Gun control

[EROS]

Uncle Kyle, be careful........... you may be judged by the company which you keep .

BOB, ......beautifully written. Hey, I'm still working on you to come into the ACLU tent; we STAND UP for the preservation of those rights which our forefathers conferred upon all of us.


Guns AREN'T the problem.......from tonight's headlines

CHULA VISTA, California (AP) -- A fan stabbed at a concert featuring rap artist Nelly has died, while another remained hospitalized -- the second musical event where violence has erupted in recent months, police said.

Faitamai Taunuu, 30, died Saturday of multiple stab wounds he suffered in an attack during a rap concert Friday night, said Lt. Richard Coleson. Another fan, Sean Bower, 27, also was stabbed in the violence.

Police charged Hank Carl Banegas, 26, and Steven Francis Tesam, 42, with investigation of murder and attempted murder, Coleson said.

 

[UncleKyle]

Looks like we need to take away knives too

 

[kbeverina]

Originally posted by adamak
If all guns are registered, we'll already know who owned this gun, and track him down.

Ditto what Bob O said.

 

[shortbun]

"What do you think that one of the 1st things that an invading country or our Govt gone bad would do to registered gun owners?

Take their guns away and leave them utterly defenseless. It has happened already in other countries in the past. Do a little search of the history books."

Emmagata-it scares me that you buy into this scare tactic
as defense to your belief that we should not register our
weapons. If another country were to "invade" the United States-
and round us all up to take our weapons-
it would not matter if we had registered our weapons...the world
would be simply ending in nuclear holocaust.

Eros-stock piling lots of weapons are we? Is this your
plan for ending the death penalty? Hmmmm.

They are weapons-my 7yo son knows the difference between
a weapon and a car. Certainly, almost anything can be
turned into a weapon-even words-guns have but one
purpose. They are a killing tool. Tell me you use them for
sport and I'll tell you it's simply practice. My whole family
owns guns, they are not deluded about what they are and
why they have them.

 

[epcotfan]

I honestly don't understand why everyone needs to carry a gun anyways. I feel confident enough to go about my day to day living without one. (Not that I could readily get one here anyways) Is it that bad that you have to be armed to feel safe? Would you actually use it if you had to?

 

[poohandwendy]

Sure they are weapons and we are guaranteed the right to have them. We also have the right to express ourselves and there have been people who have abused that right, their words have incited hatred and sometimes murder (the KKK comes to mind). Do we ban free speech, do we register words?
We are not permitted to use guns to kill people, when anyone here can pick out the people who would use a gun to murder someone...feel free to get a law passed to ban those individuals from having a weapon. Do not punish the masses for the acts of a few.

 

[minniepumpernickel]

It's amazing how people don't even want to address change, or the flaws in the system, because they are afraid that their right to amass an arsenal may somehow get thwarted. Sounds like a lot of paranoia to me. I could think of a lot of areas that need to be worked on, I'll probably save it for the debate board.

Again while we worry so much about someone stepping on our rights, snipers are shooting people, schoolkids have shot other school kids, street violence with guns happens every day....

 

[emmagata]

Originally posted by shortbun
"What do you think that one of the 1st things that an invading country or our Govt gone bad would do to registered gun owners?

Take their guns away and leave them utterly defenseless. It has happened already in other countries in the past. Do a little search of the history books."

Emmagata-it scares me that you buy into this scare tactic
as defense to your belief that we should not register our
weapons. If another country were to "invade" the United States-
and round us all up to take our weapons-
it would not matter if we had registered our weapons...the world
would be simply ending in nuclear holocaust.

Actually, I don't need to defend my right to own a firearm.

The Bill of Rights has done that for me already.

Being invaded by another country at this point in time is a bit far fetched but our Govt is always looming over our heads.

I'm certainly NOT one of those Para-Militants that think the Govt. is evil and out to get me but I stand by my right to defend myself and family if the time ever comes to do so.

 

[poohandwendy]

It's amazing how people don't even want to address change, or the flaws in the system, because they are afraid that their right to amass an arsenal may somehow get thwarted.

Do you want to address change in any other rights we have such as freedom of speech? I don't need an arsenal, I don't even have a gun. MY DH has a shotgun he inherited from his grandfather, never has used it once. But I don't want you or anyone else to tell me I cannot have one (or that it is even your business if I do have one).

 

[minniepumpernickel]

Originally posted by poohandwendy
Do you want to address change in any other rights we have such as freedom of speech? I don't need an arsenal, I don't even have a gun. MY DH has a shotgun he inherited from his grandfather, never has used it once. But I don't want you or anyone else to tell me I cannot have one (or that it is even your business if I do have one).

I have never in any shape, way or form suggested that I think that no one should have guns. It may not be my business if you have a gun, but in most states it is required to register certain types of guns, etc. So I guess, in essence it is the governments business. I see flaws with the registration system, dealing with the waiting periods, etc.

You may not need an arsenal, but a lot of people have enough guns that can be considered an arsenal. Who does need an arsenal anyway? I'm not refering to law enforcement here.

Do I want change in other rights, like freedom of speech? I would be glad to debate issues surrounding freedom of speech! If you start a debate on that I would gladly share my thoughts.
Must do it later, though!

 

[AMClvsMKY]

I believe we should have the right to have guns in our own home, as a means of protection and for those hunters among us. It's a shame, but with the crime as it is in this country, home invasion does happen and I want to have a means of defense if it happens to me. I also don't believe the criminals use registered weapons, for the most part, so the registering of weapons should not be a problem for those of us that don't plan to use them in an unlawful way, JMHO

Epcotfan - I honestly believe it is that bad and yes I do believe I would use mine if I needed to protect myself and my boys.

 

[emmagata]

Originally posted by epcotfan
I honestly don't understand why everyone needs to carry a gun anyways. I feel confident enough to go about my day to day living without one. (Not that I could readily get one here anyways) Is it that bad that you have to be armed to feel safe? Would you actually use it if you had to?

I don't know where you got the idea that all gun owners carry a firearm. Not everyone carries a gun. At least most of the law abiding gun owners don't. In fact there are very few gun owners that do carry. Most of the ones that do carry, do so legally.

I would, at last resort, use a firearm to defend myself or my family.

But make no mistake about it, I would shoot to kill.

 

[Bob O]

EROS, I dont see the aclu standing up for the rights of gun owners!!!
And im not that concerned about our country being invaded by outsiders but i am concerned about our government deciding to take away our rights and that is why the founding fathers knew from personal experience that citizens had to have guns to keep their government from trampling on their rights.
As for those who want to take away our constitutional rights be it over gun control or terrorists take heed of Benjamin Franklin's famour words " Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty or Safety."
I dont want any of our constiutional rights infringed upon be it gun ownership/free speech/private property rights etc. Once they are given up they will be gone until the government that took them away is overthrown!
Of course some will gladly give up their rights a little at a time till they have none and then will wonder"What happened to my rights?"

 

[epcotfan]

Originally posted by emmagata
I don't know where you got the idea that all gun owners carry a firearm.

I guess I used a poor choice of words. I was curious as to the necessity to own one (whether you keep it locked in a closet or not) I realize the majority doesn't tote one around with them.

 

[adamak]

Wait a minute, everyone.....

Let me ask some basic questions -
Is gun control law banning all guns? (No??)
Is gun control requiring gun owners to register their guns? (Yes??)
Is gun control law limiting people from owning certain high power rifle, and # of guns total? (I think so???)

So. If my assuption above is right, if all gun control law does is asking you to register what you have, and tell you to not own so many guns or, high power guns.... what's the problem ? It's not taking away your rights to hunt or defense yourself. It's just asking you not to build an army in your backyard. (Or if you decide to, let us know by registering). That's all, isn't it?

Isn't it just like, register all your cars, but if you drive drunk with a monster truck on the road, we'll track you down?

And with that 'guns don't kill people, people kill people'. That's really not logical. That's like saying 'drugs dont' kill drug addicts, addicts kill themselves'. If so, why ban illegal drugs?

I really just don't understand. I'm pretty liberal. Please enlighten me.

 

[ncligs]

adamak,
"Good post"........NRA members don't think like most law abiding citizens. They have a hard time understanding "registering guns,automatic weapons,waiting periods,etc".

 

[EROS]

I'm a NRA member, and I PERSONALLY have no problem with waiting periods, automatic weapons bans, and registration of all purchased guns.

However, I'd like to share that last year, over 97% of the guns obtained during felony arrests in Boston were owned illegally. For a price, one can go to parts of town and buy a handgun of one's choice. Criminals aren't obtaining these weapons at your local,friendly gun store. Putting law-abiding gun owners through countless hoops doesn't start to address the problem; it just makes for good political rhetoric ........

 

[adamak]

I understand, EROS. Alot of my friends are NRA members and most of them shared the same views as you. Yes, it's true that most gun owners have illegal guns.

But that does not mean we shouldn't have a law to make things right. Alot of people are on cocaine..... Some for medical reasons, most illegally. So therefore we shouldn't have ANY rules at all?

Or let me ask another question. If we don't start having laws to track guns, how can we solve this sniper problem? I mean, we can track cars, track phone calls, track credit card receipts. Darn, we can probably track who bought what pins in WDW yesterday! And we can't track whose the sniper's gun belongs to? Even if the gun is stolen, if we have a tracking system, we can at least know where it's from, and who could have stolen it....etc.

Just think the benifits outweigh the cost.

(BTW, First time I ever argue against EROS....guess I'm growing old...) My pleasure, EROS.

 

[iluvorlando]

Never thought I would say this, but THANK YOU EROS!!

Criminals aren't obtaining these weapons at your local,friendly gun store. Putting law-abiding gun owners through countless hoops doesn't start to address the problem; it just makes for good political rhetoric

 

[EROS]

Adamak, here is the NRA's response to ballistic fingerprinting. One can certainly disagree with any and all of their points, but many are quite valid ......

"Ballistic "fingerprinting" is a misleading phrase, because human fingerprints or DNA or other biometric data can't be altered. But ballistic abrasion patterns can change for a variety of reasons.

Still, for ballistic "fingerprinting" to work as proposed, all of the following assumptions must materialize:


That the firearm barrel and firing pin have not been modified, replaced, deformed from normal use, or intentionally falsified with new ballistic markings.

That all 200 million firearms lawfully possessed by Americans are brought into labs and fired to gather individual ballistic "fingerprinting."

That all violent criminals, and people who might become one, also bring in their firearms for "fingerprinting."

That all ballistic "fingerprinting" files are stored in a national database.

That an expended bullet or shell casing be recovered from a crime scene.

That the bullet or shell casing conclusively match the ballistic "fingerprinting" of a firearm owned by a person stored in the database.

That the firearm has not been sold, transferred, stolen or gifted to another person.

That the person, now a criminal suspect, still possess that firearm at a current address.



Besides the impossibility of this sequence of events, there's serious debate within the law enforcement community whether such ballistic "fingerprinting" is reliable. Police criminalists and forensic scientists have studied such a system and called it "impractical." (California Department of Justice, Bureau of Forensic Services).


So it defies reason why a criminal or terrorist intent on violence would not avail himself of a firearm never subjected to "fingerprinting," altered into anonymity, or imported from another country.

But for lawful gun owners, this scheme is national gun registration, and certain to produce confusion, misidentification and wrongful suspicion.

That's why ballistic "fingerprinting" of handguns in Maryland and New York, the only states that require it, hasn't solved a single gun crime.

Maryland and New York taxpayers might rightfully ask whether the millions of dollars required to create and maintain such a system could be better spent on vital law enforcement needs".