The Attack on the 2nd Amendment Continues

WacoFan said:
Meant progressives - you know, basically you except on this issue.
Click to expand...

I hate that term. I'm a liberal. Or a democratic socialist. "Progressive" is just a term that liberals made up for themselves because they got scared when right wing nuts started using it as a pejorative. We should own it. It's something to be proud of.
 
Ehh...

Speak for yourself there, Shooter McGavin! :)


Sent from my free Obama Phone
 
This whole situation just makes me sad. There is a real opportunity to actually explore what the root causes might be, but yet all we get are entrenched positions fighting.

So many ignorant folks are spring loaded to place the blame on the firearm and leave it at that. The NRA thinks that the answer that they can contribute best is armed guards in schools. Neither position comes close to actually wanting to solve the problem.

The sad part so far as I'm concerned is that Americans are going to suffer a great blow to an important civil right When in this emotional fit they pass the most restrictive gun control in American history. At the same time other important discussions about significant societal issues such as mental health and societal attitudes toward violence will be completely sidelined.

I still think that a sensible middle ground answer would be a legitimate push toward improving the NICS background check system. The database needs to have better updates and connection to police and other networks. It can barely handle the level of action it gets just from current firearms dealers. It has imperfections in terms of reasons it denies purchases, and other results where someone should be denied but are not. Obviously certain types of mental health issues should be part of the database and reason for denial. With those additions there should also be a streamlined and accessible methodology for removing your name from being prohibited if you are no longer judged as having a mental problem.

I am ideologically opposed to forcing all private sales to have a background check. However this is an area where I would be willing to compromise as it actually might do some good.

How is it that both sides cannot step back and try and take some real steps that could actually help things?
 
Don't exactly agree that the NRA said ONLY armed guards would help... More like, it's what we can do NOW. Legislation will be like anything else coming out of Congress... Slow and useless. If we do get any legislation quickly, it'll be based completely on emotion and be utter crap.

It would be great if the two sides could actually see each others view and find some middle ground... However, most people in the country are too ignorant or hateful to actually want to listen to another view.
 
saria19 said:
My thoughts on banning weapons is that you'd just make the general public easier victims. Even George Washington supported the common citizen arming themselves.
Click to expand...

I believe one of the articles I read recently said it best... Guns are a force equalizer. They put all members of the population that carry one on a level playing field. If we were to outlaw all guns, it would just return us to survival of the fittest.

I do see the point that the left makes about the removal of guns would lessen the severity of these incidences. I can admit it would be harder to commit mass murder running around trying to knife everyone. But I can't believe that anyone from the left TRULY believes that gun control would keep guns out of criminals hands.
 
I think we should solve the terrorism problem by giving every country a stockpile of nuclear weapons. Remember how fun the Cold War was?
 
Hacker15e said:
This whole situation just makes me sad. There is a real opportunity to actually explore what the root causes might be, but yet all we get are entrenched positions fighting.
Click to expand...

Hacker, that whole post was good, but I just had to stop at the first paragraph because, well, it just really struck me how much this statement can be applied to so very many different issues in our lives today that it isn't even close to being funny.
 
JordanD said:
I think we should solve the terrorism problem by giving every country a stockpile of nuclear weapons. Remember how fun the Cold War was?
Click to expand...

There is, however, something to be said for the concept of deterrence. Ever wonder why the Soviets never launched a nuke at us? Because of the threat of what could come back at them. In a micro comparison of that concept, I do believe that if a potential assailant believed that there were no "easy kills" and they themselves could be hurt/injured/killed, they'd think twice about an action they might be taking. Will this work with every nutjob? Of course not. Someone who is evil or committed to doing something nutty or crazy, nothing is going to really stop them from trying.
 
"I do believe that if a potential assailant believed that there were no "easy kills" and they themselves could be hurt/injured/killed, they'd think twice about an action they might be taking."

See, this is where I stumble ... I believe we try to rationalize and understand that which cannot be understood rationally. I personally doubt there is much "normal" thinking once a person "takes the plunge," although I don't know. I suspect strongly that rage/hurt/whatever becomes the driving force until one runs out of ammunition or the police arrive. Have there been many mass shooters who have survived the event to face trial? The ONE example which comes to mind is the former Army Major currently on trial for the PX shooting, though there may be others.

In my world, once you decide to shoot your mother in the head and take several semi-automatic weapons to a grade school, you have long since stopped considering any reasonable response to your actions as a deterrent. Something else drives the person so doing.

A person about to rob a bank, or even take a life for revenge, may consider those things and act (or not) based upon a reasonable chance of "success" after considering the possible deterrents and outcome. Once you step off the edge into the abyss, though, I doubt seriously if there is anything rational going on.
 
Bob Ridpath said:
"I do believe that if a potential assailant believed that there were no "easy kills" and they themselves could be hurt/injured/killed, they'd think twice about an action they might be taking."

See, this is where I stumble ... I believe we try to rationalize and understand that which cannot be understood rationally. I personally doubt there is much "normal" thinking once a person "takes the plunge," although I don't know. I suspect strongly that rage/hurt/whatever becomes the driving force until one runs out of ammunition or the police arrive. Have there been many mass shooters who have survived the event to face trial? The ONE example which comes to mind is the former Army Major currently on trial for the PX shooting, though there may be others.

In my world, once you decide to shoot your mother in the head and take several semi-automatic weapons to a grade school, you have long since stopped considering any reasonable response to your actions as a deterrent. Something else drives the person so doing.

A person about to rob a bank, or even take a life for revenge, may consider those things and act (or not) based upon a reasonable chance of "success" after considering the possible deterrents and outcome. Once you step off the edge into the abyss, though, I doubt seriously if there is anything rational going on.
Click to expand...

Agreed... But if, as you say, "Something else drives the persons so doing"... At least if he came upon another with a weapon to stop him, the damage could be mitigated some.
 
The only problem I are with the analogy is that the Soviets were ultimately rational. If they lobbed a nuke at as because of some proxy war gone awry, it meant the end of the world.

Period.

Is it worth if? Not for the Koreans, Vietnamese or Cuba in their eyes.

But does the average • mass murderer think "Well if I go all megadeath of those nuns asses, it will result in me dying or at least me killing myself"? Maybe, but most likely
maybe not.

Those weapons have a purpose in our society but I don't feel that purpose is universal.

It's retarded that its harder to buy a dime bag than it is to buy an NHM-61 "Sportster" man that thing was fun to shoot but I shoot rifles lefty.
 
Americans have been well armed for several centuries, but “gun violence” is new. Why? The United States is the most complete police state in human history. Thanks to modern technology, Washington is able to spy on its subjects far beyond the capabilities of Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler.
 
brent p h said:
Americans have been well armed for several centuries, but “gun violence” is new. Why? The United States is the most complete police state in human history. Thanks to modern technology, Washington is able to spy on its subjects far beyond the capabilities of Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler.
Click to expand...

Gun violence is actually at historic lows. Don't tell Piers Morgan that, but it is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top