(12-04-2015, 12:10 AM)Wyche Wrote: Hhhmmmmm......and yet folks die from heroine overdoses at an alarming rate.  Isn't that shit illegal?

(12-04-2015, 12:12 AM)6andcounting Wrote: If it wasn't for the law banning heroin, I would do it 7 times a day.

Seriously?

You guys are going to argue that no one is stopped from using drugs because they are illegal?  I can prove that wrong in a second.

Or are you arguing that we should have no laws against anything like murder or theft because the current laws are not working?

What exactly is your point?

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/US-California-Shootings/2015/12/03/id/704356/

Apparently there are ISIS Ties

Think about how shitty not being able to own a gun would've been if you were living in that San Bernardino neighborhood while terrorists were on the loose. You'd be a sitting duck.

(12-04-2015, 12:47 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Seriously?

You guys are going to argue that no one is stopped from using drugs because they are illegal?  I can prove that wrong in a second.

Or are you arguing that we should have no laws against anything like murder or theft because the current laws are not working?

What exactly is your point?

Um....no, merely pointing out that folks WILL break laws....all "eradicating" guns will do is disarm law abiding citizens and turn them into lambs at the slaughter.  Surely you aren't that naive....

I mean, hell, I follow the laws, stay out of trouble.....never even got an A.I. charge in college, yet the laws on drugs didn't stop me from dabbling.

(12-04-2015, 01:07 PM)XenoMorph Wrote: http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/US-California-Shootings/2015/12/03/id/704356/

Apparently there are ISIS Ties

.....and rumblings that neighbors were afraid to call out suspicious activity at the residence due to fears of being labeled "racist".

(12-04-2015, 01:32 PM)Wyche Wrote: Um....no, merely pointing out that folks WILL break laws....all "eradicating" guns will do is disarm law abiding citizens and turn them into lambs at the slaughter.  Surely you aren't that naive...

Except I never mention taking guns away from law abiding citizens.  

This is a perfect example of why it is impossible to have a conversation on this issue.  I start talking about registering guns and regulating sales and the programmed knee-jerk reaction is that I am taking guns away from law abiding citizens.

We can do a lot to reduce the amount of weapons available to criminals and crazies.  The fact that we can not stop ALL of them should never be used as an excuse to oppose laws that can help make things better.

(12-04-2015, 01:33 PM)Wyche Wrote: .....and rumblings that neighbors were afraid to call out suspicious activity at the residence due to fears of being labeled "racist".

PC Principal is officially in charge.

(12-04-2015, 01:38 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Except I never mention taking guns away from law abiding citizens.  

This is a perfect example of why it is impossible to have a conversation on this issue.  I start talking about registering guns and regulating sales and the programmed knee-jerk reaction is that I am taking guns away from law abiding citizens.

We can do a lot to reduce the amount of weapons available to criminals and crazies.  The fact that we can not stop ALL of them should never be used as an excuse to oppose laws that can help make things better.

......but aren't there already similar laws in place in the state of California?  Didn't do very much to deter these guys....

It seems that people are afraid that registering and regulating will only be a step towards disarmament.  I can't say that I blame them.  I don't trust those fools in DC that align themselves with the duopoly of corruption and groups like the ALEC.  They serve ONE interest:  their corporate handlers. Besides, how is registering and regulating going to stop drug cartels, nutjobs, and terrorists from getting more firepower than the law?

(12-04-2015, 01:33 PM)WychesWarrior Wrote: .....and rumblings that neighbors were afraid to call out suspicious activity at the residence due to fears of being labeled "racist".

sadly that makes a ton of sense

(12-04-2015, 01:43 PM)StoneTheCrow Wrote: PC Principal is officially in charge.

Bro! They are trying to tell everyone that PC stands for ***** crushing!
They are trying to de-legitimize our fight for political correctness as just a way to smash some *****!
We are a marginalized group bro! 

(12-04-2015, 01:46 PM)Wyche Wrote: ......but aren't there already similar laws in place in the state of California?  Didn't do very much to deter these guys....

Derp 

(12-04-2015, 01:38 PM)fredtoast Wrote: We can do a lot to reduce the amount of weapons available to criminals and crazies.  The fact that we can not stop ALL of them should never be used as an excuse to oppose laws that can help make things better.

Registering all guns and regulating sales will greatly reduce the flow of weapons.  It is just too easy right now for private citizens to supply guns to criminals and mentally ill people.  Make it illegal to do it and it will cut down on the flow.  People will not be able to advertise openly.  They will not want to take the risk of going to prison if a gun they bought legally is used in a crime. 

Attaching liability to a gun will also make the owner more careful about who has access to that gun.

And, finally, requiring license and training to be able to even own a gun will o a long way to helping in gun safety.  If every gun owner was aware of the number of accidental deaths and suicides involving family members of gun owners then more guns will be harder to access.  

As I said in my original post, mass shootings should not be the a big part of the discussion  when discussing gun control.  What should be addressed is the facts about who is really getting shot up in America.  It isn't a lot of potential criminals.  It is mostly criminals shooting criminals; family members or people who know each other shooting each other over personal conflicts; suicides, and accidents.

Guns are very very dangerous.  I don't see any problem with treating them that way.  The main reason we make people register ownership of cars because of the liability for the damage they cause.  We regulate the sale of explosives and deadly poisons.  Since duns are killing a lot of people in America the gobernment has the right to put some requirements on their ownership.  

The Constitution guarantees you free speech, but the government can still regulate it.  Same goes with gun ownership.   

We can't take away everyone's guns.  And I don't think we should.  Sane, law abiding citizens who have been trained should be allowed to own guns

(12-04-2015, 02:14 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Derp 



Registering all guns and regulating sales will greatly reduce the flow of weapons.  It is just too easy right now for private citizens to supply guns to criminals and mentally ill people.  Make it illegal to do it and it will cut down on the flow.  People will not be able to advertise openly.  They will not want to take the risk of going to prison if a gun they bought legally is used in a crime. 

Attaching liability to a gun will also make the owner more careful about who has access to that gun.

And, finally, requiring license and training to be able to even own a gun will o a long way to helping in gun safety.  If every gun owner was aware of the number of accidental deaths and suicides involving family members of gun owners then more guns will be harder to access.  

As I said in my original post, mass shootings should not be the a big part of the discussion  when discussing gun control.  What should be addressed is the facts about who is really getting shot up in America.  It isn't a lot of potential criminals.  It is mostly criminals shooting criminals; family members or people who know each other shooting each other over personal conflicts; suicides, and accidents.

Guns are very very dangerous.  I don't see any problem with treating them that way.  The main reason we make people register ownership of cars because of the liability for the damage they cause.  We regulate the sale of explosives and deadly poisons.  Since duns are killing a lot of people in America the gobernment has the right to put some requirements on their ownership.  

The Constitution guarantees you free speech, but the government can still regulate it.  Same goes with gun ownership.   

We can't take away everyone's guns.  And I don't think we should.  Sane, law abiding citizens who have been trained should be allowed to own guns

The folks that would predominantly be affected by this are outdoorsmen and hunters that trade and buy/sell rifles and shotguns among their circles.  You have lived in a rural area, you know this to be true.  People who are selling guns that are used in crimes are probably criminals themselves to begin with.  I mean, who is going to sell a handgun or semi automatic rifle to a stranger, or someone they deem a tad unstable?  A lot of the guns used in crimes are stolen, then sold on the black market....in fact, I'd be willing to wager that MOST guns used in that manner are stolen or "imported".
 
Most gunowners already carry permits for handguns in the event they are pulled over for something.  Hunting rifles and shotguns are for hunting and home protection, I don't see the necessity in pinning everyone down on them.  It's another way of Big Brother poking his nose where it doesn't belong, and as I said....people just don't trust them.  They've done a pretty good job of earning that distrust.

(12-04-2015, 02:29 PM)Wyche Wrote:  I mean, who is going to sell a handgun or semi automatic rifle to a stranger, or someone they deem a tad unstable? 

 
Anyone that likes to make money.

(12-04-2015, 02:29 PM)Wyche Wrote:   A lot of the guns used in crimes are stolen, then sold on the black market....in fact, I'd be willing to wager that MOST guns used in that manner are stolen or "imported".

You have no facts to back that up at all.  But wouldn't you like to know for sure?

(12-04-2015, 03:20 PM)fredtoast Wrote:  
Anyone that likes to make money.


You have no facts to back that up at all.  But wouldn't you like to know for sure?

You mean other than having friends in low places in my wilder days, and/or seeing such exchanges with my own eyes?  You're a lawyer....come on now fred....you know how it works.

I agree that something needs to be done....but putting more and more restrictions/regulations on the taxpaying stiff ain't gonna accomplish anything but further adding to the mistrust....jmo.

I thought that limiting magazines and getting tactical weapons off the streets would be a sufficient start.

(12-04-2015, 02:29 PM)Wyche Wrote:  It's another way of Big Brother poking his nose where it doesn't belong, and as I said....people just don't trust them.  They've done a pretty good job of earning that distrust.

First of all the government absolutely does have a right to regulate activity that is dangerous.  We make everyone register their automobile and pass a test before being allowed to use one.

Second, the government has not done anything to earn the mistrust of the public.  They have not taken away any sane, law abiding citizens guns.  They have no US citizens as political prisoner.  They are not eliminating any of our freedoms or suppressing protests.  

The argument that the government will take up arms against its citizens seems ridiculous to me.  First of all I don't believe the people in the military will just go along with orders to kill or imprison US citizens.  Second of all, if the military did cooperate then no weapons any individual could possess would make any difference.  Even anti-aircraft rocket launchers are of limited effect if you have no air power of your own. Your stash of assault rifles and "Don't Tread On Me" bandannas will get blown to pieces by a weapon fired from a place you can not even see. 

(12-04-2015, 03:43 PM)fredtoast Wrote: First of all the government absolutely does have a right to regulate activity that is dangerous.  We make everyone register their automobile and pass a test before being allowed to use one.

Second, the government has not done anything to earn the mistrust of the public.  They have not taken away any sane, law abiding citizens guns.  They have no US citizens as political prisoner.  They are not eliminating any of our freedoms or suppressing protests.  

The argument that the government will take up arms against its citizens seems ridiculous to me.  First of all I don't believe the people in the military will just go along with orders to kill or imprison US citizens.  Second of all, if the military did cooperate then no weapons any individual could possess would make any difference.  Even anti-aircraft rocket launchers are of limited effect if you have no air power of your own. Your stash of assault rifles and "Don't Tread On Me" bandannas will get blown to pieces by a weapon fired from a place you can not even see. 

Way to cherry pick...lol

As to bolded....JFK, Bay of Pigs, Gulf of Tonkin, NAFTA, and shit like Citizens United, Super Pacs, voting down campaign finance reform, and ALEC are enough to earn ANY amount of distrust from the public they are subject to.  Just what WOULD the government do to protect the corporate interests?  Money is a very powerful drug to some "men". More powerful than my unregistered Mossberg.

aaaaand the media has contaminated the apartment of the suspects.

(12-04-2015, 04:31 PM)StoneTheCrow Wrote: aaaaand the media has contaminated the apartment of the suspects.

you gotta be shittin me.....

(12-04-2015, 04:32 PM)Wyche Wrote: you gotta be shittin me.....

I can't post a link using my phone. The landlord let a bunch of blood suckers from MSNBC, CBS, CNN and FOX in and they ransacked the place in humiliating fashion.