2012-12-16, 20:11 | Link #521 | |
Juanita/Kiteless
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: New England
Age: 40
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2012-12-16, 20:13 | Link #522 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2009
Location: classified
|
Quote:
I don't agree that the gun itelf is the problem, nor ownership. The problem is the public perception of guns being something other than a tool. They view it as a status symbol, or a symbol of power/strength, and that is a problem. I view it as a burden/responsibility that comes with being a US citizen who is bound by the constitution to own arms, train in their use, and be ready if congress calls us into service (via a draft). Maybe reinstitution of the draft isn't such a bad idea? Mandatory military service is done in many other countries of the world. Perhaps that's the problem in the US? Quote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/po...otus.html?_r=0
__________________
|
||
2012-12-16, 20:16 | Link #523 |
Juanita/Kiteless
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: New England
Age: 40
|
Good point. America has a history of violence and is infatuated with violence. I guess it is this combined with the wide availability of guns that has just been a recipe for disaster. It is like giving a bunch of arsonists a bunch of lighters and matches.
__________________
|
2012-12-16, 20:17 | Link #524 |
Gamilas Falls
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 46
|
They also know if they start carpet bombing cul-de-sacs they will have worse problems than just civilians armed with pistols and rifles. That is the point were at least part of the military changes sides because these are their own families being bombed. Possibly one of the benefits of an all voluteer military that is sworn to protect the Constitution first, the ones issuing orders from Washington afterwords.
And the use of the military against civilians within US borders is against the Constitution. If it is a rebellion, than we'd already have the military splitting between the two sides just like we had the last time it happened (1861).
__________________
|
2012-12-16, 20:17 | Link #525 | |
Meh
Join Date: Feb 2008
|
Quote:
|
|
2012-12-16, 20:21 | Link #526 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2009
Location: classified
|
Quote:
This is what happened to the Soviets when they invaded Afghanistan, it is what is happening to our forces there as well (to a lesser extent). Thus, the right to keep and bear arms is simply a sort of "first-line" defense and/or means of allowing the citizens the time to "acquire" other arms from regular forces. That's assuming the US military would even go along with it (an attack on their own people), which I highly doubt.
__________________
|
|
2012-12-16, 20:22 | Link #527 |
blinded by blood
Author
|
The military would split if there was a rebellion or civil war (again). They split last time. Soldiers aren't robots controlled by their political overlords, you know. They are humans like anyone else.
When the drones start replacing soldiers en masse, that's when you can start worrying.
__________________
|
2012-12-16, 20:22 | Link #528 | |
Juanita/Kiteless
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: New England
Age: 40
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2012-12-16, 20:29 | Link #530 |
blinded by blood
Author
|
My biggest problem with further restricting gun ownership is that the rules will only apply to poor people and the middle class. People with lots of money will just buy their way to gun ownership.
So draconian, very restrictive gun control--even outright bans--will only restrict ownership from people who are not rich. In California, obtaining a concealed carry permit is very, very difficult. It takes a long time to process all the paperwork and even if you get approved, you'll be waiting for a long time before you can carry. Assuming you even get approved, which is unlikely. This difficulty is null and void if you have lots and lots of money.
__________________
|
2012-12-16, 20:32 | Link #531 |
Gamilas Falls
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 46
|
Feinstein has a concealed carry permit (or at least she did back in the 1990s).
Several of us have tried to vote her out of office since the late 1990s. No luck as of yet. I seem to recall some people in San Francisco don't care for her all that much either.
__________________
|
2012-12-16, 20:38 | Link #533 |
Gamilas Falls
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 46
|
She was one of the ones would put the original one in place in 1994.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handgun_Control,_Inc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal...lt_Weapons_Ban http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violent...nforcement_Act
__________________
|
2012-12-16, 20:53 | Link #534 | |
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Montreal, QC, Canada
Age: 40
|
Quote:
What that would mean is that LE units would keep records on everyone asking for gun ownership, which is a good thing in itself. Unfortunately, there are some Americans who are so aversive to police and anything related to the government to even accept submitting themselves to such procedures. That's why I think the solution itself has to be more radical considering how radical and dangerous those "rebels" (can't find a better term, so enlighten me plz) already are. |
|
2012-12-16, 21:01 | Link #535 | ||
:cool:
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Idaho
Age: 32
|
Quote:
Quote:
Many of you don't seem to understand that these are not local events. This happens elsewhere in the world just as often and in a myriad of different ways. Bombs are just as common if not more so than guns. This will continue to be an issue until people realize that preventing these disasters before they happen is the only proper way to handle them.
__________________
|
||
2012-12-16, 21:25 | Link #536 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2010
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
There was a time when the insane were committed to institutions in order to prevent them from harming themselves and others. Guess what... that is now sooo out of fashion (according to... liberals). The insane have the right to roam free, and refuse to take their meds if they don't like the way it makes them feel. At least 9 out of every 10 of the spree shooters in the last 3-4 decades had already been either diagnosed and was being treated, or was known to have psychotic and/or sociopathic tendencies, long before they went on their spree. Much like the rights of criminals far outweigh the rights of their law abiding victims, the rights of the insane far outweigh the rights of their normal victims. The insane are no more likely to obey the law and not purchase weapons than criminals are. Killing children, or for that matter, spree killing of any group, pretty much requires a certain serious level of insanity. The insane have little or no regard for God or insanity. I would like to credit the following for the current situation the U.S. is now in when it comes to unfortunate events as seen last week: Hollywood The movie "One flew over the coocoo's nest" really put the pressure on states to deinstitutionalize and poisoned public opinion on the mental health profession. ACLU Thanks to the ACLU you can't simply lock up anyone because they're crazy. They have to be adjudicated in a court... complete with a defense lawyer to protect the "rights" of the loon. The finding has to be made that the person is CLEARLY, and this means practically beyond any reasonable doubt, a danger to themselves or another. This also is not permanent should you succeed in getting said loon committed. They will be evaluated periodically for release in the fervent hope that they will continue to voluntarily take all of their meds and behave. ... and ACLU again I remember afew years ago the ACLU was fighting for the the right of the mentally ill to own firearms (!!!) |
||||
2012-12-16, 21:30 | Link #537 | |
Meh
Join Date: Feb 2008
|
Quote:
Like it or not, the circumstances around the US's founding has led to a mindset that's against needless government intrusion. What a citizen of another nation may cast away without a second thought, someone in the US will balk at the mere mentioning of it. This extends to local law enforcement agencies as well, in some cases quite deservedly so. And this is coming from someone who's very much pro-LE, you wouldn't want to hear the stuff the anti-LE crowd says about police. It's just easier to bash the US, nobody else's **** stinks |
|
2012-12-16, 21:45 | Link #538 | |
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Montreal, QC, Canada
Age: 40
|
Quote:
Part of the problem resides in how some people take the Constitution as the second coming of the Bible. If it wasn't for that, it shouldn't be difficult for a set of laws written by man to adapt itself with its time when assemblies should work on adapting the laws so they would protect the people from what is deemed wrong (including LE zealotry) at a given time. |
|
2012-12-16, 21:58 | Link #539 | ||
Meh
Join Date: Feb 2008
|
Quote:
And who else but you can I direct my rebuttal? wherever you may have sourced your information from, you're the one presenting them here. Quote:
You're literally saying "geez, if everyone agreed with what I think is best, then we wouldn't have had any problem doing what I think is best!" It's not democracy if you simply disregard the opinions of everyone who disagrees with you. |
||
2012-12-16, 22:01 | Link #540 |
Gamilas Falls
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 46
|
The paranoia about government and police can also be traced in some respects to Hollywood. There were a lot....a whole lot, of anti-government films and films about the government becoming oppressive police states and the like since the 1960s and into the 1980s...especially around concepts like "1984". There were also TV shows about controlling governments and out of control government agencies ("The Prisoner" comes to mind). Be it the President, the CIA, FBI, or any number of departments that might have an agenda for something.
A lot of these have also lead to a fear of government. It might just be entertainment, but authors like sending out messages for the readers to ponder. Sometimes they are correct and other times they are just out there.
__________________
|
|
|