Author Topic: Gun Control?  (Read 19063 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #135 on: February 17, 2018, 09:12:17 AM »

Offline Erik

  • Gordon Hayward
  • Posts: 668
  • Tommy Points: 120
  • The voice of reason
I'm all for gun control. I don't own a gun and I don't think that I ever will because I think that they're too dangerous to even own. I actually would like it if I knew that there were 0 guns in the country. Unfortunately, most people would push back on it. Some would say that it's impossible to find all the guns and only the criminals would have the guns. Some would say that even if you did get rid of all of them, now what do I do when a group of people break into my home and kill my family. And then there are the nuts who think that the government will try to kill them after getting their guns. Anything other than removing all guns from the society (including all small additional measures to make things harder for people) and you are going to have shootings like this. If you are determined to attack a target with no defense (no armed people), you are going to be able to do it. You'll find a gun somehow. It's not that hard in a country with 300 million guns. And it's not just AR-15's (although I don't care if we ban them). The guy would have done just as much damage with a simple 12 gauge shotgun.

I think we should take a step back and look at why Americans kill each other. Not just guns. Why do Americans want to hurt other Americans? I think the answer to that question is the fact that we don't have any cultural identity and too much division. It starts with ideology (50% of the country does not like the other 50%) and is compounded with hyphens. People are more proud of the first part of the hyphen and not the second part. We're just "a big melting pot of people that are not like me." I think that if we were to drop these divisions and come together as Americans, the violence would decrease. Just my thoughts. Could be a completely wrong, but that's really the only major difference between America and other countries. Canadians have a ton of guns as well, but Canadians don't want to kill each other, and I've never heard of an <insert other region>-Canadian before.

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #136 on: February 17, 2018, 09:58:58 AM »

Offline Sophomore

  • Gordon Hayward
  • Posts: 691
  • Tommy Points: 124
The hardest thing for me to take in all of this is the way people keep saying: there will always be bad people, and there is no way to prevent all gun violence. They say  whatever solution you propose won’t eliminate all gun deaths, so it’s all pointless. Just give up.

Folks, there are bad people everywhere. In England and Australia and Canada and Germany. They aren’t walking into schools and malls and blowing people away. There are things that have worked to reduce or almost illuminate gun violence in other countries, and it doesn’t require confiscating all the guns. It does require being smarter about who can have a gun and limits on the kinds of guns they can have.

The fact that one reform won’t prevent the shooting, or that we can’t drive the number of firearm homicides to zero, doesn’t mean it’s all hopeless and we should just throw up our hands; we don’t do that with any other problem. We can be a lot safer even by making incremental gains. In Washington DC, there were about 480 homicides in 1991; last year there were 116. You notice! It’s not zero, but it’s a lot better.

There are things that have worked in other countries we could try,  or new things we can try. Throwing up our hands and saying this is an unsolvable problem is bull****; it has been solved elsewhere. We haven’t tried very hard because a vocal minority has prevented the majority from protecting itself.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/05/upshot/how-to-reduce-mass-shooting-deaths-experts-say-these-gun-laws-could-help.html
« Last Edit: February 17, 2018, 05:44:13 PM by Sophomore »


Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #138 on: February 17, 2018, 04:21:01 PM »

Offline Eddie20

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8017
  • Tommy Points: 858
POTUS?

https://mashable.com/2018/02/17/donald-trump-parkland-smiling-thumbs-up-obama/?utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Mashable+%28Mashable%29&utm_cid=Mash-Prod-RSS-Feedburner-All-Partial&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_content=Yahoo+Search+Results#31HbV9NUQqq3

This is nonsense created by people just looking for things to criticize. In all the photos everyone was smiling, doctors, nurses, first responders, Governor Scott, etc. Unless you prefer crocodile tears without action like the following:

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/fort-hood-hero-obama-betrayed-victims/story?id=18465024

Quote
Three years after the White House arranged a hero's welcome at the State of the Union address for the Fort Hood police sergeant and her partner who stopped the deadly shooting there, Kimberly Munley says President Obama broke the promise he made to her that the victims would be well taken care of.

"Betrayed is a good word,"
former Sgt. Munley told ABC News in a tearful interview to be broadcast tonight on "World News with Diane Sawyer" and "Nightline."

"Not to the least little bit have the victims been taken care of," she said. "In fact they've been neglected."

There was no immediate comment from the White House about Munley's allegations.


Thirteen people were killed, including a pregnant soldier, and 32 others shot in the November 2009 rampage by the accused shooter, Major Nidal Hasan, who now awaits a military trial on charges of premeditated murder and attempted murder.

Tonight's broadcast report also includes dramatic new video, obtained by ABC News, taken in the immediate aftermath of the shooting, capturing the chaos and terror of the day.

Munley, since laid off from her job with the base's civilian police force, was shot three times as she and her partner, Sgt. Mark Todd, confronted Hasan, who witnesses said had shouted "Allahu Akbar" as he opened fire on soldiers being processed for deployment to Afghanistan.

As Munley lay wounded, Todd fired the five bullets credited with bringing Hasan down.

Despite extensive evidence that Hasan was in communication with al Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki prior to the attack, the military has denied the victims a Purple Heart and is treating the incident as "workplace violence" instead of "combat related" or terrorism.

Al-Awlaki has since been killed in a U.S. drone attack in Yemen, in what was termed a major victory in the U.S. efforts against al Qaeda.

Munley and dozens of other victims have now filed a lawsuit against the military alleging the "workplace violence" designation means the Fort Hood victims are receiving lower priority access to medical care as veterans, and a loss of financial benefits available to those who injuries are classified as "combat related."

Some of the victims "had to find civilian doctors to get proper medical treatment" and the military has not assigned liaison officers to help them coordinate their recovery, said the group's lawyer, Reed Rubinstein.

"There's a substantial number of very serious, crippling cases of post-traumatic stress disorder exacerbated, frankly, by what the Army and the Defense Department did in this case," said Rubinstein. "We have a couple of cases in which the soldiers' command accused the soldiers of malingering, and would say things to them that Fort Hood really wasn't so bad, it wasn't combat."

Pentagon Press Secretary George Little said the Department of Defense is "committed to the highest care of those in our military family."

"Survivors of the incident at Fort Hood are eligible for the same medical benefits as all service members," said Little. "The Department of Defense is also committed to the integrity of the ongoing court martial proceedings of Major Nidal Hasan and for that reason will not at this time further characterize the incident."

Secretary of the Army John McHugh told ABC News he was unaware of any specific complaints from the Fort Hood victims, even though he is a named defendant in the lawsuit filed last November which specifically details the plight of many of them.

"If a soldier feels ignored, then we need to know about it on a case by case basis," McHugh told ABC News. "It is not our intent to have two levels of care for people who are wounded by whatever means in uniform."

Some of the victims in the lawsuit believe the Army Secretary and others are purposely ignoring their cases out of political correctness.

"These guys play stupid every time they're asked a question about it, they pretend like they have no clue," said Shawn Manning, who was shot six times that day at Fort Hood. Two of the bullets remain in his leg and spine, he said.

"It was no different than an insurgent in Iraq or Afghanistan trying to kill us," said Manning, who was twice deployed to Iraq and had to retire from the military because of his injuries.

An Army review board initially classified Manning's injuries as "combat related," but that finding was later overruled by higher-ups in the Army.

Manning says the "workplace violence" designation has cost him almost $70,000 in benefits that would have been available if his injuries were classified as "combat related."

"Basically, they're treating us like I was downtown and I got hit by a car," he told ABC News.

For Alonzo Lunsford, who was shot seven times at Fort Hood and blinded in one eye, the military's treatment is deeply hurtful.

"It's a slap in the face, not only for me but for all of the 32 that wore the uniform that day," he told ABC News.

Lunsford's medical records show his injuries were determined to be "in the line of duty" but neither he nor any of the other soldiers shot or killed at Fort Hood is eligible for the Purple Heart under the Department of Defense's current policy for decorations and awards.

Army Secretary McHugh says awarding Purple Hearts could adversely affect the trial of Major Hasan.

"To award a Purple Heart, it has to be done by a foreign terrorist element," said McHugh. "So to declare that soldier a foreign terrorist, we are told, I'm not an attorney and I don't run the Justice Department, but we're told would have a profound effect on the ability to conduct the trial."

Members of Congress, including the chairman of the House Homeland Security committee, Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, say they will introduce legislation to force the military and the Obama administration to give the wounded and dead the recognition and honors they deserve.

"It was clearly an act of terrorism that occurred that day, there's no question in my mind," McCaul told ABC News. "I think the victims should be treated as such."

Former Sgt. Munley says she now believes the White House used her for political advantage in arranging for her to sit next to Michelle Obama during the President's State of the Union address in 2010.

Munley says she has no hesitation now speaking out against the President or taking part in the lawsuit, because she wants to help the others who were shot that day and continue to suffer.

"We got tired of being neglected. So this was our last resort and I'm not ashamed of it a bit," said Munley. She is also raising money for a movie about Fort Hood, and says some of the proceeds will go to the victims.

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #139 on: February 17, 2018, 05:00:41 PM »

Offline jambr380

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7718
  • Tommy Points: 864
POTUS?

https://mashable.com/2018/02/17/donald-trump-parkland-smiling-thumbs-up-obama/?utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Mashable+%28Mashable%29&utm_cid=Mash-Prod-RSS-Feedburner-All-Partial&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_content=Yahoo+Search+Results#31HbV9NUQqq3

This is nonsense created by people just looking for things to criticize. In all the photos everyone was smiling, doctors, nurses, first responders, Governor Scott, etc. Unless you prefer crocodile tears without action like the following:

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/fort-hood-hero-obama-betrayed-victims/story?id=18465024

Come on Eddie, are you really going to try to compare the character of Obama to that of Trump? Sure, everybody was smiling, but those people were probably all just excited to be meeting the President. Trump should know better than to smile and give the thumbs up in such a situation. Regardless of how he 'really' feels, it just comes down to at least looking like you care. If this were a one time thing, then it could be excused, but he has shown a complete lack of genuine social awareness and sympathy time and time again.

Quote
Former Sgt. Munley says she now believes the White House used her for political advantage in arranging for her to sit next to Michelle Obama during the President's State of the Union address in 2010.

So somebody probably dropped the ball here, but you make it seem like Obama directly had something to do with this. As for the actual quote - no kidding! Every person in the history of the world who has been asked to sit next to the 1st lady during the SOTU adress has been used for some kind of political advantage. Nobody accidentally sits next to any 1st lady at such an event.

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #140 on: February 17, 2018, 05:13:26 PM »

Offline rondohondo

  • Danny Ainge
  • **********
  • Posts: 10656
  • Tommy Points: 1082
POTUS?

https://mashable.com/2018/02/17/donald-trump-parkland-smiling-thumbs-up-obama/?utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Mashable+%28Mashable%29&utm_cid=Mash-Prod-RSS-Feedburner-All-Partial&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_content=Yahoo+Search+Results#31HbV9NUQqq3

This is nonsense created by people just looking for things to criticize. In all the photos everyone was smiling, doctors, nurses, first responders, Governor Scott, etc. Unless you prefer crocodile tears without action like the following:

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/fort-hood-hero-obama-betrayed-victims/story?id=18465024

Quote
Three years after the White House arranged a hero's welcome at the State of the Union address for the Fort Hood police sergeant and her partner who stopped the deadly shooting there, Kimberly Munley says President Obama broke the promise he made to her that the victims would be well taken care of.

"Betrayed is a good word,"
former Sgt. Munley told ABC News in a tearful interview to be broadcast tonight on "World News with Diane Sawyer" and "Nightline."

"Not to the least little bit have the victims been taken care of," she said. "In fact they've been neglected."

There was no immediate comment from the White House about Munley's allegations.


Thirteen people were killed, including a pregnant soldier, and 32 others shot in the November 2009 rampage by the accused shooter, Major Nidal Hasan, who now awaits a military trial on charges of premeditated murder and attempted murder.

Tonight's broadcast report also includes dramatic new video, obtained by ABC News, taken in the immediate aftermath of the shooting, capturing the chaos and terror of the day.

Munley, since laid off from her job with the base's civilian police force, was shot three times as she and her partner, Sgt. Mark Todd, confronted Hasan, who witnesses said had shouted "Allahu Akbar" as he opened fire on soldiers being processed for deployment to Afghanistan.

As Munley lay wounded, Todd fired the five bullets credited with bringing Hasan down.

Despite extensive evidence that Hasan was in communication with al Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki prior to the attack, the military has denied the victims a Purple Heart and is treating the incident as "workplace violence" instead of "combat related" or terrorism.

Al-Awlaki has since been killed in a U.S. drone attack in Yemen, in what was termed a major victory in the U.S. efforts against al Qaeda.

Munley and dozens of other victims have now filed a lawsuit against the military alleging the "workplace violence" designation means the Fort Hood victims are receiving lower priority access to medical care as veterans, and a loss of financial benefits available to those who injuries are classified as "combat related."

Some of the victims "had to find civilian doctors to get proper medical treatment" and the military has not assigned liaison officers to help them coordinate their recovery, said the group's lawyer, Reed Rubinstein.

"There's a substantial number of very serious, crippling cases of post-traumatic stress disorder exacerbated, frankly, by what the Army and the Defense Department did in this case," said Rubinstein. "We have a couple of cases in which the soldiers' command accused the soldiers of malingering, and would say things to them that Fort Hood really wasn't so bad, it wasn't combat."

Pentagon Press Secretary George Little said the Department of Defense is "committed to the highest care of those in our military family."

"Survivors of the incident at Fort Hood are eligible for the same medical benefits as all service members," said Little. "The Department of Defense is also committed to the integrity of the ongoing court martial proceedings of Major Nidal Hasan and for that reason will not at this time further characterize the incident."

Secretary of the Army John McHugh told ABC News he was unaware of any specific complaints from the Fort Hood victims, even though he is a named defendant in the lawsuit filed last November which specifically details the plight of many of them.

"If a soldier feels ignored, then we need to know about it on a case by case basis," McHugh told ABC News. "It is not our intent to have two levels of care for people who are wounded by whatever means in uniform."

Some of the victims in the lawsuit believe the Army Secretary and others are purposely ignoring their cases out of political correctness.

"These guys play stupid every time they're asked a question about it, they pretend like they have no clue," said Shawn Manning, who was shot six times that day at Fort Hood. Two of the bullets remain in his leg and spine, he said.

"It was no different than an insurgent in Iraq or Afghanistan trying to kill us," said Manning, who was twice deployed to Iraq and had to retire from the military because of his injuries.

An Army review board initially classified Manning's injuries as "combat related," but that finding was later overruled by higher-ups in the Army.

Manning says the "workplace violence" designation has cost him almost $70,000 in benefits that would have been available if his injuries were classified as "combat related."

"Basically, they're treating us like I was downtown and I got hit by a car," he told ABC News.

For Alonzo Lunsford, who was shot seven times at Fort Hood and blinded in one eye, the military's treatment is deeply hurtful.

"It's a slap in the face, not only for me but for all of the 32 that wore the uniform that day," he told ABC News.

Lunsford's medical records show his injuries were determined to be "in the line of duty" but neither he nor any of the other soldiers shot or killed at Fort Hood is eligible for the Purple Heart under the Department of Defense's current policy for decorations and awards.

Army Secretary McHugh says awarding Purple Hearts could adversely affect the trial of Major Hasan.

"To award a Purple Heart, it has to be done by a foreign terrorist element," said McHugh. "So to declare that soldier a foreign terrorist, we are told, I'm not an attorney and I don't run the Justice Department, but we're told would have a profound effect on the ability to conduct the trial."

Members of Congress, including the chairman of the House Homeland Security committee, Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, say they will introduce legislation to force the military and the Obama administration to give the wounded and dead the recognition and honors they deserve.

"It was clearly an act of terrorism that occurred that day, there's no question in my mind," McCaul told ABC News. "I think the victims should be treated as such."

Former Sgt. Munley says she now believes the White House used her for political advantage in arranging for her to sit next to Michelle Obama during the President's State of the Union address in 2010.

Munley says she has no hesitation now speaking out against the President or taking part in the lawsuit, because she wants to help the others who were shot that day and continue to suffer.

"We got tired of being neglected. So this was our last resort and I'm not ashamed of it a bit," said Munley. She is also raising money for a movie about Fort Hood, and says some of the proceeds will go to the victims.

Speaking of crocodile tears....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BG0a04PX-zY&app=desktop






Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #141 on: February 18, 2018, 03:51:44 PM »

Offline Neurotic Guy

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12709
  • Tommy Points: 1335
The students at Stoneman Douglas High School in Broward County Florida are either wise beyond their years or are accepting good advice from some wise adults.  They are determined (as so many are immediately following a shooting) to keep this in the news and they have a very nice branding that I think may finally pressure Congress to turn the corner away from its despicable deference to the NRA.   

They have selected March 24th as the date for "March for Our Lives" in response to those who say it's too soon to talk politics when all the victims have yet to be buried.  They've decided that March 24th will not be too soon, and thus they will be able to avert the initial bluster and subsequent burn out that the NRA counts on to keep the gun debate under control.   

The students are directly, aggressively and emotionally calling out the NRA, Congress and the POTUS, saying that March 24th will be the date to affirm whether you are with us or against us.  They are calling upon adults to act as adults and do something substantial to protect Americans, especially the children.  They are messaging very strongly with powerful and memorable language: to Congress: your absence on March 24th and any continued alliance with NRA's stonewalling will be a badge of shame that you'll be wearing on your chest come November.

POTUS was glad to label Colin Kaepernick and his football kneelers as "SOBs who should be fired" for peacefully (albeit disrespectfully to many) exercising their 1st amendment right to protest.    POTUS has not yet labeled members of Congress as "SOBs who should be fired".   He apparently sees Colin Kaepernick's actions as worse than the actions of those who have time and again blocked, avoided, delayed and voted down attempts to explore all avenues of information and action.  It's time (hopefully) to open the doors that could lead to the appropriate balance of protection of (gun) rights and liberty with the protection of human lives -- especially with regard to our children who congregate every day in public venues blindly trusting that the adults in our society will do their most fundamental job -- keep them safe.

 
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/02/18/nows-not-time-talk-guns-heres-eflorida-school-shooting-survivors-plan-march-our-lives-end-gun-violen/349263002/
« Last Edit: February 23, 2018, 06:26:12 AM by Neurotic Guy »

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #142 on: February 18, 2018, 05:45:57 PM »

Offline liam

  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11013
  • Tommy Points: 709
The students at Stoneman Douglas High School in Brower County Florida are either wise beyond their years or are accepting good advice from some wise adults.  They are determined (as so many are immediately following a shooting) to keep this in the news and they have a very nice branding that I think may finally pressure Congress to turn the corner away from its despicable deference to the NRA.   

They have selected March 24th as the date for "March for Our Lives" in response to those who say it's too soon to talk politics when all the victims have yet to be buried.  They've decided that March 24th will not be too soon, and thus they will be able to avert the initial bluster and subsequent burn out that the NRA counts on to keep the gun debate under control.   

The students are directly, aggressively and emotionally calling out the NRA, Congress and the POTUS, saying that March 24th will be the date to affirm whether you are with us or against us.  They are calling upon adults to act as adults and do something substantial to protect Americans, especially the children.  They are messaging very strongly with powerful and memorable language: to Congress: your absence on March 24th and any continued alliance with NRA's stonewalling will be a badge of shame that you'll be wearing on your chest come November.

POTUS was glad to label Colin Kaepernick and his football kneelers as "SOBs who should be fired" for peacefully (albeit disrespectfully to many) exercising their 1st amendment right to protest.    POTUS has not yet labeled members of Congress as "SOBs who should be fired".   He apparently sees Colin Kaepernick's actions as worse than the actions of those who have time and again blocked, avoided, delayed and voted down attempts to explore all avenues of information and action.  It's time (hopefully) to open the doors that could lead to the appropriate balance of protection of (gun) rights and liberty with the protection of human lives -- especially with regard to our children who congregate every day in public venues blindly trusting that the adults in our society will do their most fundamental job -- keep them safe.

 
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/02/18/nows-not-time-talk-guns-heres-eflorida-school-shooting-survivors-plan-march-our-lives-end-gun-violen/349263002/

https://www.yahoo.com/news/florida-students-march-washington-call-gun-reform-160746587.html

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #143 on: February 18, 2018, 10:51:09 PM »

Offline liam

  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11013
  • Tommy Points: 709
The NRA should be trying to prevent this by helping pass some sensible gun control laws:


https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/16/opinion/repeat-repeal-second-amendment.html

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #144 on: February 18, 2018, 11:51:00 PM »

Offline KGs Knee

  • Danny Ainge
  • **********
  • Posts: 10505
  • Tommy Points: 1176
The NRA should be trying to prevent this by helping pass some sensible gun control laws:


https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/16/opinion/repeat-repeal-second-amendment.html

I really cannot stand the NRA.  As an organization they have no sensibility whatsoever.

I'm an ardent supporter of the 2nd Amendment, and probably own more guns than would make some people comfortable (only one is semi-automatic though).  And I used to support the NRA, but came to the realization they don't have any interest in anything other than the unfettered solicitation of as many firearms as possible.

And the truth of the matter is, there's no logical reason not to have better, stronger laws in place.  But my fear is, if conservatives don't concede this point soon, there's going to be a backlash strong enough to possibly lead to a repeal of the 2nd Amendment.

And I don't know what I'd do if that happened. I'm a peaceful person, and mean no one any harm.  But I have a right to protect myself and my property, and do not wish to solely rely on the government to provide such protection.  Not to mention I'm not about to just willingly give up hunting.  I suppose I could be ok with giving up the semi-automatic firearm, but not the others, they're just pump action shotguns, bolt action rifles, muzzle-loaders, or revolvers.

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #145 on: February 19, 2018, 02:42:15 AM »

Offline nickagneta

  • Global Moderator
  • Walter Brown
  • ********************************
  • Posts: 32690
  • Tommy Points: 5371
What the NRA doesn't get is by not allowing the enactment of tougher gun laws now, they are growing a generation that will repeal the 2nd amendment. Just like the current generation fought for gay rights and the legalization of marijuana, what these mass school shootings are doing is growing a generation that hates gun violence and will repeal the 2nd Amendment. So sell your guns while you can NRA because if you don't help push for much, much tougher gun laws now that help to stop these school shootings, in 25 to 40 years there will be no 2nd Amendment and no gun sales in this country anymore.

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #146 on: February 19, 2018, 08:24:12 AM »

Offline Vermont Green

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3928
  • Tommy Points: 319
..... lead to a repeal of the 2nd Amendment.

And I don't know what I'd do if that happened. I'm a peaceful person, and mean no one any harm.  But I have a right to protect myself and my property, and do not wish to solely rely on the government to provide such protection.  Not to mention I'm not about to just willingly give up hunting.  I suppose I could be ok with giving up the semi-automatic firearm, but not the others, they're just pump action shotguns, bolt action rifles, muzzle-loaders, or revolvers.

I doubt that the second amendment would ever be repealed.  They don't need to in order to implement common sense regulations on weaponry.  But even if they did repeal the 2nd amendment, there is no reason to believe that it would suddenly lead to a ban on hunting rifles.  No one wants to ban hunting rifles, not Obama, not Clinton, not Pelosi or Sanders and not any of the student in Parkland.  Handguns in your home are pretty much in the same category.  I have never heard anyone propose legislation to outlaw owning a gun in your home.

This whole idea of classifying hunting rifles differently than assault weapons is something I have brought up many times.  It is always met with the response that you can't define a hunting rifle.  I think you could, and pretty easily (you just did) but you have to actually be willing to try.  It would be a little harder but hand guns could be classified as say residential meaning they have limited power and magazines but are more than suitable for home security.  More exotic handguns could still be owned but perhaps with greater background checks and registration requirements.

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #147 on: February 19, 2018, 08:45:09 AM »

Offline Erik

  • Gordon Hayward
  • Posts: 668
  • Tommy Points: 120
  • The voice of reason
What the NRA doesn't get is by not allowing the enactment of tougher gun laws now, they are growing a generation that will repeal the 2nd amendment. Just like the current generation fought for gay rights and the legalization of marijuana, what these mass school shootings are doing is growing a generation that hates gun violence and will repeal the 2nd Amendment. So sell your guns while you can NRA because if you don't help push for much, much tougher gun laws now that help to stop these school shootings, in 25 to 40 years there will be no 2nd Amendment and no gun sales in this country anymore.

Can't compare gays and marijuana to guns. It's more difficult to take away rights than to give them. For example, I have voted for gay rights and marijuana every time even though I don't smoke and never will and I'm not gay. I am willing to fight for other people to gain rights even though I have no vested interest. When you take away my rights though, that's automatically a vested interest. Now, I may not care as much as someone who loves guns, but you can see how it would be more difficult with this premise.

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #148 on: February 19, 2018, 09:25:33 AM »

Offline Sophomore

  • Gordon Hayward
  • Posts: 691
  • Tommy Points: 124
The right wing in this country argues that the way to be safer is to turn schools into something like the old west - everybody carry and let the quickest draw win. I don’t know if this is more about genuine ideology or carrying water for the gun manufacturers (who profit enormously by the fear stoked by the NRA - which they control - and right-wing pundits). But it’s a terrible, terrible idea.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/18/limbaugh-guns-schools-concealed-carry-416864

Meanwhile, here is what it is like to get a firearm in Israel. All guns are licensed and registered (like cars, imagine that!). There are extensive background checks. And owners are responsible for what happens with the weapons they own. “If your weapon is stolen from your house and you cannot prove that a safe was broken open to get at the weapon, then you are a criminal and may do jail time. And if we ever have to use a weapon in self-defense? You had better be certain that you had no other recourse, that you did what you could to warn the attacker, and that had you not taken action, at least one innocent life could have been lost. And you may still do jail time.“ Life is not a Hollywood action movie.

https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/.premium-why-school-shootings-don-t-happen-in-israel-1.5406039

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #149 on: February 19, 2018, 09:28:38 AM »

Offline Sophomore

  • Gordon Hayward
  • Posts: 691
  • Tommy Points: 124
What the NRA doesn't get is by not allowing the enactment of tougher gun laws now, they are growing a generation that will repeal the 2nd amendment. Just like the current generation fought for gay rights and the legalization of marijuana, what these mass school shootings are doing is growing a generation that hates gun violence and will repeal the 2nd Amendment. So sell your guns while you can NRA because if you don't help push for much, much tougher gun laws now that help to stop these school shootings, in 25 to 40 years there will be no 2nd Amendment and no gun sales in this country anymore.

The NRA is controlled by gun manufacturers, who have figured out that spreading fear leads to more sales. They are profiting now and will worry about the future when it arrives.