Poll: 2/3 of American voters would defy gun laws

Post Reply New Topic

Simi automatic rifiles kill about 300 a year, with a good deal of that in hunting accidents. This includes all clip sizes, and designs that look comic book futurist.

Fists kill more.

According to the media, simi automatic weapons are the problem, which covers most guns, even revolvers, even black powder revolvers, built to Civil War designs.

This is a great step up from when the learned press were calling them all automatic assault weapons.

So all of this comes down to limiting future clip sales, reducing them to ten shot. There are still a lot of pre ban clips around, all legal, and clips from when the ban ended, so restricting future sales will only fuel a black market.

We do have laws regarding the mentally ill buying guns, felons, but the movie and the school shooters were not felons, or adjudged mental cases.

There are much worse risks in life than large clips,

Put to the CDC, they could come up with a whole list of known killers, too many burgers being the leading killers of America, that have a very high social cost, more medical problems, greater cost, and anything that only kills 300, would not make their list.

Putting armed TSA Agents at every school, movie, and street corner, would lead to thousands of guns being stolen, and entering the black market. It is also a non solution to a non problem.

It is what it is, a very rare event, that will not be stopped by limiting clip size.

Perhaps it is a sign of growing social breakdown, drugs in the food and water, too many rats in a cage, in which case, more people are going to want large clip firepower.

Two out of 330,000,000 is not a reason to regulate what has been working for several hundred years, The Right of the People to keep and bear arms.

Any Congress that votes for it, should have their bags packed.

The Media sells ads, they do not run the country.

It is insane to see this parallel society being described on this topic. The nutjobs really come out if you propose assaulting their abilities to accumulate killing machines. These people are paranoid and they often justify their owning of killing machines by the fact that someone may not want them to have them. Then they allude to the fact that they will shoot people that try to take these killing machines from them to protect their ability to keep these killing machines. They also say they have them for recreational purposes and they are not for killing people. How strange. Also, lets focus our attention on banning the production of AND possession of all handguns, assault rifles, short barrel shotguns, etc. How about make the only legal guns to possess guns that were around when the second amendment was penned?

A musket and rifle ball ain't going to make you feel any better than a .223 Remington round. It only takes one.

You can't kill lots of people quickly? Just do sniping attacks and the body count will be the same, it'll just take a little longer.

Block all the exits of a nightclub and burn it to the ground when it's full (a pack of 500 matches is about $5 -- a bottle of flammable liquid similar -- timber, a hammer and nails would be about $20 all up used).

Derail a train.

Hijack a plane.

Hell, sniping attacks with a bow and arrow would probably be the most frightening thing one can experience.

Humans = predators, and predators will find a way.

Sigh............
Duh, since the "nutjobs" ALL get up in arms by the threat of knee-jerk legislation and laws why provide the catalyst to push them ALL over the edge?

Good call. Now give up your computer, as your freedom of speech has been restricted to only those tools which were around in the 18th century.

When the 2nd amendment was penned, the intent was for the individual citizens to have access to buy all the implements needed to raise a standing army on short notice. To be constitutional, the US army is supposed to be little more than an officer corps during peacetime with the bulk of the arms in homes with extras at other public and private storage facilities. The standing navy and by extension the marines (as a rapid response force) are constitutional, the coast guard is constitutional, the air force, forming a sort of navy of the skies is constitutional since it help provide a shield around the US, but the keeping of an army was supposed to be restricted to wartime to prevent it's abuse by corrupt politicians.

It's strange how many people still say "you're paranoid, that will never happen here", even as I watch the things happening that I've been warning against for about 15 years.

Way to tell us nutjobs!

I think I agree with all of you. There are very good arguments being made on all sides of this issue. The sad thing is that no one ever acknowledges the valid points that are being made on each side.

The interesting thing about two sides talking past each other is that both sides can be right since they are both being right on unrelated points.

Mostly I'm just curious where this is going to lead. The liberals and moderates now see just how many guns there are and see that some of the people carrying them seem unstable. Will they really try to take them away? What will you guys do if they do? Fight?

Should liberals just bite the bullet and start getting gun happy? Would

that be like a domestic arms race? Sounds like the leadup to the Rwandan genocide to me.

The Rwandan genocide occurred in an environment of strict gun control.

It's sad that you have been so indoctrinated that you actually think the polar opposite of that.

I'm quite interested to hear the pro-gun response to this...because I'll put on type right now, I'm sticking with my humanitarian values even when the bullets are flying into my chest.

I'm a [classical] liberal and a shooter; it's a hobby (that can defend oneself in those rare instances). Do what you want to do, whether it's smoking a pipe, driving a motorcycle, playing football, flying a kite, going fishing, playing chess, and the zillion other activities out there that people enjoy. It's your life to live how you see fit.

J-Greens,

That's your choice. No point in flip-flopping over ideals, as it shows one isn't sure of themselves. I'm sure you'd do your best to save innocents from said bullets though (blades, clubs, arrows and all that too). How you go about saving them is how you live in this world.

I'd save innocents by firing/fighting back if there was no other way. If it's just me, I take flight; I trust my feet more than my aim and fists.

(I'm a pacifist of the, "will defend" make. And only defend.)

[quote="JBlitzen"]How about make the only legal guns to possess guns that were around when the second amendment was penned?


the only guns we are allowed to own were the guns available at the time of the second amendment.yes

a musket was the most technicaly advanced firearm of that era.so people being able to own the most advanced weapons of there time is in the spirit of the constitution.

if the constitution is nothing but dry words then it has no meaning,you must interprit the spirit of the constitution as well as the literal meaning

I don't think the opposite of that at all. What magic power do you have that you can penetrate deep into people's minds and somehow know that they think things that they have not said?

My comparison to the Rwandan genocide was based on have two groups that, for many years, expressed an unwillingness and inability to compromise. For many years, both groups, argued that the basic existence of the other group made it impossible for them to pursue their own health and happiness. Additionally, for many years before the genocide, Rwandans expressed a belief that civil war was coming to them.

The entrenchment of both sides is the basis for my comparison. To be honest I would not have thought that gun control meant very much in a place with a weak a central government as Rwanda.

Seems like a bit of a red herring. The assault weapons ban not only won't pass but it also wouldnt take away anyone's current guns. It would just regulate the future sale of certain weapons.

But it's a chance for macho or paranoid posturing I guess.

The SAFE Act passed on January 15th.

Stop your macho posturing and read the news.

What are the stakes of the question? What do we get by answering?

You just stated that you won't change your position no matter what, so why would new evidence or logic influence you?

Answering your question is nothing more than a wasted exercise in fighting bigotry. It would be like trying to explain to a KKK member why black people should have rights.