Forum Thread

NRA Wins: Senate votes down four gun control measures


Reply to ThreadDisplaying 31 - 45 of 46 Prev 1 2 3 4 Next
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Here in Philly, last night a man shot his bride of 9 days with a cross bow killing her, this was over what police described as a domestic dispute, people will kill other people with whatever is available and by any means possible.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    There is no solution for timely results other than Hillary's lone wolf idea whatever that is. But 550,000 Hillary Lone Wolf Squad Agents patrolling the internet and streets looking for potential offenders would have a positive effect reducing all gun vioence.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    johnnycee Wrote: Here in Philly, last night a man shot his bride of 9 days with a cross bow killing her, this was over what police described as a domestic dispute, people will kill other people with whatever is available and by any means possible.

    This is true, but a person can't kill 20 children in a classroom or 49 people in a nightclub with a crossbow. They also can't kill 12 people in a movie theater or 32 people on a college campus. And they can't kill 14 people who work for the mentally ill or 13 people on an Army base. I can keep going on and on (and on and on) if you'd like...


    Crossbows would realistically be able to kill one to two people. That's about it. I would feel terrible for those one or two people, but comparing the power of a crossbow to the power of a weapon of war is something called a red herring logical fallacy.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Chet Ruminski Wrote: There is no solution for timely results other than Hillary's lone wolf idea whatever that is. But 550,000 Hillary Lone Wolf Squad Agents patrolling the internet and streets looking for potential offenders would have a positive effect reducing all gun vioence.
    Yes, there are solutions. Limit the types of weapons, ammunition, and places a person can legally carry a weapon. Also limit the reading of the 2nd Amendment to the way it was interpreted for two hundred plus years.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    So the problem lies with amount of bodies produced by the weapon, if this is so , why isn't the push for certain handgun bans since they are used more often in homicide's also more often used in multiple killings, the killing I have just mentioned regarding the use of a cross bow,has a lot of people here in my area wondering how and why was this man not watched more closely, there were several police complaints regarding his acting out in a bizarre manner, such as running around the neighborhood naked, banging on the door of a Day Care Facility, also while naked, and threatening to shoot everyone including the children, apparently there is a some what of a confused policy regarding mental health issues where the person has to present a clear and present danger to himself and or others before police can take action. To me, this a a glaring reminder of the breakdown of the mental health facilities and the fear of being politically incorrect and of course sued. Had this guy found a gun ,I am sure the story would have been altogether different.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    johnnycee Wrote: So the problem lies with amount of bodies produced by the weapon, if this is so , why isn't the push for certain handgun bans since they are used more often in homicide's also more often used in multiple killings,

    You know me johnny and you know I'm also against civilians being able to carry handguns outside of their homes.

    As you know, the vast majority of gun homicides and suicides are done by hand guns. Hand guns literally serve no purpose other than killing human beings. That's why many (let's say most) countries don't allow their citizens to own handguns.

    The 2nd Amendment does not guarantee anyone the right to own this gun or that gun. It was written when we didn't have a standing army and the weapon of choice was a single shot musket.

    The first words of the Amendment talk about a well regarded militia. Then the two different versions of our Constitution (the latter being the one the Supreme Court used in Heller) had no comma or a comma after Free state. A very divided Supreme Court ruled 5/4 that the version they liked had a comma and therefore the hand gun ban was unconstitutional.


    That's why elections matter. If Gore won and was able to replace Rehnquist and O'Connor then Heller would never have happened.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Jared, yes you see it correct, however why can you and me figure out that an old document which was written for those times and not for 2016? In other words are we stupid? Or is the supreme court stupid and the rest of the gun lovers cant' read old documents either as well check if the old pen and ink applies to 2016 and beyond, because the NRA "dictates" otherwise? I guess then we both are stupid. Can you imagine that they would have banned electricity in 1700 and the supreme court would still enforce it, because it was dangerous; Then forget your airco and TV.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    "for timely results"

    You left this out jaredsxtn.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Changing the ole document would really not change things much at all. fire arms have been around since China invented gun powder, and made fire lances, ( 1300 A.D.) which were really a hand cannon, which was attached to a spear , it took the Europeans to realize the usefulness of a small concealed hand gun, although they were of the ball & powder variety, nevertheless the hand gun was now a part of society, banning certain hand guns would only spark a underground market for self made hand guns, as a young man, it was not uncommon for a young man to have made what we called a "Zip Gun", which was pretty inaccurate and often did more harm to the shooter than the intended victim but it was rather simple to make, so banning would only make it difficult to own a hand gun,what should be done is to really find the root causes of the frustration and self loathing that exist in the minds of so many criminals, Is incarceration the answer,in some cases ,yes, but not all. Do I have the answer , no, but I do know that what we are now doing is not working, I also know that if we do nothing ,then we are doomed to be a society based on Might makes Right and the Rules.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    johnnycee Wrote: Changing the ole document would really not change things much at all. fire arms have been around since China invented gun powder, and made fire lances, ( 1300 A.D.) which were really a hand cannon, which was attached to a spear , it took the Europeans to realize the usefulness of a small concealed hand gun, although they were of the ball & powder variety, nevertheless the hand gun was now a part of society, banning certain hand guns would only spark a underground market for self made hand guns, as a young man, it was not uncommon for a young man to have made what we called a "Zip Gun", which was pretty inaccurate and often did more harm to the shooter than the intended victim but it was rather simple to make, so banning would only make it difficult to own a hand gun,what should be done is to really find the root causes of the frustration and self loathing that exist in the minds of so many criminals, Is incarceration the answer,in some cases ,yes, but not all. Do I have the answer , no, but I do know that what we are now doing is not working, I also know that if we do nothing ,then we are doomed to be a society based on Might makes Right and the Rules.
    Yes J.C. you've got it right about the development of the "guns"; however the issue is: What is the role of the Government to protect people? If something develops into an danger to the society then it is the task of the Government to find ways to protect the people. The oddity of the "gun" problem is, that protection is in place for plenty of other things, like seatbelts, lifejackets, child car seats, stoplights, food health, medicines, drug control, building codes, aircraft safety, all kind of laws to protect us etc. but none to protect us from flying bullets.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Chet Ruminski Wrote:"for timely results"

    You left this out jaredsxtn.

    Are you reading a different 2nd Amendment than me? Where does "for timely results" appear in it?

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    johnnycee Wrote: Changing the ole document would really not change things much at all. fire arms have been around since China invented gun powder, and made fire lances, ( 1300 A.D.) which were really a hand cannon, which was attached to a spear , it took the Europeans to realize the usefulness of a small concealed hand gun, although they were of the ball & powder variety, nevertheless the hand gun was now a part of society, banning certain hand guns would only spark a underground market for self made hand guns, as a young man, it was not uncommon for a young man to have made what we called a "Zip Gun", which was pretty inaccurate and often did more harm to the shooter than the intended victim but it was rather simple to make, so banning would only make it difficult to own a hand gun,what should be done is to really find the root causes of the frustration and self loathing that exist in the minds of so many criminals, Is incarceration the answer,in some cases ,yes, but not all. Do I have the answer , no, but I do know that what we are now doing is not working, I also know that if we do nothing ,then we are doomed to be a society based on Might makes Right and the Rules.

    We aren't talking about the history of firearms. We are talking about how the NRA has a stranglehold on our Congress and refuses to let the will of the actual people be heard.

    The vast majority of the population agrees that our gun culture is out of control and that something needs to be done about it. Instead of actually doing anything about it, our Congress is so stuck sucking the teat of the NRA and their coffers that they would rather thwart the will of the people than dare cross the gun industry.

    And all the while we continue to be the only advanced nation on this planet that has this problem. Could it be maybe because other advanced nations realized that the vast majority of guns serve no purpose other than killing other human beings?

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    The Government sucks at protecting it's citizens , the government would rather first commission a commission to find out if the problem is dangerous and if so to whom is it dangerous to, then they will have to check and see if there are any lobbyist for or against the probable solution,then investigate whether or not the potential of an election cycle will have any merit in regards to any action being considered, and then after all that is decided, then we come to the practice of add on Amendments, now this practice will determine whether or not the proposal goes forward or not, so in answer to the issue of protecting it's citizens , I repeat , the Government sucks at it.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    The history was necessary to prove that the problem is not a new one, but the NRA does not have a stranglehold on anything . maybe your confusing certain Congressmen and women who are willing to sell their voters down the river in favor of accepting the NRA's money? and or support. The NRA ,just like many other Corporations have lobbyist on their payroll, and they do their damn best to promote their own Agenda, so if Congressional people are willing to accept this type of largess , who is truly at fault here. As for as other countries, it has been noted that if you discount the 10 major cities in the U.S. as it pertains to gun violence, the rate drops from the top ten to almost the bottom of the industrial countries. So this gives my theory of the root cause of so much of this gun violence, which is that the major urban areas give rise to so much frustration coupled with poverty, and its subsequent malaise among young people , that they lash out in the only way that they know, violence to so many of them is a /the solution to their problem.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jaredsxtn Wrote:
    Chet Ruminski Wrote:"for timely results"

    You left this out jaredsxtn.

    Are you reading a different 2nd Amendment than me? Where does "for timely results" appear in it?

    I specifically asked for ideas that would have effect in a timely manner. Your proposals would take at least ten years. Another problem is the distortion of the number of gun owners. The only thing has dwindled is the number of people willing to say they own guns. That distortion is fueling the support from genuine people. Then when the results of actions contradict the motivation the result is confusion and mistrust. Pro gun support views any law as advancing toward confiscation. Anti gun validates the mistrust by proposing ridiculous restrictions that blatantly advertise confiscation. Pro gun support knows that reasonable laws would be ineffective so the resistance solidifies against any law. The NRA is not self funded.