Gun Control is Completely Useless.

[gopher]

We can talk about gun control all we want. But we must never lose sight of what the real issue is ~ that is, what the 2d Amendment actually stands for. While the OP was correct in his initial post when he wrote that gun control does not lower murder rates, it must be remembered that government confiscation of guns/weapons or whatever means that it can intrude upon people's lives with impunity. What is the inevitable consequence when the government gives itself this authority? Chicago 1968 Convention, Kent State, Philadelphia's attack on the Move Cult, Rodney King (and the subsequent riots), and other examples of government disorder. Those of you who know your history of the Founding Fathers are fully aware that these examples of government injustice are precisely what the 2d Amendment was designed to prevent. So yes, as the OP wrote, gun control is completely useless in preventing certain forms of crime. But more significantly, as conservatives, those of you who condemn gun control need to be mindful that government intrusionism and its disorders are the inevitable consequences because of it.

 

[Colpy]

Actually, I am representative of a very large majority. Or did you not take note of all the polls that have been done. I also represent the views of the majority of criminologists and law enforcement agencies.

Perhaps you could revisit your ideas of sanity. You represent only the self interested political hypocrites; the gun clubs, and those who put their childish amusements before human life.

Perhaps, as you are the self-proclaimed "representative of a very large majority", you could explain why the long gun registry had to be imposed by the Liberals over a significant caucus revolt, why the NDP was split on the issue, and how it came to be that our democratic Parliament disposed of the farce.....with the support of two NDP MPs?

I suppose they are all tools of the omnipotent Canadian "gun lobby", including the NDP.

Never mind that "gun lobby" is just a negative way of labeling people that opposed the LGR............

 

[Cabbagesandking]

Perhaps, as you are the self-proclaimed "representative of a very large majority", you could explain why the long gun registry had to be imposed by the Liberals over a significant caucus revolt, why the NDP was split on the issue, and how it came to be that our democratic Parliament disposed of the farce.....with the support of two NDP MPs?

I suppose they are all tools of the omnipotent Canadian "gun lobby", including the NDP.

Never mind that "gun lobby" is just a negative way of labeling people that opposed the LGR............

The answer is simple enough: political calculation. "Duck hunters" who could swing the vote in certain ridings.

It was not a democratic Parliament that vitiated gun control. It was a Parliament representing a minority of the population acting against the expressed wishes of the people. And lying and misrepresenting the facts - as Glover traveling the country proclaiming that it was costing billions each year.

There was nothing democratic about it. Parliament should lead the people when an issue is too serious for public discussion and input, as in potential military actions. It should follow in more mundane affairs.

 

[petros]

A man attending a screening of The Bourne Legacy in Nevada accidentally shot himself in the butt with a gun he brought into the movie theatre.

That is hillarious! Funniest thing all day.




Bourne Again!

 

[MapleDog]

Should they have metal detectors now in theaters?
Also screening for idiots would be a good idea.

 

[petros]

Also screening for idiots would be a good idea.

Anyone who buys a ticket for todays crap movies IS an idiot.

 

[Cabbagesandking]

We can talk about gun control all we want. But we must never lose sight of what the real issue is ~ that is, what the 2d Amendment actually stands for. While the OP was correct in his initial post when he wrote that gun control does not lower murder rates, it must be remembered that government confiscation of guns/weapons or whatever means that it can intrude upon people's lives with impunity. What is the inevitable consequence when the government gives itself this authority? Chicago 1968 Convention, Kent State, Philadelphia's attack on the Move Cult, Rodney King (and the subsequent riots), and other examples of government disorder. Those of you who know your history of the Founding Fathers are fully aware that these examples of government injustice are precisely what the 2d Amendment was designed to prevent. So yes, as the OP wrote, gun control is completely useless in preventing certain forms of crime. But more significantly, as conservatives, those of you who condemn gun control need to be mindful that government intrusionism and its disorders are the inevitable consequences because of it.

With respect, gopher, I think you have the view of the Second Amendment that has been pushed by the NRA and not by political scholars. The Second Amendment was designed to provide the US with the same native protection that existed - but was already becoming redundant - in England. That is, a militia to deal with threats to the nation.

That goes back to medieval times before standing armies when every man was supposed to be ready to defend the realm. As I believe I posted some time ago, the populace - the armed element - gathered quarterly to train (mustered). It is nonsense to say otherwise and I cannot understand how people can be so naive as to buy the patently false argument of the NRA and the gun manufacturers.

How would any country write a Constitution that provides for its own violent overthrow? How could any country survive when mob rule is lawful?

I don't understand how you can bring up those other events as examples of "government intrusionism." Government reacted as governments do in each case. Certainly they overreacted but that could be argued as caused by the fear of armed insurrection - government will respond to riots and uprisings brutally when the rioters may be armed. It was brutal and primitive (in a political/social sense) but it was not "intrusionism." Rather it was a conditioned response to the primitive fear that permeates a gun culture. I would say that you are guilty of an association fallacy here.

Empirical evidence from every corner of the world disproves the claims of the gun lobby. Widespread possession of guns that is not rigidly controlled is associated with misuse of guns. Homicide and suicide rates are higher. Gun related crime rates are higher. There is no "Right" to carry weapons in a modern society. "There is a "Right" to be considered for their possession in controlled situations.

 

[petros]

How would any country write a Constitution that provides for its own violent overthrow? How could any country survive when mob rule is lawful?

When you have a group of people who for the first time in their lives and in history are are free enough to include a right to arm themselves to prevent ever falling BACK into tyranny, is one of the biggest advancements and assurances that rights will remain rights.

 

[Cabbagesandking]

When you have a group of people who for the first time in their lives and in history are are free enough to include a right to arm themselves to prevent ever falling BACK into tyranny, is one of the biggest advancements and assurances that rights will remain rights.

What an insightful response! Not! People everywhere were "free" enough" for thousands of years before. Then societies became organised and and provided for protection of the citizens without mayhem and put aside the tools of violence.

Just as the plough replaced the wooden scratcher.

 

[petros]

Who was free enough to arm themselves? Create a list.

 

[Cabbagesandking]

The whole wide world was!

 

[petros]

The whole wide world was!

Where do you come up with this crap?

 

[DaSleeper]

Should they have metal detectors now in theaters?
Also screening for idiots would be a good idea.

Isn't it already against the law to bring a firearm in a movie theater????
That would make "Gun control" redundant non?

Where do you come up with this crap?

His computer room is also his bathroom...........

 

[MapleDog]

Isn't it already against the law to bring a firearm in a movie theater????
That would make "Gun control" redundant non?

Its apparently against the law to bring a gun at other places,and it doesn't stop the f***heads from bringing one at the airport,the shopping mall,schools etc.

and gun control is a joke.

 

[taxslave]

Who was free enough to arm themselves? Create a list.

Slave owners down through the ages.

 

[Cabbagesandking]

Where do you come up with this crap?

I won't tell you what kind of fa;;acy that is because I don't want you to encumber your synapses with erudition. But I will say that you have to to say what is wrong with the statement in order to contradict it. That is basic: something that is first learned around junior kindergarten.

 

[bluebyrd35]

When you have a group of people who for the first time in their lives and in history are are free enough to include a right to arm themselves to prevent ever falling BACK into tyranny, is one of the biggest advancements and assurances that rights will remain rights.

Back then perhaps arming oneself to the teeth may have ensured against being taken over as slaves. With that outlook today, a mere gun would be useless against the fire power of a nation, group against group. Gun against gun in modern times makes for a very uneasy peace. It alters the basic make up of a society. It means not looking an angry driver in the eye, or ignoring a deliberate offensive act because the offender may just whip out a gun. It becomes too easy during a confrontation to simply settle the argument with a gun.

It might be fruitful to remember the cold war. It was nation against nation then, instead of person against person now, but the underlying idea is the same. School children were drilled to dive under their desks or tables with hands over their heads, as if that would protect them from radiation. People built bomb shelters and were warned to keep arms in case the neighbour wanted in

 

[Cabbagesandking]

The freedom to live in fear! That is America today. A society where the normal citizen is afraid to walk down the street in many urban areas.

 

[DaSleeper]

The freedom to live in fear! That is America today. A society where the normal citizen is afraid to walk down the street in many urban areas.

That is exactly what you and others like you propose, by denying honest people the ability to effectively protect themselves while the laws do nothing to disarm the people you fear.............

 

[bluebyrd35]

That is exactly what you and others like you propose, by denying honest people the ability to effectively protect themselves while the laws do nothing to disarm the people you fear.............[/QUOTEi]

That state is exactly, how it is in much of the US right now. Not a day goes by without guns being fired. Those of us who are used to walking our streets without fear and without guns do not like the idea of needing a gun in order to take a walk!

It is idiotic to introduce guns when there are those with the idea that guns are the solution to all disputes.. For heaven sakes, it has taken centuries of fear, aggression, and greed before countries and rulers adopted dipomacy to settle borders, respect of boundaries, and the cost of wars to both sides. You, DaSleeper, can walk down your street, highway, or country road, if you live in Canada without fearing for your life. Why do you and others living in this manner want to change it to a war zone??