new coup for you

2007 has had 392 murders, but 648 shootings.

__________________
And why does your tone suggest that you do not care about children?

I want to ride my bicycle, I want to ride my bike.

TacticalEvilDan

I think I'll save caring about what you say for when you can keep your point straight.

__________________
DURKA DURKA JIHAD

"No man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent."
-- Abraham Lincoln

LaMidRighter

I agree. It's a shame that many people are allowing the limited governance principles of our country's founding to slip away. I have in other threads blamed a "me first" kind of attitude, this leads to niche voters who will look the other way when a politician expands government with excessive regulation, as long as the niche issue is satisfied.

__________________
Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

LMR

TacticalEvilDan

The sad fact is that, for a whole host of reasons (among them the point you just made), the United States is not at this time ready for a truly conservative government.

We need to make a lot of grassroots-level changes before we will be. Until we achieve that, a marked reduction in government influence in the lives of the populace will translate directly into a dramatic increase in profiteering.

jfuh

No matter what fracking kind of law you put into place or however many fracking guns good people have it's simply not going to prevent the arseholes who commit violent crimes or the insane nut heads from blowing everything up.
Let me repeat - NO GUN LEGISLATION OR NUMBER OF MUNITIONS WILL EVER CHANGE A DAMN THING.

Ok, that said if you are for or against gun legislation for the purpose of keeping everyone safe, why not go with what really makes a difference, the presence of more police officers? I still have not heard a single logical rational as to why the most effective means is not even on the table? Costs more? Better than some stupid legislation that some crummy politician came up with to appease two camps of nutters.

Finally, arms is a constitutionally protected right - indifferent to free speech. If someone wants to own a gun, indifferent to someone wanting to voice their opinion no one can shut them up.
But a gun is still a gun, with only one purpose ever in it's design that is to kill. Hence real back ground checks are very important.

Now I own guns, but I never understand this obsession with some people with guns (for or against). But I'd never say you can't own a gun because that'd be like communism really. But I also can't see why someone would need an AK-47 for any purpose. You going to take out an army? Rise against the government? We are a civilized nation, you going to go up against the government then don't let government get out of control with bs legislation in the first place by not being fracking damn ignorant morons. In a democratic society the government you have is the government that you are responsible for so don't go off on me with some bs about how government should be afraid of people because of how many guns we have.

__________________
The facts and science of the theory of anthropogenic Global warming

rathi

I've never really understood the whole need for having guns to defend against the government.

1) Modern firepower is mostly located in things that people can't logistically support. Tanks, planes or artillery is something that nobody would have even if it were legal. Using small arms isn't going to get you very far.

2) By rising against the government, you are going to be committing treason. (thats the legal definition kind of treason. There are perfectly acceptable times when revolution is needed.) Why would you even care about arms control laws? If you win the revolution you can't be punished, and if you lose, its not like you can punish someone more after you execute them for treason. Many good laws we have today would be a problem if the government suddenly became evil. That doesn't mean that the laws are inherently bad.

__________________
He'd be right at home on some ancient battlefield, swinging an axe into somebody's face.

LaMidRighter

[quote] Yup. That's what we have been trying to get across as second amendment advocates for years.

I didn't mention it simply because I consider it (and would assume most people would) a common sense point. I am a firm believer in expanding police presence when the situation (i.e. population, crime increases) warrants it. I just assumed most sane people would feel that way already.

I agree.

Reverend_Hellh0und

Governments killed hundereds of millions last century.

Shouldn't we be talking about banning them from having guns?

__________________
كافر
Never forget those who died.
Never forget those who killed them.

Reverend_Hellh0und

Need has nothing to do with rights.


You don't need a car, there is mass transit.

You don't need a toaster.

You don't need a microwave.

You don't need 2 televisions.

You don't need a car that breaks the speed limit.

TacticalEvilDan

GIVE THIS (checks first) MAN A CIGAW!

It is my believe that what ultimately reduces crime rates long-term, from decade to decade, is an improvement of overall conditions. You can't do it with law, you can't do it with violence, you can only do it by making the world a more livable place.

Actually, see above.

This is not a long-term solution, because should the attention of the police ever shift away from a particular area, or should the police ever lose their funding for watching over a particular area, or should the powers that be decide that a particular area no longer needs watching, that particular area will see a resurgence of crime.

Finally, arms is a constitutionally protected right - indifferent to free speech. If someone wants to own a gun, indifferent to someone wanting to voice their opinion no one can shut them up.
But a gun is still a gun, with only one purpose ever in it's design that is to kill. Hence real back ground checks are very important.

Too bad the United States isn't a democratic society.

Too bad that the politicians have been purchased with special interest dollars.

Too bad that the Feds now require the use of "modern" voting machines, which can be hacked with something as stupid as a magnet.

Too bad that the powers that be have succeeded in convincing so many of your neighbors that to oppose the government is unpatriotic or treasonous.