Police surround church in Newtown.

[65cuda]

Originally Posted By: INMY01TA
So no one cared when this Govt gave several thousands of guns to violent Mexican drug cartels, leading to hundreds of dead in Mexico and a law enforcement officer here. But now everyone is fine with the same Govt taking away our guns? Unbelievable. We had an assault weapons ban in place for 10 years. The FBI has pages and pages of statistics on it proving it did nothing to curb violent crime. Period. This is nothing more than a huge power grab by Govt exploiting a horrible tragedy to push their agenda of disarming us all.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal According to this about 2000 were released and 700 recovered. How about all the guns that were bought at gun shows and private sales, let alone through dealers that were looking the other way in the sales? Taking away your guns? Difference between saying that the responsibility of the gun owner to keep them secured and taking. Difference in banning the large capacity clips and taking away your guns. Many things can be done that have little to do with your possession of guns.

 

[INMY01TA]

Originally Posted By: 65cuda
Originally Posted By: INMY01TA
So no one cared when this Govt gave several thousands of guns to violent Mexican drug cartels, leading to hundreds of dead in Mexico and a law enforcement officer here. But now everyone is fine with the same Govt taking away our guns? Unbelievable. We had an assault weapons ban in place for 10 years. The FBI has pages and pages of statistics on it proving it did nothing to curb violent crime. Period. This is nothing more than a huge power grab by Govt exploiting a horrible tragedy to push their agenda of disarming us all.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal According to this about 2000 were released and 700 recovered. How about all the guns that were bought at gun shows and private sales, let alone through dealers that were looking the other way in the sales? Taking away your guns? Difference between saying that the responsibility of the gun owner to keep them secured and taking. Difference in banning the large capacity clips and taking away your guns. Many things can be done that have little to do with your possession of guns.
All gun owners I know do keep their guns secured. Who's arguing gun owners don't encourage this? What does gun shows have to do with any of this? Neither Aurora, Newtowne, Columnbine, Fort Hood, Colin Ferguson (Long Island Rail Road), etc, purchased their weapons through gun shows. Banning the sale of semi auto rifles is taking away our guns. Thank you.

 

[97tbird]

I really hope for a restriction in Assault rifles being issued to civilians. Hoping REALLY hard. (and yes, I still would want those who need a self-defense gun to have the ability to own a hand gun, but only that!)

 

[INMY01TA]

Originally Posted By: FoxS
Since you hold the notion that you need to defend yourself against the govt with guns, please outline the scenario you are planning for and how long you could hold out for and how if they got really serious about it eg sending in seals with night vision, using bunker busting guided missiles.

Frankly, if you're worried about the need to defend yourself from the govt, I think you should plan on leaving the country.
Where did I mention fighting the Govt? Since you brought it up tho, there's several nations in the Middle East doing a pretty good job of it with alot less to work with than we have. Gun owners here in the US outnumber all law enforcement and military by a vast number. Why do you think the Govt wants our guns so bad? It's not for our safety that much I can assure you.

Originally Posted By: Thomas Jefferson
When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.


If you hate our Constitution and the Founding Fathers so much perhaps you should leave??

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: FoxS
^^^^^

I interpreted Huckabees comments as being in the same vein as WBC

I suspect I'm a lot closer to you than to Huckabee here, but I have to object. If nothing else, Huckabee at least seems to feel that he means well, whereas the WBC doesn't even seem to pretend to mean well.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: INMY01TA
Where did I mention fighting the Govt? Since you brought it up tho, there's several nations in the Middle East doing a pretty good job of it with alot less to work with than we have. Gun owners here in the US outnumber all law enforcement and military by a vast number. Why do you think the Govt wants our guns so bad? It's not for our safety that much I can assure you.

Just quoting this to emphasize that there are a lot of people in this country who really, honestly do feel this way. Some of us find it easy to laugh this perspective off, but it's not exactly a fringe idea.

 

[FoxS]

Originally Posted By: INMY01TA
there's several nations in the Middle East doing a pretty good job of it with alot less to work with than we have. Gun owners here in the US outnumber all law enforcement and military by a vast number. Why do you think the Govt wants our guns so bad?


They don't have a lot less relatively speaking

Firstly they have been oppressed for decades. Our circumstances viz the govt pale in comparison with theirs. They have something to fight for.

Secondly, the Syrian or Libyan military would not compare to the US military and the rebels received assistance from the west esp in Libya

Thirdly, the civilian opposition to the government here would not be all gun owners in America, just a fringe

They don't want to take away your guns or your rights

What many people want is for those who spout their rights to consider their responsibilities as well as the context of the 2nd amendment rather than hold it up in black and white as they see fit

Isn't it amazing that some folks hold the constitution so very sacred and defend the history of the nation and its rulers, but one fundamental part of the constitution, more fundamental and timeless than the 2nd amendment, that all men are created equal, was ignored for so long.

 

[FoxS]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: FoxS
^^^^^

I interpreted Huckabees comments as being in the same vein as WBC

I suspect I'm a lot closer to you than to Huckabee here, but I have to object. If nothing else, Huckabee at least seems to feel that he means well, whereas the WBC doesn't even seem to pretend to mean well.


In common they both seem to feel that more faith in God would have prevented this.

He may mean well compared to the WBC and he may be more reasonable, but I felt it was an insult to the innocents, who came from honest, wonderful and religious families.

 

[FoxS]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d

Just quoting this to emphasize that there are a lot of people in this country who really, honestly do feel this way. Some of us find it easy to laugh this perspective off, but it's not exactly a fringe idea.


That's a good reason for states to take the lead on this. There are definitely places where opinions vary. Federal laws often end up being a compromise that pleases nobody.

 

[Trajan]

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20101114_11_A12_CUTLIN105145

Shortly after finishing their protest at the funeral of Army Sgt. Jason James McCluskey of McAlester, a half-dozen protesters from Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kan., headed to their minivan, only to discover that its front and rear passenger-side tires had been slashed.

To make matters worse, as their minivan slowly hobbled away on two flat tires, with a McAlester police car following behind, the protesters were unable to find anyone in town who would repair their vehicle, according to police.

 

[ECUpirate]

This is getting ridiculous. People "really hoping for restriction in Assault rifles being issued to civilians"? Really? You already have that unless, of course, you are referring to the term "assault rifle" that the news throws around to describe a black rifle dressed as an M16. "Random Government inspections"? Somehow I think I'd rather not have the Feds randomly show up at my house and demand entry so they can check my papers. There is no silver bullet that will solve what is a very apparent moral failure of society to take responsibility for anything. Blame the guns, blame the mental health treatment, blame the gun owners, blame the media, blame the video games. Just make sure you blame someone! It's the usual merry-go-'round. There has to be a middle ground somewhere that satisfies both sides of reasonable peoples' arguments, which does not include the "BAN THEM ALL AND TAKE THEM" side nor the "ARM ALL OF THE CHILDREN" side.

 

[Trajan]

We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.

Ronald Reagan

 

[ECUpirate]

Originally Posted By: Trajan
We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.

Ronald Reagan


I can respect that, however, I still believe you have to look for a way to prevent this type of situation where a mentally unstable person is enabled to harbor this type of rage and then act on it. It begins at home. It begins with responsibility. It's just now coming out that the mother was single, always at the bar up the street, and was concerned enough about her son's mental issues that she was actively trying to get him some help but not enough to keep her guns away from him. As the father of a 3 year old that talks about nothing but starting school and an avid sportsman with a significant collection I can honestly tell you that I'm torn. The overwhelming responsibility that I feel by having firearms in the house (even some of those "assault rifles" mentioned earlier) is one that I wish everyone felt. Unfortunately no amount of government intervention is going to solve this.

 

[Win]

Originally Posted By: FoxS
I have a right to drive a car ...


That's just wrong. Driving a car is a privilege. Keeping and bearing arms is a right.

 

[Win]

Originally Posted By: FoxS
... but one fundamental part of the constitution, more fundamental and timeless than the 2nd amendment, that all men are created equal, was ignored for so long.


That's also just wrong. The all men are created equal language is in the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence. The 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution obviously followed the second amendment.

You should consider actually reading the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution and its amendments.

 

[FoxS]

Originally Posted By: Win
Originally Posted By: FoxS
... but one fundamental part of the constitution, more fundamental and timeless than the 2nd amendment, that all men are created equal, was ignored for so long.


That's also just wrong. The all men are created equal language is in the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence. The 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution obviously followed the second amendment.

You should consider actually reading the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution and its amendments.


Well spotted. And as a non citizen I have no reason to completely read up on everything so I have an excuse (unlike most Citizens)

But the technicality aside, my point is that universal suffrage is far more a fundamental right and was ignored for a long time. Don't you agree?

Another point, as a non citizen, I can't vote but I pay taxes. What was that principle you rebelled against the British about?

 

[FoxS]

Originally Posted By: Win
Originally Posted By: FoxS
I have a right to drive a car ...


That's just wrong. Driving a car is a privilege. Keeping and bearing arms is a right.


So life liberty and the pursuit of happiness for the innocent schoolchildren was a right as well, infringed by the right of Lanzas mother to bear arms.

Or was that a privilege for them too?

 

[02SE]

Originally Posted By: 97tbird
I really hope for a restriction in Assault rifles being issued to civilians. Hoping REALLY hard.


Well then you'll be relieved to hear that has been the case for over 26 years..

 

[Trajan]

Originally Posted By: FoxS
Originally Posted By: Win
Originally Posted By: FoxS
I have a right to drive a car ...


That's just wrong. Driving a car is a privilege. Keeping and bearing arms is a right.


So life liberty and the pursuit of happiness for the innocent schoolchildren was a right as well, infringed by the right of Lanzas mother to bear arms.


And how did *her* owning guns infringe on *anyone's* rights?

 

[Tempest]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: INMY01TA
Where did I mention fighting the Govt? Since you brought it up tho, there's several nations in the Middle East doing a pretty good job of it with alot less to work with than we have. Gun owners here in the US outnumber all law enforcement and military by a vast number. Why do you think the Govt wants our guns so bad? It's not for our safety that much I can assure you.

Just quoting this to emphasize that there are a lot of people in this country who really, honestly do feel this way. Some of us find it easy to laugh this perspective off, but it's not exactly a fringe idea.

If the idea is so "laughable", can you please explain to us why the Founders bothered to add an Amendment making clear, the inalienable right to be armed?

What in history shows us that disarming a public is good for their long term, or even short term, freedom and well being?

Where is the "science" that shows governments removing people's arms actually is for "public safety", and not more nefarious purposes?