Carolyn McCarthy readies gun control bill

  • Thread starter Thread starter a_priori
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Maybe its because I live in Canada where most gun owners have hunting guns, but I don’t know why so many Americans are so adamant about their guns

Weapons should be banned in all political events

People, please keep your guns at home.
 
Gift_from_God said:
Maybe its because I live in Canada where most gun owners have hunting guns, but I don’t know why so many Americans are so adamant about their guns

Weapons should be banned in all political events

People, please keep your guns at home.
Click to expand...
That worked well in the case. The only armed person was the criminal (who for some reason chose not to follow the law) and was only subdued when he had to reload.
 
SamH said:
That worked well in the case. The only armed person was the criminal (who for some reason chose not to follow the law) and was only subdued when he had to reload.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it’s a very difficult case. On the one hand, if you have everyone carrying guns, there may be more shootings. On the other, if there are no guns, there are no shootings, (wow, that reminds me of abstinence for some reason :)) but what does one do when a nut does manage to bring a gun?

In the case of Congresswoman Giffords, I think people like her should have protection from the local police
 
On October 23, the Scranton Times reported that Rep. Paul Kanjorski, D-Pa., said this about Florida’s new Republican Governor Rick Scott: “That Scott down there that’s running for governor of Florida,” Mr. Kanjorski said. "Instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to have him and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him. He stole billions of dollars from the United States government and he’s running for governor of Florida. He’s a millionaire and a billionaire. He’s no hero. He’s a damn crook. It’s just we don’t prosecute big crooks

[Source: Wall Street Journal, paid subscription required.]
 
Gift_from_God said:
Yeah, it’s a very difficult case. On the one hand, if you have everyone carrying guns, there may be more shootings. On the other, if there are no guns, there are no shootings, (wow, that reminds me of abstinence for some reason :)) but what does one do when a nut does manage to bring a gun?

In the case of Congresswoman Giffords, I think people like her should have protection from the local police
Click to expand...
I’m all about the Second Amendment, but there’s something about 30-round semiautomatics which just doesn’t square with my understanding of any legitimate self-defense or sporting need. Are there really any incidents on record where a citizen defending their life failed because they “only” had 10 or 12 rounds? We’re granting the average joe (and average psychotic) ready access to firepower which until quite recently required a platoon of soldiers. We are granting these idiots the power to kill 10, 20, 50 people, at their whim. And I don’t buy the idea that concealed carry is the answer. There is simply no time to react effectively when somebody starts blazing with a 30-round clip. You might, if you’re good and lucky, cut the death toll to “only” three or four plus any bystanders you happen to hit. Most states do not now ban citizen carry of guns. Arizona, by my understanding, is one of those “shall issue” states or doesn’t even require a permit. Where were the good guys when we needed them? Furthermore, why should I have to arm myself like I’m in Kandahar in my own country?

Does that mean I’m proposing a ban? No. I don’t know what the answer is, but it seems to me we’ve crossed a line of good sense with the weaponry in general circulation. If a 30-round Glock is fine to own, why stop there? Why is full-auto too much to ask? For that matter, why should I be barred from buying a 20-mm belt fed anti-aircraft gun? Or an RPG? I’m not being facetious. If we say the Second Amendment exists in part to arm us against our own government if it goes bad, small arms are clearly insufficient. The lessons of Serbia and Sudan show that citizens need effective anti-aircraft capability, at the least, to make a stand. If we trust law-abiding citizens with the kind of firepower this nut unleashed, it’s hard to see why the trust ends with 30 rounds of small caliber ammo. Why don’t we allow people with no criminal record to buy a pound, or a ton, of RDX cash and carry?
 
kenofken said:
Why is full-auto too much to ask? For that matter, why should I be barred from buying a 20-mm belt fed anti-aircraft gun? Or an RPG? I’m not being facetious. If we say the Second Amendment exists in part to arm us against our own government if it goes bad, small arms are clearly insufficient. The lessons of Serbia and Sudan show that citizens need effective anti-aircraft capability, at the least, to make a stand. If we trust law-abiding citizens with the kind of firepower this nut unleashed, it’s hard to see why the trust ends with 30 rounds of small caliber ammo. Why don’t we allow people with no criminal record to buy a pound, or a ton, of RDX cash and carry?
Click to expand...
I agree with you, but puleeze. There are those who really believe the 2nd Amendment is absolute and that there is no limit to the amount or type of weaponry that a private citizen should be allowed to own. Your personal SAM, anyone?
 
Rich_Olszewski said:
I agree with you, but puleeze. There are those who really believe the 2nd Amendment is absolute and that there is no limit to the amount or type of weaponry that a private citizen should be allowed to own. Your personal SAM, anyone?
Click to expand...
Do you really think any law will prevent criminals from obtaining anything they want?

Gun laws ONLY stop law abiding citizens.
 
Stjudeprayforus said:
Do you really think any law will prevent criminals from obtaining anything they want?
Click to expand...
Of course not. I believe that laws, whatever their purpose, don’t prevent criminals from doing what they aim to do. Arkansas makes burglary a criminal offense. My home was burglarized in my absence in September. Didn’t stop the criminals. There are penalties against drunk driving, too, yet the police keep stopping drunk drivers and charging them.

And, in the recent tragedy, laws against murder didn’t stop that man from killing six people.

Yet, there is a place for laws in our society, regardless of their deterrent value.
 
Rich_Olszewski said:
Of course not. I believe that laws, whatever their purpose, don’t prevent criminals from doing what they aim to do. Arkansas makes burglary a criminal offense. My home was burglarized in my absence in September. Didn’t stop the criminals. There are penalties against drunk driving, too, yet the police keep stopping drunk drivers and charging them.

And, in the recent tragedy, laws against murder didn’t stop that man from killing six people.

Yet, there is a place for laws in our society, regardless of their deterrent value.
Click to expand...
It’s a means of punishing those that harm others. Yet I find my personal liberties guaranteed through a social contract being restricted even though exercising them as a law abiding citizen would harm no one in any way.

Yet other liberties are be upheld enve though they result in the deaths of millions .
 
Democrats Have Their Own “Target Map” And “Bulls Eye Map”

Verum Serum did all the heavy lifting, I’m just bringing it to the attention of folks here.



The map appears on this page of the Democratic Leadership Committee website (dated 2004 during the Bush years).



Each one of those red targets represents a “Targeted Republican”. There was even a helpful legend that makes it clear precisely what the little red targets represent:



This map was on the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) website. They launched the site and the map on February 23rd of last year, making it just over a year old (i.e. Democrats have had a full year to become outraged over this and somehow never did).

I should note that googling “targeted republican” site:dccc.org] turns up 742 results – i.e. on just this one site!

So what makes these maps less “dangerous” than Palin’s map?
 
Stjudeprayforus said:
Do you really think any law will prevent criminals from obtaining anything they want?

Gun laws ONLY stop law abiding citizens.
Click to expand...
What you say is true, but only to a degree. Laws cannot prevent criminals from obtaining anything. They can, under the right circumstances, make it difficult enough to put things out of reach of the 95% of criminals who are either just lunatics or criminal because they’re too stupid to hold a job as a Wal-Mart greeter. Those are the guys who commit the vast majority of murders. I go back to my examples of full-auto weapons or grenade launchers.

There are criminals who can lay their hands on those things, even in countries with much stronger gun control regimes than ours. Hell, criminals have traded nuclear materials!. However, it’s a rare breed of criminal who can do so. The manufacturing and distribution channels of these things are very closely watched. Getting around those laws involves things like international smuggling, obtaining the equipment and technical expertise to manufacture or modify weapons, heavy bribery and break-ins to some VERY high security facilities. It takes much more money and sophistication than most criminals possess, and it brings more law enforcement heat than it’s worth in most instances. If high-capacity semi-autos were limited to military and law enforcement (or some highly restricted licensing) from the start of the manufacturing and distribution center, you would still have guys like drug lords buying them. You would not, however, see nutcakes like Laughner or 15-year old punks selling dope carrying them in their waistbands.

It’s largely an academic pipe dream at this point anyway. So many of these things are now in circulation that they’re easier to find than bottled water in some areas. Even if we clamped down going forward, it would take most of a century for that supply chain to dry up.
 
Monte_RCMS said:
On October 23, the Scranton Times reported that Rep. Paul Kanjorski, D-Pa., said this about Florida’s new Republican Governor Rick Scott: “That Scott down there that’s running for governor of Florida,” Mr. Kanjorski said. "Instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to have him and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him. He stole billions of dollars from the United States government and he’s running for governor of Florida. He’s a millionaire and a billionaire. He’s no hero. He’s a damn crook. It’s just we don’t prosecute big crooks

[Source: Wall Street Journal, paid subscription required.]
Click to expand...
When a Democrat threatens to murder someone, even a sitting President, it for some reason “doesn’t count.” It only counts when Republicans do it. Or in fact don’t do it, but say something that could be twisted into looking like they might have thought it. Then it counts. To the barricades, comrades! :rolleyes:
 
kenofken said:
What you say is true, but only to a degree. Laws cannot prevent criminals from obtaining anything. They can, under the right circumstances, make it difficult enough to put things out of reach of the 95% of criminals who are either just lunatics or criminal because they’re too stupid to hold a job as a Wal-Mart greeter. Those are the guys who commit the vast majority of murders. I go back to my examples of full-auto weapons or grenade launchers.
Click to expand...
Any one of us could drive to the ‘hood’ right now and buy a gun out of the back of some van.
THIS is how criminals obtain guns.

Criminals don’t register their guns. They don’t go through a back ground check either.

Its a wonderful thought that we could enact law and violence would end… Criminals dont care about our laws.
 
Stjudeprayforus said:
Any one of us could drive to the ‘hood’ right now and buy a gun out of the back of some van.
THIS is how criminals obtain guns.

Criminals don’t register their guns. They don’t go through a back ground check either.

Its a wonderful thought that we could enact law and violence would end… Criminals dont care about our laws.
Click to expand...
That’s true, but it’s a direct consequence of a legal climate in which guns are so loosely regulated and so prolific that an adequate supply readily sloshes over into the illegal market. Yes, we could buy a Glock in the “hood” quite easily. However, unless your “hood” happens to be tribal Pakistan, you can’t buy an RPG or a Stinger missile out of the back of a van. That’s not because the thugs have a different reverence for those laws, but because the legal distribution is so limited that black market spillover is low to negligible. Even putting out the word to buy such weapons almost always lands you a meeting not with a real arms dealer, but an ATF agent who will throw you away in the federal pen for decades.

So I don’t suggest that a tight regime would eliminate Glocks from the street, but it would mean that the price would go from, say, $500 to $5,000. There would be far fewer for sale at any given moment, the sorts of criminals with contacts and money to get them would be much more limited, and those crooks would, on average, be much more judicious about using them than schizophrenics or kids who drive down the street holding their “gat” sideways and spraying bullets on a crowded sidewalk because some other idiot “dissed” them.
 
kenofken said:
That’s true, but it’s a direct consequence of a legal climate in which guns are so loosely regulated and so prolific that an adequate supply readily sloshes over into the illegal market. Yes, we could buy a Glock in the “hood” quite easily. However, unless your “hood” happens to be tribal Pakistan, you can’t buy an RPG or a Stinger missile out of the back of a van. That’s not because the thugs have a different reverence for those laws, but because the legal distribution is so limited that black market spillover is low to negligible. Even putting out the word to buy such weapons almost always lands you a meeting not with a real arms dealer, but an ATF agent who will throw you away in the federal pen for decades.

So I don’t suggest that a tight regime would eliminate Glocks from the street, but it would mean that the price would go from, say, $500 to $5,000. There would be far fewer for sale at any given moment, the sorts of criminals with contacts and money to get them would be much more limited, and those crooks would, on average, be much more judicious about using them than schizophrenics or kids who drive down the street holding their “gat” sideways and spraying bullets on a crowded sidewalk because some other idiot “dissed” them.
Click to expand...
The price would skyrocket for law abiding citizens.

Criminals steal them.
 
kenofken said:
Even putting out the word to buy such weapons almost always lands you a meeting not with a real arms dealer, but an ATF agent who will throw you away in the federal pen for decades.

So I don’t suggest that a tight regime would eliminate Glocks from the street, but it would mean that the price would go from, say, $500 to $5,000. There would be far fewer for sale at any given moment, the sorts of criminals with contacts and money to get them would be much more limited, and those crooks would, on average, be much more judicious about using them than schizophrenics or kids who drive down the street holding their “gat” sideways and spraying bullets on a crowded sidewalk because some other idiot “dissed” them.
Click to expand...
Could you explain why that plan has not worked in Mexico? Their laws are much more stringent and the punishment much more sever that the US’s but they are overrun with weapons and shootings.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top