like the NRA are opposed to background checks for they’re ineffective without mental health records included…..For example, if a schizophrenic with violent or suicidal tendencies, that’s been in and out of hospitals his entire life, but didn’t have a criminal record, went to purchase a firearm and went through the motions associated with the current background check system in the States, he would be allowed to purchase said firearm….
As to background checks amongst family members and friends, how would the Government ever enforce such a law in the States? The other reason being the unnecessary burden placed on gun owners wishing to transfer ownership amongst family members and friends……..If I want to give a .22 to my son for his birthday, why should we be required to go through Government interference? Said interference isn’t even required for non-restricted firearms in Canada….
Again the difference between here and the States is licensing……Something that Republican and Democratic lawmakers have realized in Connecticut.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And that is one of the reasons why groups like the NRA are opposed to background checks for they’re ineffective without mental health records included…..For example, if a schizophrenic with violent or suicidal tendencies, that’s been in and out of hospitals his entire life, but didn’t have a criminal record, went to purchase a firearm and went through the motions associated with the current background check system in the States, he would be allowed to purchase said firearm….
As to background checks amongst family members and friends, how would the Government ever enforce such a law in the States? The other reason being the unnecessary burden placed on gun owners wishing to transfer ownership amongst family members and friends……..If I want to give a .22 to my son for his birthday, why should we be required to go through Government interference? Said interference isn’t even required for non-restricted firearms in Canada….
Again the difference between here and the States is licensing……Something that Republican and Democratic lawmakers have realized in Connecticut.

That's what gets me about the NRA, they see one deficiency in a process and they want to scrap the whole thing rather than improve it. Background checks are ineffective and should be scrapped because they don't include psychiatric records. Ergo, only crazy people should be prevented from getting firearms, everyone else is OK. Psychiatric checks should be part of the process but what should be the criteria? Do you ban anyone who has ever visited a shrink from owning a firearm? Come on NRA, make some positive contributions other than just giving everything a thumbs down.

If they can't be constructive when it comes to checks, I have a better chance of winning the 649 than them finding any form of licensing acceptable.

As far as family members are concerned, Adam Lanza used a family members guns to kill those kids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Derek L

That's what gets me about the NRA, they see one deficiency in a process and they want to scrap the whole thing rather than improve it. Background checks are ineffective and should be scrapped because they don't include psychiatric records. Ergo, only crazy people should be prevented from getting firearms, everyone else is OK. Psychiatric checks should be part of the process but what should be the criteria? Do you ban anyone who has ever visited a shrink from owning a firearm? Come on NRA, make some positive contributions other than just giving everything a thumbs down.

If they can't be constructive when it comes to checks, I have a better chance of winning the 649 than them finding any form of licensing acceptable.

As far as family members are concerned, Adam Lanza used a family members guns to kill those kids.

Well why incorporate a set of laws that would be utterly useless……….I doubt a “gangster in South Central” goes into Cabela’s to purchase a Glock……..probably more so a stolen one out of the back of a van…….Or if background checks were in place and said thug had a criminal record, what’s to stop him from buying it by proxy?
Hence background checks are ineffective for individual purchases in the United States……….As opposed to here with our licensing, where just this very morning I was able to go into a gun show in Burnaby (across the street from the Deer Lake RCMP station to boot) and legally purchase a semi-auto M-14 (cash), that in turn will be given to my daughter as a birthday present……..Again all perfectly legal……The Dealer obviously had a licence, I presented my restricted licence and I know my daughter also has a restricted licence…….literally in the span of under two hours a .30 calibre main battle rifle has changed hands three times and the Canadian public is not under any sort of threat…..
As I outlined above, in the States, a mentally ill person or a criminal could also do the same process, with or without background checks (granted a background check might take several hours to days) all the while posing a potential risk to the public and law enforcement………….
Individual background checks for purchases are ineffective, but a extensive background check associated with a licensing process has been proven to work…….
As to licensing in the States, at a State level, it is very possible that the genie is already out of the bottle and that levels of compliance would be grim, but some percent of people would comply if they desired to purchase guns and ammo from a store or dealer, fore most dealers (under the threat of a ATF sting) will oblige by said law, as they do with current firearms related laws……….
As to Lanza getting his mothers guns, she obviously didn’t store them securely, with the full knowledge that she had a mentally ill son………
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

As to Lanza getting his mothers guns, she obviously didn’t store them securely, with the full knowledge that she had a mentally ill son………

You don't know that that's true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Derek L

You don't know that that's true.

Well the dead children kinda leads me to that conclusion................I keep my guns in safes that would require a plasma torch to open, and of course, after using said torch, the guns would likely be ruined........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

Well the dead children kinda leads me to that conclusion................I keep my guns in safes that would require a plasma torch to open, and of course, after using said torch, the guns would likely be ruined........

So the only way to securely store guns is the way that you store them? - that's what you're saying?

Edited to add: some people do know how to crack safes.

Edited by American Woman
Link to comment
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.




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...