Obama; New Type of Hope, Same Type of Stupid (Gun Control)

[Strike For The South]

What about Texans who are being murdered by border gangs who are armed to the teeth.

[Hooahguy]

What about them? They are going to get guns either way, but this way it is going to cost them more and be much harder to get - the black market can still be found-out.

thank you for just making my point.
doesnt matter how hard itll take. they will get them. and they will strike. and we lawful citizens wont have any means of self defense.

If gun control prevents even one rape turning into a rape-murder then I would be happy with gun control.

what if the would be victim had a gun? then there wouldnt be a rape in the first place.

Like underestimating what the police force is capable of?

it is well known that the police cant be everywhere at all times. in fact, most cities in the US are reducing the numbers of policemen, such as Atlanta.

[Mooks]

What about Texans who are being murdered by border gangs who are armed to the teeth.

If innocent texans are being murdered by foreigners from across the border, why isnt the military getting involved? Isnt that the whole purpose of the military?

[Strike For The South]

If innocent texans are being murdered by foreigners from across the border, why isnt the military getting involved? Isnt that the whole purpose of the military?

LOL. Im going to give you one guess. It starts with M and ends with exican

[Hooahguy]

If innocent texans are being murdered by foreigners from across the border, why isnt the military getting involved? Isnt that the whole purpose of the military?

both the border patrol and National guard are woefully understaffed. well, at least the BP is. most of the guardsmen are overseas. idk why, but they are.
but still, they cant be everywhere at all times. weve got a huge southern border.

[Mooks]

LOL. Im going to give you one guess. It starts with M and ends with exican

I know that they are mexican, I shouldve put "americans" in place of texans.

both the border patrol and National guard are woefully understaffed. well, at least the BP is. most of the guardsmen are overseas. idk why, but they are.
but still, they cant be everywhere at all times. weve got a huge southern border.

Nobody really cares about illegal immigrants. But when they are literally raiding our border, why isnt the military (Not the weekend warriors) taking action?

Are the weekend warriors the reserves or the NG, I get them confused.

[Hooahguy]

b/c it will start a war maybe? as far as i can tell from the situation, they are making quick strikes into the US, then getting the heck outta there. then they strike somewhere else.
now tell me how the army is supposed to protect us from that 24/7.

the weekend warriors are the NG, AFAIK.

[CountArach]

thank you for just making my point.
doesnt matter how hard itll take. they will get them. and they will strike. and we lawful citizens wont have any means of self defense.

You don't have a lawful means of self-defence now... you even said as much yourself - you aren't able to shoot. So how would your situation change if guns were banned?

what if the would be victim had a gun? then there wouldnt be a rape in the first place.

What if said person is taken by surprise by someone who has a gun? They reach for their concealed firearm, but their sudden movement gets them shot...

I don't see any good coming from that....

it is well known that the police cant be everywhere at all times.

No they can't, and nor do they need to be when there are fewer guns.

Anyway gun control debates get me wound up and I know that neither side is ever going to change their views. So I shall depart this thread.

[Strike For The South]

I know that they are mexican, I shouldve put "americans" in place of texans.



Nobody really cares about illegal immigrants. But when they are literally raiding our border, why isnt the military (Not the weekend warriors) taking action?

Are the weekend warriors the reserves or the NG, I get them confused.

No the Texans on the border are 85-90% Tejano.

I see Count Arach has avoided my questions, therefore I win

[Hooahguy]

You don't have a lawful means of self-defence now... you even said as much yourself - you aren't able to shoot. So how would your situation change if guns were banned?

when did i say we dont have lawful self-defense now? ok, so you have to be 21 to own a gun, so what? ill wait. ill take precautions. i dont really have to go out in the real world until im 21 anyhow. until then ill be in college, high school, so....

What if said person is taken by surprise by someone who has a gun? They reach for their concealed firearm, but their sudden movement gets them shot...

I don't see any good coming from that....

but at least give them the chance. maybe if some woman in a vacant parking lot saw someone approaching her, she has time to pull out a gun. if she was taken by surprise then she is in deep trouble anyhoow, but give her the chance to defend herself in the first place.

No they can't, and nor do they need to be when there are fewer guns.

you just said before that the bad people who really want guns will get them. and now you are saying we will need fewer cops?
on the contrary. if we dont ban guns we will need fewer cops because there will be more people to protect others if the police isnt around.

EDIT: no one is replying, so ill assume victory...
horray!

[Fiddling_nero]

This is the exact issue that caused me to not vote for George Bush in 2004.
(Note I didn't vote for Kerry either. I'm not a fool to think that he would have done any different.)

[seireikhaan]

I repeat:



I see no reason people need an assault weapon to defend themselves, with the exception of the situation Strike mentioned- in cases of cross-border raids, regardless of political expediency, the police and/or military need to be on that job.

But if people feel more comfortable thinking that owning an assault weapon somehow makes them the torch-bearers of the founding fathers, I don't particularly care if assault weapons were legal either.

P.S.- No citizen group is overthrowing the US government with assault weapons anyways, FYI. You gonna be put down HARD. Y'all gonna need to be a bit less, ya know, obvious. Subterfuge and the like, in and out operations. Concealed weapons gonna be the best bet there.

[Hooahguy]

oh good, were back to assault weapons.
but i agree with seireikhaan on the topic of assault weapons. they arent needed nowhere near as much. anyhow, pistols are better.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Arach, why do you care about firearm restrictions in another country?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

No they can't, and nor do they need to be when there are fewer guns.

Only there won't be fewer guns, or murders. It'll switch to knives. And then you'll have to ban knives. And then kitchen implements. And so on.

And, in spite of all this, even small-time criminals are still going to have means of getting guns. In Toronto, for example, where do small-time criminals get their handguns? From the bigger gangs.

[CountArach]

Arach, why do you care about firearm restrictions in another country?

*Temporarily breaks his self-imposed ban on this thread*

Its the pacifist in me - no one, anywhere, should be shot by another human being for any reason. Getting rid of guns across the world ensures that.

But I think the question itself doesn't make sense - why should anyone care about Third World poverty? Why should anyone care about the Palestine-Israel conflict? Why should anyone, anywhere, care about things that happen on the other side of the world? Think about why you care about these things and then you will have your answer.

*Goes back into exile... for real this time...*

[Sasaki Kojiro]

*Temporarily breaks his self-imposed ban on this thread*

Its the pacifist in me - no one, anywhere, should be shot by another human being for any reason. Getting rid of guns across the world ensures that.

Someone with a chainsaw who's trying to cut you into little pieces deserves to be shot.

[Strike For The South]

*Temporarily breaks his self-imposed ban on this thread*

Its the pacifist in me - no one, anywhere, should be shot by another human being for any reason. Getting rid of guns across the world ensures that.

But I think the question itself doesn't make sense - why should anyone care about Third World poverty? Why should anyone care about the Palestine-Israel conflict? Why should anyone, anywhere, care about things that happen on the other side of the world? Think about why you care about these things and then you will have your answer.

*Goes back into exile... for real this time...*

You are allowed to have these views because your country uses guns. Men killed so you could afford to have your lofty ideals.

I was joking in earlier posts but you realize what a pacifist is right?

[CountArach]

I was joking in earlier posts but you realize what a pacifist is right?

One who opposes and rejects the use of violence.

[Major Robert Dump]

So Mexico not only refuses to help the US with illegal immigration but in fact encourages it, Mexico whines about the "fence" to the point that the great wall is being turned into a small levee easily climbed over for "flood protection," the problems with Mexico are due in large to the acts of Mexico itself.....but we are going to change laws here to help stop guns from going south. The guns the mexicans are complaining about are already illegal here.

Personally, I don't think this has a shot in hell of passing unless he does it by executive order. Too many of my fellow blue dogs dominate southern states, it's just not going to happen. I also think Americans tend to naively underestimate the selfishness of other Americans: the fact of the matter is that most of us could give to ***** about Mexico and it problems. Really. Who cares?

What Mexico needs right now is to get rid of this faux democratic capitalist society its pretending to be, admit its an international welfare state whose release-valve-of-problems is pointed right at the US, and just have some crazy communist fascist dictator come in and show people who is boss. Then we couldnt be their friends anymore because they were commie dictators, and they wouldn't be allowed to leave their country because they would all be conscripted to state jobs and duties, and they would build a fence to keep Americans out. That would be awesomeness!!!11

[Crazed Rabbit]

Its the pacifist in me - no one, anywhere, should be shot by another human being for any reason. Getting rid of guns across the world ensures that.

Pacifism as a philosophy is pathetic.

If gun control prevents even one rape turning into a rape-murder then I would be happy with gun control.

What about government cameras everywhere - in all stores, in all houses. Would you be happy with that if it prevented a single murder?

You're excusing the relinquishing of liberty by arguing for an infinitesimal security increase. And assuming you wont go for the government cameras everywhere scheme, its because you are biased against guns.

Yes, guns are deadly. More deadly than any weapon before it. But that is why we need them.

With a gun, no longer is the physically more powerful person able to impose their will on others. No longer do people who train for years with a weapon have a great advantage over others.

It has given power to the people. It is the democratic weapon.

Now, people use guns to defend themselves. If you took that right, people would die. Why is preventing a rape-murder so much more important in your eyes than allowing someone to defend their life with a gun?

And I want to emphasize here that gun control is not effective. It doesn't lower crime or keep small time crooks from getting weapons.

CR

[LittleGrizzly]

With a gun, no longer is the physically more powerful person able to impose their will on others.

Your right, its the person who can afford the better gun, who has taken time to train with the gun, and then physical traits such as your eyesight, ability to move quickly being a somewhat 4th place requirment....

Hmm i wonder who could afford the better gun and have more experience in using it....

[Fisherking]

This is only a smoke screen of an excuse to do what the Ds like to do…work on eroding the rights they don’t like…banning guns as a start.

Why would Mexicans buy expensive arms from the US that are only semi-automatic when they can get cheep automatic weapons from a hundred different countries.

Not to pick on the Ds for eroding rights…the Rs just erode different ones.

[Husar]

husar, i will quote my earlier post....

So where do criminals get their guns from?
Once again, if we had a world government, then gun control would actually work because you couldn't smuggle in guns from other countries.
It's the same with so many ideas, they only really work when everybody in the world shares them in which case you would probably not need many of them anymore.

But even then, in most countries with gun control there are less dead people due to gun violence than in the US every year, either way you want to argue, you guys are doing something wrong, whether it's a lack of gun control or just being a culture of violence™.
So if the gun ban is not a solution then what is the soluution? be a bit creative now, you can't say this won't work, we just like dieing in droves and then lean back, gimme an alternative.

Like, for example, banning games and movies with violent content.

[Meneldil]

But even then, in most countries with gun control there are less dead people due to gun violence than in the US every year, either way you want to argue, you guys are doing something wrong, whether it's a lack of gun control or just being a culture of violence™.

Wait, wait, are you trying to be rational here? Because we all know the US are the awesome sauce, and that the lack of gun-control is the very epitome of liberty.

Now, I actually don't care about gun-control in the US. For some reason, it seems to be a big deal, unlike the patriot act or other similar things. I just think that if people feel the need to own guns to be safe, then they live in a failed state.

[Fragony]

edit, that wasn't very smart

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The point I take away from this is: Obama is (drum roll please) a somewhat-left-of-the-middle-of-the-road Democrat.

He re-re-reversed the ban on overseas abortion funding that Bush had re-reversed that Clinton had reversed that Reagan had instituted as a gesture towards his pro-abortion supporters.

Now there is an effort, unlikely to pass but public enough because of the nature of the weapons mentioned that serves as a gesture towards his pro-gun restriction supporters.

More than a few etc.'s to be added to those two if you scan the particulars of the recent spending/stimulus bills and executive orders.

Why am I supposed to be surprised by this? Its garden variety image politics and ALL of the last 5 occupants have played this game.

Now, it does seem to undercut Obama's claim to be a "new type" of political leader, but I'd suggest that nobody -- not even a majority of our far too ignorant voters -- really expected things to be different. Same Calimari, different spicing.

[Hooahguy]

So where do criminals get their guns from?
Once again, if we had a world government, then gun control would actually work because you couldn't smuggle in guns from other countries.
It's the same with so many ideas, they only really work when everybody in the world shares them in which case you would probably not need many of them anymore.

But even then, in most countries with gun control there are less dead people due to gun violence than in the US every year, either way you want to argue, you guys are doing something wrong, whether it's a lack of gun control or just being a culture of violence™.
So if the gun ban is not a solution then what is the soluution? be a bit creative now, you can't say this won't work, we just like dieing in droves and then lean back, gimme an alternative.

Like, for example, banning games and movies with violent content.

here

6. Lower murder rates in foreign countries prove that gun control works.

False. This is one of the favorite arguments of gun control proponents, and yet the facts show that there is simply no correlation between gun control laws and murder or suicide rates across a wide spectrum of nations and cultures. In Israel and Switzerland, for example, a license to possess guns is available on demand to every law-abiding adult, and guns are easily obtainable in both nations. Both countries also allow widespread carrying of concealed firearms, and yet, admits Dr. Arthur Kellerman, one of the foremost medical advocates of gun control, Switzerland and Israel "have rates of homicide that are low despite rates of home firearm ownership that are at least as high as those in the United States." A comparison of crime rates within Europe reveals no correlation between access to guns and crime.

The basic premise of the gun control movement, that easy access to guns causes higher crime, is contradicted by the facts, by history and by reason. Let's hope more people are catching on.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

But even then, in most countries with gun control there are less dead people due to gun violence than in the US every year, either way you want to argue, you guys are doing something wrong, whether it's a lack of gun control or just being a culture of violence™.

A ban on firearms and their confiscation would reduce the number of deaths from firearms accidents. I suspect that the murder rate would go down as well -- but that the number of attempted murders and aggravated assaults would increase.

A huge chunk of the violence is actually a byproduct of the insane profits available from the sale of illegal drugs. Attacking that problem would, I suspect, have a far more direct impact on the reduction in gun deaths.

[Hooahguy]

A ban on firearms and their confiscation would reduce the number of deaths from firearms accidents. I suspect that the murder rate would go down as well -- but that the number of attempted murders and aggravated assaults would increase.

A huge chunk of the violence is actually a byproduct of the insane profits available from the sale of illegal drugs. Attacking that problem would, I suspect, have a far more direct impact on the reduction in gun deaths.

@Seamus Fermanagh- i dont know if the murder rate would go down. it could also go up. as was said before, crooks who want guns will get them, and law-abiding people wont. there wont be means of viable self-defense.
too much reliance on the governemnt for protection is not good.
Reagan (or maybe someone elese?) once said: "the scariest words to hear are 'im fromt he government and im here to help.'"

it is much easier to train with a gun than it is to train with a knife. now, for self defense for the averae person, man or woman- is a knife better than a gun? maybe for men, since they are by nature stronger and more able with weapons and could successfully fend off an attacker with a knife.
but women, who are naturally at a disadvantage when it comes to male attackers, are not at an advantage.
a gun is far more suited for women.