613 replies to this topic

[Panthro]

He's not? Stupid 2012

[vanilla B]

The 2nd amendment provides the right to bear arms to help prevent a tyrannical government from taking control of the people (i.e. Revolutionary War). It is not solely for the purpose of defending oneself from the potential of an attack. We don't like nukes, but the threat of nukes prevent others from using them themselves to attack the U.S. If other countries would get rid of their nuke supply then we could, but they wont, same principle applies to citizens as criminally insane people won't get rid of their weapons so neither can we. Imagine a situation where there is multiple attackers with assault rifles, and a short range low ammo pistol just can't get the job done.

[vanilla B]

Would you say we have a nationwide epidemic of planes crashing into towers and trucks being used as bombs?

Trying to use singular events to absolve blame from an instrument of death that is being used to kill people daily is like comparing apples to rhinoceros sh!t.

When 10,000 people start dying every year from kamikaze airplanes and truck explosions like they do gun violence we can have the conversation about whether planes and trucks are the issue.

I am more interested in resolving issues that actually exist.

In 2010 10,228 people died from alcohol-related car accidents. Applying this logic should we ban alcohol and car accidents too? I'm all for more thorough background checks and longer waiting periods unless authorized by a judge in unusual circumstances, but we should not ban a weapon. There are no numbers that tell how many lives are saved by them, only the numbers of those that aren't.

[Panthro]

In 1982 21000 people died in alcohol related crashes.

Perhaps we could reduce gun violence by half as well with more laws, regulations,and awareness.

Great example!

[Cat]

So, do you blame the airplane as well as the hijackers when they flew it into the Twin Towers in NYC on 9/11?

Do you blame the truck and McVeigh for the bombings in Oklahoma City?

If not, then your arguement of blaming a gun for what a person decided to do is a knee-jerk and rikiculous assertion.



Arguing for consistent checks and processes to buy guns in all states....can get my head around.

Banning a particular gun type....no.

Yes somewhat, that is why we have so much security around airports and why the cock pit is on lock down. (btw I think you mean bomb with McVeigh)

Guns are weapons made with the purpose to kill. We ban nukes because they cause so much damage, as well as missiles, rocket launchers and grenades. I think high max clips should be on that list as well as some guns.

[MadHatter]

Yes somewhat, that is why we have so much security around airports and why the cock pit is on lock down. (btw I think you mean bomb with McVeigh)

Guns are weapons made with the purpose to kill. We ban nukes because they cause so much damage, as well as missiles, rocket launchers and grenades. I think high max clips should be on that list as well as some guns.

I am for closing the Gun Show Loophole....I am for consistent regulations on purchasing guns (all states should be the same)....I am for requiring a license to purchase any gun....I am for mandatory saftey/usage training courses to get a license to purchase a gun.

But, I am not for the government to decide which guns are OK and which are not. You open that door and you quickly start losing rights.

You see guns as nothing but an instrument of death. You do not see them as many gun owners do....target practicing, hunting, etc. You apparently had biases against guns long before this tragedy occurs.....and are using the tragedy for that agenda.

[Panthro]

I am for closing the Gun Show Loophole....I am for consistent regulations on purchasing guns (all states should be the same)....I am for requiring a license to purchase any gun....I am for mandatory saftey/usage training courses to get a license to purchase a gun.

But, I am not for the government to decide which guns are OK and which are not. You open that door and you quickly start losing rights.

You see guns as nothing but an instrument of death. You do not see them as many gun owners do....target practicing, hunting, etc. You apparently had biases against guns long before this tragedy occurs.....and are using the tragedy for that agenda.

That's a slippery slope either way. I want a chain gun.

[Zod]

Yes, we had no rights prior to 2004.

Sigh


Good things these jokers are in the dumbass minority.

[CatofWar]

The good thing is that ct already had an assault weapons ban. http://www.jud.ct.go...aw/firearms.htm

[NanuqoftheNorth]

When I was growing up 30 years ago we all knew our neighbors and looked out for one another. Firearms were propped up in the corner of the living room or hanging in a rack on the wall. People were raised to respect and handle firearms safely. I suspect there are still places like that in this nation, but it seems like more often than not our neighborhoods are not as close knit and we need to lock our doors. Our firearms in this new age need to be handled differently as well. It may be unfortunate but it is also true.

Most gun owners are reasonable and responsible, but background checks and safety courses prior to purchase need to be mandatory. Weapons also need to be secured when not in the immediate control of their rightful owners. Lost or stolen weapons need to be reported without delay to the local authorities. These steps won't eliminate every possibility for misuse, but they are simple steps that will help reduce deaths and maiming.

[NanuqoftheNorth]

The good thing is that ct already had an assault weapons ban. http://www.jud.ct.go...aw/firearms.htm

Hopefully the state of Connecticut can seize whatever assets the perps mother's estate has to help defer the costs associated with this tragedy. It would be a useful example to others that think the state's laws don't apply to them.

[Kurb]

That's a slippery slope either way. I want a chain gun.

I have an acquaintance that has one...that works...

[Kurb]

A poo with teeth that posts poo while taking a poop?

INCEPTION

No U R!

[Kurb]

Why isn't this plausible?



Ban assault rifles

Honestly I can let this one go. There is an argument against it, but at this point in our society its either ban the sale of or start applying the crimes committed by the gun to the owner of the gun and banning is an easier solution

Ban the manufacturing and sales of ammunition that are excessive in destruction i.e. hollow tip, armor piercing, etc.

Partially on board here as well. Hollow Points are good for home defense and hunting. Armor piercing should be banned IE: "Cop Killers"

Reduce magazine sizes

Kinda goes hand in hang with the assault rifle thing. It honestly won't do much, but I would make some concessions here.

Ban hand guns that are deemed to go beyond basic need for stopping power for self defense i.e. .50 caliber Desert Eagles, .357 Magnum

Here I have an issue with someone else telling me what I need to protect my family. That's my decision and caliber is one of the most uninformed overrated argument people can have. If you do some of the above caliber banning is a waste of energy.

Create meaningful and sweeping new regulations on the ability to purchase a gun.

So long as they don't infringe on my rights I can live with this.

Close gun show loopholes

Again, So long as they don't infringe on my rights I can live with this.

impose a stiff federal sales tax on all weapons

Negative, no new taxes. We are taxed enough. I resist all new taxes.

Use revenue from that tax to create and aggressive educational program to educate the public on signs of mental illness that could result in a person doing these things.
I


Use new revenues from that tax to subsidize companies making non-lethal defense products, i.e. stun guns, pepper spray, etc. to make these alternatives even more affordable

Use revenue from tax to increase access and coverage for mental health care.

I would prefer the $ to fund this come from Defense spending cuts (not solider pay/benefits). But I like these ideas.

And cap the number of guns households can legally own. You don't need 10+ guns to protect your family. 1 per member will do the trick. If you already have more than the cap you can keep those guns, but cannot purchase additional guns.

Again this is telling me what I need and don't. I resist things like this. Lets say I am an avid Deer hunter. I may want a 30-06, 12G, 7mm mag, etc to use on different days/stands/hunting styles.

There. Everyone is happy. Done and done. Your 2nd amendment right is not taken away, the power and lethalness of the guns available is greatly reduced, the access to guns is more difficult, and mental health care is expanded.

Surely everyone could get on board with that right??

Mostly! Good ideas.

[MadHatter]

That's a slippery slope either way. I want a chain gun.

Don't think you are man enough to handle it....