Gun control is withering on the vine.

Post Reply New Topic

The Brady campaign to prevent gun violence has resorted to selling it's member list for money....

http://lists.nextmark.com/market;jsessionid=9AF37341433999B5316E4339628B12BE?page=order%2Fonline%2Fdatacard&id=163065

...and it looks like they have about 3 years left to live at the rate they are going!

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.c...fm?bay=search.summary&orgid=5426


The NRA's list of serious opponents is rowing thin!

Gun control should be non-existent, it is unconstitutional.

Without a gun, how are you supposed to defend yourself in a life or death situation? Guns do have legitimate uses and even if they do get banned, criminals can still find ways to get them. I say keep them legal.

watchout! those black helechopters are hovering above your house at this moment to dematerialize your guns!
in all seriousness, seriously. wal-mart sells guns

Exactly what I've been saying for years. Not only about guns if you see where I'm going with this.

Where I live guns have no useful purpose, and are much more a danger than a defense. However, I've been around the block enough to know that how guns fit into society and the role they can play varies quite a lot by locality and culture. I believe in registration and similar laws, for the same reasons we have all that for cars. It's common sense, to me, to have some regulation on it, to put out some effort to know who owns what and make sure they have some training in safety and use.

Maybe some of those ideas have gotten so commonly accepted that there just isn't anything to arouse the anti-gun groups. It's been a while since the guy with a machine walked into a downtown office building in San Francisco - that situation got a lot of laws onto the books. When we reach a place where those things aren't likely to happen, then people don't feel the need to clamor for control. Balance is always a good thing, IMHO.

There is something definitely Freudian about guns. People driven deeply by innate personal helplessness need the power to commit death with a finger twitch to feel safe. I have lived in New York, Tennessee, Paris, Berlin, Tel Aviv, and Helsinki and never had the slightest inclination or need of a gun. Perhaps I have been lucky but there were all sorts of dangers in all these places but by being aware and cautious a gun never came to mind.

That could be said of most "man" activities be it guns or cars or whatever else.

Nothing personal here, I just need to take a few things apart in this post.

You're assuming many things here, particularly that guns have only one purpose and that your area is completely free of the kinds of situations in which a gun might be handy. I've known enough people from NoCal that hunt and target shoot locally to rather decisively put down the first contention, and a quick look at any crime charts for the area takes care of the second. Now if no one brings up the debunked papers about the dangers of keeping a gun in the home I will kindly refrain from an in depth discussion of their flawed methodologies and cherry picked statistical sample.



Registration is an excellent example of an idea that on the surface seems reasonable, but when examined in depth falls apart. Where it has been tried, the process has proven to be enormously expensive, impossible to enforce, and infective to boot, and worst of all often later been used as a tool of confiscation by the government (See the UK and ongoing debate in Canada). Given the sheer number of guns in circulation and the ease with which they are modified, sold or wholly constructed, the idea becomes less plausible with every turn, not to mention the ridiculousness of further regulating a commodity already subject to 20,000+ laws in the US alone. Calling such ideas "common sense" has been part of the gun control agenda's strategy of controlling the language used via such meaningless yet emotionally loaded terms as "assault weapon" for semi automatic firearm or "cop killer bullets" for rifle rounds commonly used in hunting since the 1950's; a dishonest strategy used by desperate people.



Quite the opposite, in fact what's happened is that crime has fallen even as restrictive gun laws have been rolled back, and people have gotten wise to the intellectual bankruptcy of the anti-gun movement. The issue has also become politically radioactive, with the handful of die-hard anti gun zealots not being seen as worth the trouble incurred by alienating the vast cadre of law abiding gun owners and their political allies.



It wasn't a machine gun, if memory serves the mentally deranged person in question used a Tec-9 semi automatic pistol, machine guns are extremely regulated and require extensive background checks and storage requirements to possess. A legally armed occupant of the office building could have defended themselves and their co-workers against such an attack, but the PRK issues it's carry permits on what's known as a discretionary basis, where the only people likely to be approved are politically connected in some way. The shooter in that case was assured a building full of helpless victims courtesy of the state, and the results were tragically predictable.

Again, notice that restrictive gun laws have been progressively rolled back in the last few years, and we aren't having any violent epidemics despite a major economic downturn and political unrest, as you yourself admit in the quoted paragraph. If the Reps make any Senatorial gains later this year we'll likely see a national carry permit or reciprocity system, and drive the final stake through the heart of gun control in the US, a day that can't come soon enough in my opinion.

Also, if Handgun Control, alias the Brady Campaign is selling their donor list it might be a good investment for a crew of home invasion robbers; a whole list of unarmed people with too much money on their hands... Just throwing that out their.

Is gun control = banning guns, in the strictest sense?



"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you." Matthew 5:38-42.

Last edited by greenblue on 17 Jun 2010, 4:41 am, edited 1 time in total.

That's your belief it is not and should never be made the basis of law. I would sooner endorse survival of the fittest.

"I would just like gun owners to admit they're selfish, and that it's a vice, like booze or drugs or cigarettes. Stop the nonsense about 'it's my right.' You just like it because you have a small penis." - Bill Maher

To conceive that the only use of a gun is to deal death is total foolishness. No can of tuna fish or baked beans can withstand rapid gunfire in an efficient kitchen. And when you have forgotten your keys it is a lifesaver if you can pull out your machine pistol and whack the lock to smithereens. Any normal kid would be ever grateful to have a handy pistol to render a neat forehead hole into the school bully who has troubled the schoolyard for ages. And just ask any average bank robber how he could possibly do his job (and jobs are a real problem now) without this handy tool.

Why do you need a dangerous weapon to protect yourself? Here in the UK, gun control is VERY STRICT, and it's a very good thing. Our gun crime is much lower compared to the US.

If you need to protect yourself, the law allows you to use reasonable force for self-defense. Without firing a lethal weapon. Get that, eh?

Like what? How can you defend yourself without fighting back?

Stun guns/tasers work great.