Debate about Gun Control

[pbrower2a]

(06-14-2016, 02:26 AM)Galen Wrote:

(06-14-2016, 02:18 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(06-14-2016, 02:13 AM)Galen Wrote:

(06-14-2016, 01:53 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(06-13-2016, 11:41 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I have predicted that these horrible, ridiculous massacres would continue and get worse as long as people continue with these silly arguments about bans not working and so on. My prediction has come true, over and over again. So, I make it again. When will people in America drop their illusions and the gun fetish? "How many deaths does it take till he knows, that too many people have died?" This is one mixed up, crazy country. Look who's running for president. Look who controls congress. Look at who congress listens to: the NRA. Case closed; this country is too mentally ill to be trusted with gun ownership. The USA fails its background check. Big time.

While I am not a gun owner nor have any desire to own one I have to say historically bans do not work. Obama I believe is not for banning them. Just for tighter regulation. I have seen a video of him saying so so that is where I get that notion from. I believe though you sound like you are for banning them. It will never happen. That is the failure here. The failure to see that reality. If you take them away, say hello to the next civil war matey. THEN real bloodshed will really begin.

For a kiwi you have a better feel for the state of the US then many people who live here.  I am pretty sure that Obozo does want a ban but he knows he isn't getting one, being a lame duck president.  Obama is a liar just like almost all politicians but that is a function of people not wanting to face the truth.  Eric the Obtuse is an extreme case of this sort of willful ignorance and would almost certainly be one of the early casualties.

You might want to take a closer look into the shooter's background.  There are a number of things about this that don't smell right.  In any event there are no laws that are going to catch a guy with a squeaky clean record who suddenly goes off the rails.

Yes while i was typing out my response i was actually thinking Obama says one thing but may be wanting to do something else. I distrust politicians and as i have said elsewhere politicians 99% of the time are telling sweet lies for power. I felt like mentioning that but just going by what i have seen. My thoughts are primarily what i am thinking which may not be based on fact.

Someone who just wants to tweak the laws a bit wouldn't keep harping on the subject so much.  I always like to pay more attention to what they do than what they say.  It is one of my many tricks for spotting lies.

The Second Amendment provides for states to have their own militias (National Guard, state police). Possession of firearms in a way contrary to the "well-regulated militia" does not mean the right to bear arms if one would be rejected from being a member of the militia due to some gross turpitude (such as a criminal conviction or membership in a criminal organization like ISIS or MS-13) or incompetence (lunacy, idiocy, addiction, habitual drunkenness). Military service can be a civic duty, but it usually implies some hardships. Enlistment in the Armed Services or even in reserve units may be attractive, but it does not give one more freedom. One obviously has certain responsibilities attached to any 'militia' weapon. Likewise, join a police force (even if the job has such attractions as good pay and a spiffy uniform) and recognize that the job entails some significant control of one's life.

The militia could own anti-aircraft guns, hand grenades, tear gas, and tanks -- only rarely can you.

...Seeking to tweak the laws may be as far as one wants to go, or as far as one knows that one can go. At the time that the Second Amendment was written the military weapons were little different from hunting weapons. A deer rifle can kill a man.