And they don't make condoms that big anyway.

We have a large gun dependent population that is in need of intervention.

Maybe we should all be armed and them.

Last edited Sun Mar 3, 2013, 06:19 PM - Edit history (1)

As for your bullying...it is ineffectual to the point of being humorous.

Absurd.



*( )

Because many people here clearly DO want to ban guns, all of 'em.

So I'm going with (c).

Bake

Just a treasure trove of reactionary positions here. Knock me over with a feather.

But I'm not opposed to gun control (short of banning everything).

Does that make me a gunner, or just a Delicate Flower?



Bake

Last edited Tue Mar 5, 2013, 07:10 PM - Edit history (1)

It makes me realistic. I've been in enough gun discussions in GD to know that there are a number of DUers who do in fact advocate banning all guns.

And nowhere in that post did I tell you to shut up. If you're looking for a fight, please look elsewhere. I'm not in the mood.

Bake

graham4anything
6. Working for a Gun-Free America. One day at a time. Longterm, the NRA is dead

One candidate at a time all across America
One judge at a time all across America
One tweak of the law one day at a time

The long term battle will be won.

Just like it took millions of people dying from cigarettes to change the attitudes of America

it shall happen.

Not a day too soon.
Not a death too soon.

One day at a time
Guns and bullets are an addiction

and they need to be treated for the obsessive complusion they are
one day at a time.

one gun-free street at a time.

one day at a time.

The biggest gang in America is the NRA. And their days of thuggery are coming to an end.
ONE DAY AT A TIME.

That martyrdom thing is really working for you guys. Makes you look very reasonable.

"This would be interesting if anyone wanted to ban guns"
I showed you just one of the many people here who want to ban 'all' guns and now you claim that I said "everyone does"?
Then you try to say you meant only those who are shaping policy.
And to top it off you call me a martyr. WTH?

Don't worry someone will be along shortly to explain to you how you are still wrong, despite being demonstrably correct.

Fucking gun humpers and their Precious fixation. Oh my god, just IMAGINE if guns were banned! The horror!!!

Japan: 0.07 gun deaths per 100,000
UK: 0.25 gun deaths per 100,000 citizens
Netherlands: 0.46 gun deaths per 100,000
Italy: 1.28 gun deaths per 100,000
Sweden: 1.47 gun deaths were 100,000
Norway: 1.78 gun deaths per 100,000

Pound sand.

Was my quoting someone whining somehow?

Then let's do nothing to even try to stop the massacres. Let's just throw up our hands and accept that tens of thousands of gun deaths a year are the price we MUST pay to keep the Delicate Flowers from having their "The Precious" and their "freedom" taken away.

That about it?

makes a valid point, actually.

When has outlawing anything led to that thing being eradicated?

It didn't work for drugs.

It didn't work for alcohol.

It didn't work for abortion.

Why on earth would anyone think it would work for guns?

It's not the law abiding, peaceful citizens who are doing drive-by shootings, or mass killings. Outlaw guns, and it still won't be the law abiding citizens doing them. It will be the criminals.

I suppose a point could be made that outlawing guns would at least cut down on the numbers of shootings. But would that mean there's an acceptable number of gun deaths people would be willing to ignore?

What then? "Well...we tried".

Not to mention that a whole other set of problems associated with illegal gun sales (like drug dealers) comes to the fore.

What's the answer? I honestly don't know. I do believe, however, that people who think outlawing guns will fix the problem are being a bit...naive.

There are always unintended consequences when people try to outlaw something.

It's the new and improved Third Way answer to everything.

position to outflank Democrats on a social issue: By legalizing & regulating marijuana, they will likely not lose their hard-core bloc of voters (in the name of fiscal responsibility, no less), but stand a good chance of solidifying the libertarian vote and, more importantly, gaining a far bigger bloc if younger voters, a constituency they are in trouble with. The days where GOPers would elect large quantities of RW blowholes cheaply using the "soft on drugs" issue are drawing to a close.

Democrats have been sufficiently cowed on social issues, and won't pick up this hundred-dollar bill, but the GOPers own the out-of-date issue and will look both ways before snatching up an easy prize.

And Democrats will be left clinging to their gun (control).

Four years ago, he was practically the only Republican who openly spoke about legalizing marijuana and ending the "War on Drugs."

and "banning assault weapons" (in the most commonly-used description of said "assault weapons" they constitute semi-automatic versions of military-style weapons like the AR and Kalashnikov, with high-capacity magazines) is not "banning guns" (since such a ban would not extend to most lower-capacity semi-automatic and bolt-action hunting rifles). There's also no comparison to the war on drugs; addicts need their drug of choice in order to function normally and stave off withdrawal. Combine addiction with the illegality of drugs and the financial hardships of many drug addicts and what you have is people who'll steal to support their habit; the illegality of drugs leads to a highly lucrative market for organised crime.

Let's look at the most sensible comparison here, to fully-automatic weapons and sawn-off shotguns, regulated under the 1934 NFA. If the argument that regulating some guns while leaving others available will lead to an explosion of organised criminal activity to supply demand for such banned weapons had any merit, then we should be seeing a lot more instances of fully-automatic weapons being trafficked by organised crime, and their use in crime; we aren't.

I think the NFA is a great law to think about, actually: murders by automatic weapons are essentially unheard of in the US, while murders by sawed-off shotguns (made illegal by the exact same law) are relatively common.

converting a semi-auto to full-auto requires access to hard to obtain parts, or access to a machine shop, and advanced skill in metal fabrication and machining, generally (making a full-autofrom scratch may be easier...see for instance the Sten gun, where the only things that can't be easily fabricated are rifled barrels and magazines).

Last edited Mon Mar 4, 2013, 04:15 PM - Edit history (1)

Yeah, I'm real interested in what some pro-NRA Republican asshole thinks about sensible gun regulation and laws...



Edit: typo.

I didn't think we had another Bill Moyers or David Brinkley in the making.

Oh wait.....

Banning guns
assault weapons ban
bad guys

Nothing will work

Only good guys will give up guns


This is pure obfuscation

First no one is proposing banning hand guns
Second the assault weapons ban can reduce deaths if linked with a federal background check and federal gun registration.
Third good guys become bad guys when they shoot some innocent person.

Well I guess an ADDICT IS AN ADDICT!

Thank you for bringing this Republican propaganda to our attention.

This is nothing like the War on Drugs. Nothing.

Take ALL the guns away people. Make it a 20 year MINIMUM if found with just ONE gun. And usually people don't register their drugs. LOL! So we can start with those registered guns. My bag of pot isn't going to kill anyone. It's not going catch fire by accident and spew THC all over the place. So let's just stop all gun laws because we can't do ANYTHING, is pure bullshit.

often fight over turf and consequently people die, both gang members and innocent people caught in the crossfire.

A high percentage of the homicides that occur in our nation and in Mexico involve the illegal drug trade. Our War on Drugs has been and will continue to be a total failure.

The simple reality is that our nation is NOT going to ban or confiscate all firearms anytime in the near future, if ever. It is more likely that we can pass laws that would legalize many drugs and take much of the profit out of dealing drugs. Many lives would be saved if we did so.

Period.

applaud one if they did.

is essential to gunners here being able to point to the threat of black helicopters sweeping down to deprive them of freedom and the American way. The fact that the congress would never in a million years approve such a thing, of course, is forgotten when making that argument.

licensing, regulation and enforcement are the keys whether it's pot or guns.
IMHO.

there are more gun owners in the country than illegal drug users.

What's the attraction?

Mental addiction to arms?
Becoming a criminal with guns to protect yourself from...other criminals with guns?
Become a part of an unlawful combination or eventual insurrection?
To Always have a gun nearby at home 'just in case' though it couldn't lawfully be used or sold?
Have something coveted that just can't part with?
Last gasp of defiance?

What's the attraction?

Mental addiction to drugs?
Becoming a criminal with drugs to have fun with other criminals with drugs (and guns)?
Become a part of an unlawful combination or eventual public smoke in?
To Always have a blunt nearby at home 'just in case' though it couldn't lawfully be used or sold?
Have something coveted that just can't part with?
Last gasp of defiance?

Addiction a big part.

Are you addicted to your guns?

You like the way they make you feel? Mmm...that's nice.

Weed isn't particularly addictive, and despite its illegality, it's a very popular recreational drug. People aren't smoking it because it turns them into pot-crazed junkies, they smoke it because it feels good.

Also, lots of people aren't "law-abiding", they're "social-standards-abiding." They look to what's acceptable in their community to determine the propriety of behavior. Millions of Americans break the underage drinking laws because their teenage peers consider it completely socially acceptable to drink before you're 21, people of all ages drive faster than the speed limit all the time, 17-year-old Californian high-schoolers have sex with 16-year-old girlfriends/boyfriends (Statutory rape under California law), millions of all ages smoke weed, etc. All examples of illegal activities which are usually socially acceptable in the context in which the acts are committed.

If a prohibited item is socially unacceptable and illegal, then chances are that it will be hard to find. But if it's socially acceptable and illegal, it'll probably remain present in the areas where it's socially acceptable. Alcohol prohibition was intensely regional, with urban areas like Chicago and New York hugely opposed to prohibition and rural areas being the strongest areas of support for prohibition. Alcohol remained socially acceptable in the cities, to the point where a New York politician like La Guardia could feel comfortable in openly mocking Prohibition by brewing booze in his office in front of reporters. Police in areas where Prohibition was fiercely unpopular weren't going to effectively enforce Prohibition, first of all because chances were that they opposed it and secondly because criminal trials would go to juries, which were cheerfully nullifying Prohibition cases (Estimated at up to 60% of cases ending in nullification).

I have little doubt illegally owned guns will be socially acceptable in some locations, however I do not feel they will be as well accepted or tolerated as pot or alcohol.

And I still am a little short in understanding so many potential otherwise lawful gun owners apparently willing to become criminals to keep owning them. Personally it seems a very poor risk to take when faced with a criminal record and jail time.

So naturally they will be less effective because it's not going to happen.

Says the prohibitionist every single time before it doesn't work.

At least drugs require a green-thumb/knowledge of chemistry, within 10 years 3-D printers will be able to print a rifle using just plastics.

But it'll work this time! Nah it won't, it never has.

ending the prohibition and legalizing weed would do more to decrease gun violence in this country then any "gun control" measures that have been proposed recently.

reason for posting this.

End the war on drugs, gun violence would be cut in half. Until they actually propose anything that will work they are just performing theatre and trying to be more authoritarian.

No...?

Oh.