#stopgunviolence
- Thread starter silk123
- Start date
There is a much higher rate of accidental gun deaths in the US. People being shot and sometimes killed where they're was no intent. Kids playing with guns, accidents while cleaning guns. In fact, in Canada we used to have s high rate of such as accidents too, until we introduced the laws on safe storage and mandatory training which came along with universal background checks.Accidental shootings are just that . An accident . You can't fault a gun for that now can we . Just like car accidents are . Cars are licensed and people have to pass a driving test before they are allowed to drive a car but you know what car accidents still do happen . In Canada a person has to take a gun safety course before he or she can own a gun . It's a gun owners responsibility to handle a gun in a safe manner . Fail to do that and accidents will happen . Make all the laws you want to but there're not going to work if people don't follow the laws .
We have laws on murdering some one . Every country has those laws but for some reason some people do not want to follow those laws .
Now your being ridiculous .
As you know we have those laws in Canada . All guns have to be locked up in a safe manner when not in use . Many States have those laws as well . Many people do not follow those laws because they want to have their gun readily available in case they need it . They just don't do it in a safe manner .
Just like the laws on prostitution that are on the books . How many are following those laws ??? Even though many cases of buying sex is not hurting anyone at all it is still against the law to do so . It's the Law of the land . Period . It's a pure case of which law a person wishes to follow . More laws don't mean shit if people aren't going to follow them .
People take the gun control debate to the extreme, and talk about either banning guns or having no laws at all, but the real benefits are in the middle.
There is real value in requiring people to take a safety course, in having some standards around proper storage, and in doing background checks.
After that, I doubt there is much benefit in trying to ban or further restrict guns.
And while you are right that many will ignore the rules, it is also the case that many will follow them, and that many are doing stupid things only because nobody ever showed them how to be safe. In the US there are a lot of gun owners who don't know what ACTS & PROVE are just because you can go buy a gun without ever being taught.
Criminals will certainly just ignore the law, but this accidental shootings weren't criminals and many were preventable with better education.
As for fast access, these days there are biometric locks that allow you to access a gun in seconds while keeping it safe from your kids, so while that might have been an argument twenty years ago, today it is a moot point.
Seems not only CNN but also 2/3 of Americans. Even 51% of Republicans back the executive order.That "public" audience at Obama's town hall was selectively picked by invitation only. CNN has been pro-anti-gun ...
http://time.com/4173116/gun-control-barack-obama-polls/
But instead of listening to the clear majority of Americans, lets be paranoid and compare Obama to Hitler.
1) Gun accidents never happen in places without guns.Accidental shootings are just that . An accident . You can't fault a gun for that now can we . ....
2) Absolutely the gun owners are to blame. If they allowed easy access to guns or failed to follow safe gun handling techniques, then they are absolutely to blame just like in most car accidents, fault is assigned.
Since when does a CNN poll represent the "majority of Americans"? That's as bunk as the 80% statistic after Sandy Hook that sampled a few thousand people in three states with low private gun ownership rates.Seems not only CNN but also 2/3 of Americans. Even 51% of Republicans back the executive order.
http://time.com/4173116/gun-control-barack-obama-polls/
But instead of listening to the clear majority of Americans, lets be paranoid and compare Obama to Hitler.
A lot of Americans have voted with their wallets, though; anytime Obama sheds crocodile tears and puts on his grave dancing shoes, guns and ammo fly off the shelves.
1) And car accidents never happen in places without cars; no shit, did you need help coming up with that nugget of information? Let me guess your next revelation: water is wet and fire is hot.1) Gun accidents never happen in places without guns.
2) Absolutely the gun owners are to blame. If they allowed easy access to guns or failed to follow safe gun handling techniques, then they are absolutely to blame just like in most car accidents, fault is assigned.
2) Bullshit, there are no safe storage laws for cars; you're not treated as an accessory to vehicular manslaughter because you enabled its theft by leaving fuel in the tank or not utilizing government approved secondary or tertiary security measures. Child endangerment and criminal negligence are already crimes in the United States, which could encompass unsafe storage. But not everyone's situation is the same, a gun does not have to be rendered completely inoperable and behind several security measures to be considered safe, especially if there are no children in the house.
I need mine for target practice.Why do we need guns if not to kill? What real uses does a gun have?
I don't hunt or kill any animals . Some people have a hobby in collecting different things . Cards , books , cars or what ever . Some people like to collect guns . Doesn't make them a bad person . Then there is target shooting along with skeet and trap . Ever try those things . It's a lot of fun shooting at steel targets and everyone has a good time in doing so . Never have seen a bad person or an angry person at a gun club but I sure have seen those kind of people at a bar .Why do we need guns if not to kill? What real uses does a gun have?
Some people go way up North for their holidays . Many wild animals out there and no can of bear spray is going to protect you . Also you have the 2 legged kind that you have to watch for being many hours away from the nearest town . With no phone service and even if you could called for help if you had service it could take up to 3 hours before help arrives .
Legal law bidding gun owners are the nicest people that you can meet . They have to be or they take a chance on loosing everything that they have .
Last edited:
Typical zealot. Nice of you to simply reject the poll because you don't like what it says.Since when does a CNN poll represent the "majority of Americans"? ....
The word is want, not need.I need mine for target practice.
I don't have an issue with responsible gun owners but rather with the gun lobby who complain about even the most sensible restrictions and the paranoid kooks who rank Obama with Hitler and Stalin.
Who are you to tell me what is a want, and what is a need? Where is the bar? Anything that you need beyond the things for subsistence are mere wants? Do you NEED a job? Do you NEED a home? A car? A mobile phone? A computer? Education?The word is want, not need.
I don't have an issue with responsible gun owners but rather with the gun lobby who complain about even the most sensible restrictions and the paranoid kooks who rank Obama with Hitler and Stalin.
In order to go target shooting I need a gun.
Brutal dictatorships have almost always been preceded by widespread gun registration (background checks) and confiscation, and to allow leftists to claim otherwise in the pursuit of their contemporary political agenda is an insult to the historical record.The word is want, not need.
I don't have an issue with responsible gun owners but rather with the gun lobby who complain about even the most sensible restrictions and the paranoid kooks who rank Obama with Hitler and Stalin.
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=8639The word is want, not need.
I don't have an issue with responsible gun owners but rather with the gun lobby who complain about even the most sensible restrictions and the paranoid kooks who rank Obama with Hitler and Stalin.
Gun Control by Presidential Decree?
Congress has declined to enact the onerous restrictions President Obama wants, so he seeks to amend the Gun Control Act by executive action. The Act makes it unlawful “to engage in the business of dealing in firearms” without a license but the President’s aim is much broader.
The Act defines “dealer” as “any person engaged in the business of selling firearms at wholesale or retail.” The term originally wasn’t defined further. Congress heard horror stories of agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) refusing to issue licenses because a person supposedly didn’t sell enough guns, and then prosecuting the person for engaging in the business without a license.
The result was the Firearm Owners’ Protection Act, signed by President Reagan in 1986, which defines “engaged in the business” as a regular trade for profit through repetitive purchases and sales. It excludes sales or exchanges to enhance a collection or for a hobby. In a prosecution, no judge will issue jury instructions that embellish those definitions with language decreed by the president.
Congress, not the Executive Branch, defines crimes. The idea that the president can criminalize conduct not made a crime by Congress is anathema to democracy and the rule of law. The fact that the issue is “gun violence” changes nothing.
In Germany’s Weimar Republic, the executive had authority to issue “emergency decrees” not passed by the Reichstag, the legislative body. One such decree, issued in 1931, provided for the registration of firearms, and authorized their confiscation if “public security” so required. The Interior Minister warned that the registration records must be carefully protected so as not to fall into the hands of “radical elements.”
Yet radical elements—Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party—took power in 1933. They used the registration records to disarm political opponents such as the Social Democrats, the Jews, and all other “enemies of the state.” Rule by “emergency decrees” became standard, and the Reichstag simply quit passing laws. The most extreme gun control and “executive action” ran amok.
The United States has avoided that horrible situation because historically the Constitution’s dictates have been respected: Congress passes the laws and the president executes the laws. But now “executive action” has become a euphemism for rule by decree, which has no place in a republican form of government.
The President has no authority to require that persons not engaged in the business of dealing in firearms as defined by Congress obtain licenses and conduct background checks. The issue not only relates to Second Amendment rights and the need to restrain the over-criminalization of federal law, but more fundamentally to the premise that the Executive Branch simply cannot invent new crimes.
Whatever form the anticipated executive action takes, it will be up to ATF to enforce it. It may well be that ATF’s lawyers have—to no avail—warned the political operatives in the White House against purporting to change the definitions in the gun laws.
As Justice Kagan, an Obama appointee, wrote in Abramski v. United States (2014), a Gun Control Act case: “criminal laws are for courts, not for the Government, to construe. ... We think ATF’s old position no more relevant than its current one—which is to say, not relevant at all.” Nor is President Obama’s expansionist position on the meaning of “engaged in the business” relevant at all.
“The Founders of this Nation entrusted the law making power to the Congress alone in both good and bad times. It would do no good to recall the historical events, the fears of power and the hopes for freedom that lay behind their choice.” Thus did the Supreme Court in Youngstown Sheet & Tool Co. v. Sawyer (1952) reject President Truman’s attempt to seize the steel mills to avert strikes and continue output for the Korean War effort.
If President Obama, erstwhile con law prof, forgot that decision, the Constitution couldn’t be more direct: “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress,” and “the President shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” The president’s attempt to amend the Gun Control Act by political diktat suggests he might have forgotten those constitutional principles as well.
Stephen P. Halbrook, Ph.D., J.D., is a Research Fellow at the Independent Institute and author of the books, Gun Control in the Third Reich: Disarming the Jews and “Enemies of the State”, The Founders' Second Amendment and Securing Civil Rights, the latter two of which were cited in the the U.S. Supreme Court cases of District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago as well as his earlier Amici Curiae Brief in Heller on behalf of 55 members of the Senate, the Senate President, and 250 members of the House of Representatives. Dr. Halbrook is also the author of the book, That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right (Independent Institute).
No, I disagree because a fraction of a fraction of the American populace does not represent the "majority" no matter what kind of bullshit spin you put on it.Typical zealot. Nice of you to simply reject the poll because you don't like what it says.
First of all, shit happens and violent crime in the US has been on the decline for decades, despite an increase in gun sales. Glorifying what are still statistically rare (and no, there has not been a mass shooting everyday for a year) occurrences doesn't change the actual numbers. Secondly, how about actually enforcing laws that already exist instead of pretending that they don't in order to ram more punitive and draconian measures down people's throats. Selling a firearm to a known felon is already illegal in every state.To the people criticizing what Obama is doing: what's your plan for reducing gun violence?
But, President Obama killed Keystone XL. Where is the protest?historically the Constitution’s dictates have been respected: Congress passes the laws and the president executes the laws. But now “executive action” has become a euphemism for rule by decree, which has no place in a republican form of government.
All of which can be achieved with advocacy instead of hardline laws intended to criminalize and deter gun ownership. Encouraging someone to seek professional training, to store their firearms safely according to their circumstances and teaching their children how to shoot and handle firearms safely goes a lot further than introducing more draconian laws and punitive measures.There is a much higher rate of accidental gun deaths in the US. People being shot and sometimes killed where they're was no intent. Kids playing with guns, accidents while cleaning guns. In fact, in Canada we used to have s high rate of such as accidents too, until we introduced the laws on safe storage and mandatory training which came along with universal background checks.
People take the gun control debate to the extreme, and talk about either banning guns or having no laws at all, but the real benefits are in the middle.
There is real value in requiring people to take a safety course, in having some standards around proper storage, and in doing background checks.
After that, I doubt there is much benefit in trying to ban or further restrict guns.
And while you are right that many will ignore the rules, it is also the case that many will follow them, and that many are doing stupid things only because nobody ever showed them how to be safe. In the US there are a lot of gun owners who don't know what ACTS & PROVE are just because you can go buy a gun without ever being taught.
Criminals will certainly just ignore the law, but this accidental shootings weren't criminals and many were preventable with better education.
As for fast access, these days there are biometric locks that allow you to access a gun in seconds while keeping it safe from your kids, so while that might have been an argument twenty years ago, today it is a moot point.
I guess after a lengthy history of background checks and gun registration then Canada must be a dictatorship right?Brutal dictatorships have almost always been preceded by widespread gun registration (background checks) and confiscation, and to allow leftists to claim otherwise in the pursuit of their contemporary political agenda is an insult to the historical record....
And yes, many dictatorships have had gun registration but so do a great many open and democratic societies. Putting Obama in the same category as any of those dictators is simply asinine (though in this case it should probably be spelled with two esses).
