Do you support ANY gun-control laws?

[sernv99]

Again, citing sources, something you know nothing about:

CNN:

whoa whoa whoa...Texasrifleman rails against the liberal media like CNN yet he uses them as a source

that should tell you something about his credibility......

 

[JohnBT]

"Yes, the law that prohibits convicted felons from gun ownership."

You believe that it's okay for an unconvicted felon to own a gun?

Just kidding.



John

 

[TexasRifleman]

whoa whoa whoa...Texasrifleman rails against the liberal media like CNN yet he uses them as a source

that should tell you something about his credibility.....

Let me get this straight......

It is your contention that 15 people, 10 of them policemen, were NOT shot at in the Hollywood shootout simply because I quoted a commonly known fact from a CNN news article rather than another source?

That is your position?

You have a serious problem with honestly, tact, manners, and civility.

When you have to resort to personal attacks to try to seem relevant to the topic it's time to give up and go away.

You are just embarrassing yourself.

 

[sernv99]

You are just embarrassing yourself.

are you talking about yourself, someone who despises CNN for their reporting in addition to despising the FBI and other fed agencies, yet you use their statistics for your arguments.

 

[TexasRifleman]

are you talking about yourself, someone who despises CNN for their reporting in addition to despising the FBI and other fed agencies, yet you use their statistics for your arguments

This is more dishonesty from you and I am asking you nicely to stop.

I have never said anything bad, ever, about the FBI or any other Federal agency.

I am using publicly accessible crime statistics that no one has challenged the validity of, including you.

I am asking you to end your personal attacks against me. If you wish to challenge any source I have provided then do so, otherwise stop this nonsense.

This is the high road and that behavior is out of place here.

If you cannot debate with some dignity and civility then this is clearly not the place for you.

 

[snow]

I do not support gun control except for those convicted of murder and rape. All other people even with a conviction can change and be law abiding citizens. I am a supervision specialist at a halfway house and while I have seen some dumb *$%^%es go back 2,3 and even 4 times I have seen just as many never go back again. They made a bad choice the first time and decided to take control and not be criminals anymore. I think after a proven probationary time say 5-10 years all former rights should be reinstated voting, firearms and anything else that was taken away. Aside from that someone previously mentioned that if we banned things on the potential it might cause death we will start banning cheesburgers and automobiles well, its begun slowly, fat people pay extra on planes, no more transfats in New York, people can't smoke in some states in their own vehicles because their own kids are in the car.

 

[DAVIDSDIVAD]

are you talking about yourself, someone who despises CNN for their reporting in addition to despising the FBI and other fed agencies, yet you use their statistics for your arguments.

they're not statistics, guy; they're just facts.

 

[JTW Jr.]

I'm glad we agree that laws restricting the circulation of automatic weapons have resulted in their relatively infrequent use in crimes.

The laws restricting the legal manufacture of automatic weapons for private ownership in 1986 , have resulted in their prices being put well out of reach of most people.

You will find that most people , including gang bangers and most criminals fear full auto weapons , since even they realized that it aint like Hollywood , spray and pray is not effective.

 

[AKElroy]

ALL gun restrictions are proposed, legislated and imposed based on the threat of criminal or negligent activity in which the would-be owner has not yet engaged. All such laws presume guilt or negligence before the fact. I am not & do not intend to be guilty of these crimes, I am not negligent, and as such no one has the right to restrict my access.

 

[CapnMac]

Well, let's use some common sense. I'd not make a distinction between arms and weapons at this point, and let the "common sense" of crew-served weapons self-limitate. I mean, I know some dealers who would be quite happy to stock 40mm Bofors just as an attention getter. Sure, somebody could buy it, but they'd need something to tow it with; takes two people to point (and a third to keep it half-fed). Ditto for 120mm mortars or the like.

I got nothing for Justin--that, mostly in agreeing with him.

I'm getting tired of having to read 4-5 pages a day to find I still agree with texasRifleman and duke et al; and find Travis' insistence that we just need a little more "common sense" rather tiresome.

Vote for lock.

 

[AKElroy]

Again, citing sources, something you know nothing about:

CNN:

whoa whoa whoa...Texasrifleman rails against the liberal media like CNN yet he uses them as a source

that should tell you something about his credibility......

This is childish & silly. This is going to sound rude, but you really are not leaving room for much else. You are not contributing anything meaningful to this post. Go back to moveon.org & share views with those with whom you have more commonality.

 

[AKElroy]

This was an outstanding debate & I really enjoyed the mental exercise. It takes all types to form a community. Some of this has been infuriating, and some has been brilliant. This Thomas Jefferson quote posted earlier brings my part in this thread to a close:

False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty... and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer? Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. They ought to be designated as laws not preventive but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree.

 

[Harve Curry]

Up untill 1934 NFA you could have anything that was made, including breechloading artillery with exploding projectiles of high explosives and probably even chemical. No crimes commited with them except by governments. As I recall reading no crimes ( sorry can't remember where anymore) had been commited with a registered machine gun except by a LEO. So from 1776 till 1934, 158 years, we had complete freedom un infringed and our country prospered.
Now 43% of gun owners think they know better then the Founders of our country and that we do need laws that infringe on the RTKBA's. Hooray!

 

[BhmBill]

are you talking about yourself, someone who despises CNN for their reporting in addition to despising the FBI and other fed agencies, yet you use their statistics for your arguments.

Oh lawdy.

Make sure you agree and like something before you quote it's facts.

You got that guys?

DO NOT QUOTE the Brady Campaign if you despise them. If they make an announcement that Obama is going forward full steam with the AWB, It WILL ruin your credibility if you quote them!

 

[Ruggles]

"and the Lone Star State which your strong spirit represents"

His narrow simplistic views do not represent Texas, nor does his ability to cling to the same tired old argument supporting his position. Repeating something again and again does not make it any more accurate, nor is it a successful debate technique. It just drive level headed folks away from the debate when they see the hopelessness of ever reaching a reasonable and sane conclusion.

24 pages of post and still simple minded buffoons are attempting to make the case for a land void of firearms regulations. Simply amazing.
If common sense has not reached you yet on this matter it just might never do so.

Thank the Lord we have saner minds representing the rights of Americans citizens to keep and bear arms than some of the nutbags on this post.

 

[Eric F]

and find Travis' insistence that we just need a little more "common sense" rather tiresome.

Thats the problem with common sense these days, and I learnd this in this thread. Common sense isnt any more. What common sense for me is way too radical for the next guy or not radical enough for others. Travis' brand of common sense just isnt. At least not to me.

 

[Carl]

I would support not letting VIOLENT felons have the right to bear arms because most crime is done by repeating offenders. However, if they can't be trusted outside of the prison then they shouldn't be out of it.

 

[TexasRifleman]

24 pages of post and still simple minded buffoons are attempting to make the case for a land void of firearms regulations.

Then you haven't been paying attention.

I have asked for one thing in this whole thread, and I am still asking for it.

Show where gun control laws, any gun control laws, have in the history of this country, been shown to have a long term improvement on the crime rate.

I said before I am not silly enough to believe there will ever be no gun laws. The point is the same as it's been all along, that the argument for "common sense" gun laws is a sham used to incrementally add "common sense" laws one at a time until the stack is so high that practically everything is illegal.

I have not talked about repealing any law that is currently on the books, just made the claim that they don't seem to do any good.

No gun law is "common sense" because even the ones that seem to make sense at first glance have not had ANY impact on crime and in the end only keep guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens.

And in this whole thread I've been asking for someone to show otherwise and 24 pages later I have not seen one single post that offers any kind of evidence, statistic, etc from ANY source that any gun law has ever reduced crime long term.

Not even one.

I see people getting upset over guns for felons, I see people getting upset over selling machineguns at wal mart, I see people getting upset because they think the Gun Control Act of 1968 keeps nuclear weapons out of stores.

All I see are people latching onto the concept that somehow if there were no gun laws blood would flow in the streets, but they won't show ANY kind of real argument to stand behind it, especially once they realize that in this very country we had NO gun laws to speak of just about 40 years ago. People can't grasp that so they then say things like "well that was different". Then I ask HOW was it different and still nothing. More posts on "no nukes for felons".

But I have seen nothing to show that the laws already in place DO anything to make us safer.

Even the top law enforcement agencies own findings show that gun laws have little or no effect, and they show that the gun laws we DO have in place are not fully utilized.

Thank the Lord we have saner minds representing the rights of Americans citizens to keep and bear arms than some of the nutbags on this post.

Yes, we have people that want to require registration of all handguns, ban just about any semi automatic rifle configuration, require microstamping of ammunition, raise taxes on ammunition, require licenses to reload your own ammunition, ban all private sales of firearms, and end all firearm imports. Our current representatives have at one time or another lobbied for those things.

Yes, thank goodness those in power are of saner minds.

Only a CRAZY person from Texas would suggest that we have enough gun laws. Stop here. No more. They don't work. Stop passing new ones and enforce the ones you have.

No, only a lunatic would suggest such a thing so instead of debating him let's call him "crazy". Let's marginalize his argument, make him out to be a "nutbag, that way no one will listen. I've been insulted, attacked personally, even a veiled threat just in the course of this thread for daring to suggest that gun laws might not work.

That about sum it up to this point?

 

[rogertc1]

Well Mexican cartel can buy lots of machineguns, rockets and grenades from the USA ffl holders and private citizens...
and there has been a law on drugs, drug zar, and on and on...still drugs out there. (From Mexico.)

 

[Eric F]

Show where gun control laws, any gun control laws, have in the history of this country, been shown to have a long term improvement on the crime rate.

The only thing I can think of and its reallt too new to produce"long term results" is project exilt in Va. Basically if you are caught in posession of an illegal fire arm( and please lets not get into guns arnt illegl, thats not what this means) its an automatic 5 year jail term. I read in the paper some time ago maybe 3-5 months that there has been a decreas in the amout of reported stolen guns in Va. I guess you could argue that this isnt a gun control law per se but at least I gave it a real educated try. Basicaly Texasrifleman is righ you cant find a single law like he has asked for.

And what they mean by illegal firearm is stolen guns illegaly and modified guns as well as unregistered NFA items.

 

[Rockwell1]

By the 25th page I've pretty much decided that travisb,sernv99 & ruggles are either Brady trolls or AHSA trolls. As such their minds aren't going to change & they'll simply continue to propagate their anti lies until they're banned.

The focus of this, The Mother of All Threads , should be the fence sitters.

 

[t165]

How many responding to this thread have any professional experience enforcing gun laws? I'm serious...how many of you have any experience? I keep seeing the term "common sense" tossed around. "Common sense" comes from experience. I don't have any experience building a nuclear warhead and would be a babbling fool trying to express my opinions to a tried and true professional nuclear armament scientist.

There have always been gun control laws...there always will be. Read your histroy. I keep hearing the 2nd Amendment being twisted to suit ones argument. The signers of the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights imposed their own gun control laws on Americans while drafting and signing these historic documents. Look it up. Our Founding Fathers believed and practiced "GUN CONTROL"!

I have seen/experienced what a firearm in the hands of criminals can do.

I have seen/experienced what a firearm in the hand of a child can do.

I have seen/experienced what a firearm in the hands of a mentally ill person can do.

With firearm ownership comes responsibility. If one is not capable or not willing to exercise responsibility then this country will never let them legally own a firearm. Argue all you want...it isn't happening. If you see a child with a firearm take it away. If you see or know about a mentally ill person with a firearm then tell the proper authorities. If you see or know about a criminal with a firearm then, again, tell the proper authorities. That is the responsible thing to do! Yes...criminals will obtain firearms. Thats why they are criminals. Doesn't mean the good people of this country should just let the scumbags have firearms!

One of the closest times I ever came to being shot was from an old mentally ill lady. Her family moved her to Vincennes so they did not have to put up with her. They gained control of her money and dumped her on my community. Shortly after she was moved here she started calling the department saying people were trying to break in her apartment to "get her". After about a week of this we started to get concerned. I was dispatched there late one night and exited my vehicle and was walking around her duplex to assure her nobody was there. I radioed the dispatcher and told him I was searching her area and to let her know I was there. The dispatcher then advised me she seen one of the people who was out to "get her" standing by her back window and that she had a gun pointed at their head. That was ME searching the area! This deranged old lady almost shot me! Anybody trying to tell me there should not be gun laws is a LOONEY TUNE!

 

[Eric F]

The focus of this, The Mother of All Threads , should be the fence sitters.

good point I was at the begining of this in favor of what I thought was "common sense" laws but thanks to travisb,sernv99 & ruggles I have realized that if you give in to age restrictions, anti felon stuff they will just keep on with more and more and the more restrictions there are the easier it is to keep on adding them. So I must say just because common sense is nonexistant I am now against any form of "control" laws at all.

 

[TexasRifleman]

This old deranged old lady almost shot me! Anybody trying to tell me there should not be gun laws is a LOONEY TUNE!

I'll ask you one question in response to your story. By the way, glad you didn't get shot.

Since one deranged old lady almost shot you, what good did gun laws do you? She still had a gun.

 

[ilbob]

This deranged old lady almost shot me! Anybody trying to tell me there should not be gun laws is a LOONEY TUNE!

Perhaps we should make it illegal to murder people so murders won't happen anymore.