Please cease and desist from making wild accusations about the beliefs of those you do not know.Liberals do NOT consider any and all access to guns senseless — that statement is simply senseless. The more accurate statement is that the NRA thinks that ANY AND ALL access to ANY KIND OF WEAPON AT ALL is legal UNDER ALL CIRCUMSTANCES — even at the risk of selling to a terrorist, because this is, in fact, true.And I am still waiting to see the “well-regulated militia” that justifies all that weaponry.
I’m a leftist, I grew up in a Western hunting family, and I have no desire to take guns away from legitimate hunters. I think the idea of a civilian militia standing up against an evil government is a fantasy. Watch what’s happening in Syria. The government has a monopoly on the big weapons, and they always will. Citizens are not going to have tanks. There are ways to get rid of tyrannical governments, but not with Saturday night specials.
We cant control senseless access to guns either. The idea that criminals would follow gun laws that the government creates in their aquisition of arms is flat out rediculous.
I guess drug dealers and gang bangers that do drive-bys that kill innocent kids sleeping in their beds would rather buy their guns at full or above retail prices in a gun store or gun show (where they would fail the federal background checks), instead of out of the trunk of a car for $100 or via trade for a car, some drugs, or just for “puttin in some work”. Yeah, right. The people that use guns to break the law DO NOT follow the law to acquire them! THINK, PEOPLE, THINK!
The only “senseless access to guns” story that I care about is the idiotic “operation fast and furious” that Eric Holder unleashed upon us. As is their wont, your typical leftist collectivist don’t want to control crime, but rather they want to control those who are law-abiding. They want to to control US.
Saying it doesn’t make it true. “Draconian?” Then why do Americans have by far the highest number of guns per capita in the world? (88.8 guns per 100 residents — #2, Serbia, has 58.2).And do you really think that restricting access to assault weapons is unreasonable? How about cop-killer bullets? Being able to sell guns to criminals and people on the terrorist watch list? Doesn’t sound that unreasonable to me. How about you?
Background checks and registration of gun owners, like in New Zealand, makes the owners responsible. Limits on magazine capacity of long weapons (5 rounds as in hunting), and reasonable restrictions (8-12 rounds with semi-auto dependent on caliber) on pistols also makes sense. The term “combat arms” or “military weapons” makes more sense than “assault”, and has nothing to do with grips, stocks, or “appearance”, but magazine capacity and the switch to full automatic, which for most weapons, makes them almost totally inaccurate for precision fire, only good for “suppression”. (Or randomly wiping out kids running away on a school yard?)
The movies and TV make holding a weapon on its side to fire “cool”, which it may indeed be for the intended target, because you can’t hit squat that way, well, except for innocent bystanders.
“Sensible people” indeed DO own firearms, and they aren’t opposed to “common sense” regulation, as called for in the Second Amendment.
Rogers really decided to play it safe there. Anyone can be opposed to “senseless access to guns”, how about actually spelling out what he considers “senseless access to guns”.
“The issue is those who put on their cammo pants and stroke their weapons with their friends, kill animals, and pretend to be real men.”
If the issue is with the people, then why is there always a push to control the device?
The number of people willing to kill someone does not change with the ability to do so with a gun. If someone has decided to kill someone, they are going to do it – whether with a gun or a pointed stick!
And the value of gun ownership isnt simply for hunting, sporting, or home defense purposes; it is for our self-preservation from tyranny. It may not come from our own government (or it may), but if there were ever a threat of an invading force, many will wish they had bought an AR or an AK instead treading on the rights of others to do the same.
Ask the US citizens living near our souther border if they feel safe with their .38 special when drug cartels are beheading people just a couple of miles away. 30 shots versus 6 shots spells life or death for them if they see a band of outlaws marching toward them across their own farmland.
Why not require all gun owners to carry liability insurance and be legally liable for actions taken with guns they own. This is the rule for car owners!
@MotivemagusIf i wanted to kill someone with a banana, it could be done by shoving it forcefully down their throat. Would the banana be to blame, or the person using the banana to commit murder?
@S RunnelsMy point was not about role playing some 2nd civil war fantasy, it was about the idea that restricting guns to law abiding civilians, but not restricting them to those with the actual political clout and numbers of supporters to become tyrannous (domestic or FOREIGN) being caustic to our own well-being as civilians.
And yes, you are right about law enforcement filling the role of protector. And such a great job they are doing with that, being that they have actually sold the same weapons to the mexican drug cartels that they want to prevent us from having.
I’m pretty sure that your average farmer can identify their neighboring farmer friends from a truck load of thugs with AKs hanging out the windows headed in their direction with reckless abandon.
And if they arent able to discern one from another, they should call law enforcement to investigate. But since the police are always only minutes away when seconds count, should that farmer have been restricted to being able to defend his right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness with a six-shooter and/or a single-shot 20-gauge?
Your thinking that weapons that can and are designed to kill are inherently used for criminal acts only is too big a gamble to those of us with children we need to protect from those of you who feel the need to (insert whatever agenda you subscribe to, because unlike you, I’m not going to pretend like I know anything more than you beyond what you’ve written about a political cartoon on the internet and subscribe one to you.)
it is even true in afghanistan. 1 guy who did 3 tours in iraq, and his first tour of afghanistan. he had access to weapons and ammunition. he left his base and went on a killing spree in a local village. killing 16, including children.
What is the statistic of children that die from a gun while inside the house vs those that die from a gun while outside the house? How many of those were done with an illegally obtained weapon? I could give you stats that say kids should be concealed carrying to school for their own safety, but that wouldnt make sense given the maturity level of CHILDREN. Statistics will always back up whatever point you are trying to make.
Every cop has a gun around his waist, and the precinct has access to hundreds of guns; how many shootings do you hear of happening at police stations?
Every military base has access to thousands of “fully-automatic, assault style” guns. How many shootings have you heard of happening at military bases over the hundreds of years of .mil service? Of those, how many were done with an M16 or worse? Even the Ft Hood shooter used a pistol. If his mind were psychologically stable, he would not have murdered anyone, with anything.
You still dont get that the problem isnt with the access to the gun, it’s with the PEOPLE that get access to them. Fix the problem with the people using guns incorrectly (gun education, marital counceling, mental help, job opportunities, etc), and the guns will lose the negative stigma attached to the crimes in which they are used.
Every one of your own examples point to the person being the problem; yet you insist that their access to a gun was the problem. so let me get this right… the mental instability of the VT and Arizona shooters was perfectly ok for them to walk around with until they got access to guns?
Motivemagus about 12 years ago
Please cease and desist from making wild accusations about the beliefs of those you do not know.Liberals do NOT consider any and all access to guns senseless — that statement is simply senseless. The more accurate statement is that the NRA thinks that ANY AND ALL access to ANY KIND OF WEAPON AT ALL is legal UNDER ALL CIRCUMSTANCES — even at the risk of selling to a terrorist, because this is, in fact, true.And I am still waiting to see the “well-regulated militia” that justifies all that weaponry.
lonecat about 12 years ago
I’m a leftist, I grew up in a Western hunting family, and I have no desire to take guns away from legitimate hunters. I think the idea of a civilian militia standing up against an evil government is a fantasy. Watch what’s happening in Syria. The government has a monopoly on the big weapons, and they always will. Citizens are not going to have tanks. There are ways to get rid of tyrannical governments, but not with Saturday night specials.
saturnsport8k about 12 years ago
We cant control senseless access to guns either. The idea that criminals would follow gun laws that the government creates in their aquisition of arms is flat out rediculous.
I guess drug dealers and gang bangers that do drive-bys that kill innocent kids sleeping in their beds would rather buy their guns at full or above retail prices in a gun store or gun show (where they would fail the federal background checks), instead of out of the trunk of a car for $100 or via trade for a car, some drugs, or just for “puttin in some work”. Yeah, right. The people that use guns to break the law DO NOT follow the law to acquire them! THINK, PEOPLE, THINK!
yohannbiimu about 12 years ago
The only “senseless access to guns” story that I care about is the idiotic “operation fast and furious” that Eric Holder unleashed upon us. As is their wont, your typical leftist collectivist don’t want to control crime, but rather they want to control those who are law-abiding. They want to to control US.
Motivemagus about 12 years ago
Saying it doesn’t make it true. “Draconian?” Then why do Americans have by far the highest number of guns per capita in the world? (88.8 guns per 100 residents — #2, Serbia, has 58.2).And do you really think that restricting access to assault weapons is unreasonable? How about cop-killer bullets? Being able to sell guns to criminals and people on the terrorist watch list? Doesn’t sound that unreasonable to me. How about you?
Dtroutma about 12 years ago
Background checks and registration of gun owners, like in New Zealand, makes the owners responsible. Limits on magazine capacity of long weapons (5 rounds as in hunting), and reasonable restrictions (8-12 rounds with semi-auto dependent on caliber) on pistols also makes sense. The term “combat arms” or “military weapons” makes more sense than “assault”, and has nothing to do with grips, stocks, or “appearance”, but magazine capacity and the switch to full automatic, which for most weapons, makes them almost totally inaccurate for precision fire, only good for “suppression”. (Or randomly wiping out kids running away on a school yard?)
The movies and TV make holding a weapon on its side to fire “cool”, which it may indeed be for the intended target, because you can’t hit squat that way, well, except for innocent bystanders.
“Sensible people” indeed DO own firearms, and they aren’t opposed to “common sense” regulation, as called for in the Second Amendment.
iamthelorax about 12 years ago
Rogers really decided to play it safe there. Anyone can be opposed to “senseless access to guns”, how about actually spelling out what he considers “senseless access to guns”.
saturnsport8k about 12 years ago
“The issue is those who put on their cammo pants and stroke their weapons with their friends, kill animals, and pretend to be real men.”
If the issue is with the people, then why is there always a push to control the device?
The number of people willing to kill someone does not change with the ability to do so with a gun. If someone has decided to kill someone, they are going to do it – whether with a gun or a pointed stick!
And the value of gun ownership isnt simply for hunting, sporting, or home defense purposes; it is for our self-preservation from tyranny. It may not come from our own government (or it may), but if there were ever a threat of an invading force, many will wish they had bought an AR or an AK instead treading on the rights of others to do the same.
Ask the US citizens living near our souther border if they feel safe with their .38 special when drug cartels are beheading people just a couple of miles away. 30 shots versus 6 shots spells life or death for them if they see a band of outlaws marching toward them across their own farmland.
Tue Elung-Jensen about 12 years ago
Does protecting yourself have to be with weapons that can kill?
Milton Esbitt about 12 years ago
Why not require all gun owners to carry liability insurance and be legally liable for actions taken with guns they own. This is the rule for car owners!
saturnsport8k about 12 years ago
@MotivemagusIf i wanted to kill someone with a banana, it could be done by shoving it forcefully down their throat. Would the banana be to blame, or the person using the banana to commit murder?
@S RunnelsMy point was not about role playing some 2nd civil war fantasy, it was about the idea that restricting guns to law abiding civilians, but not restricting them to those with the actual political clout and numbers of supporters to become tyrannous (domestic or FOREIGN) being caustic to our own well-being as civilians.
And yes, you are right about law enforcement filling the role of protector. And such a great job they are doing with that, being that they have actually sold the same weapons to the mexican drug cartels that they want to prevent us from having.
I’m pretty sure that your average farmer can identify their neighboring farmer friends from a truck load of thugs with AKs hanging out the windows headed in their direction with reckless abandon.
And if they arent able to discern one from another, they should call law enforcement to investigate. But since the police are always only minutes away when seconds count, should that farmer have been restricted to being able to defend his right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness with a six-shooter and/or a single-shot 20-gauge?
Your thinking that weapons that can and are designed to kill are inherently used for criminal acts only is too big a gamble to those of us with children we need to protect from those of you who feel the need to (insert whatever agenda you subscribe to, because unlike you, I’m not going to pretend like I know anything more than you beyond what you’ve written about a political cartoon on the internet and subscribe one to you.)
vwdualnomand about 12 years ago
it is even true in afghanistan. 1 guy who did 3 tours in iraq, and his first tour of afghanistan. he had access to weapons and ammunition. he left his base and went on a killing spree in a local village. killing 16, including children.
tengu99 about 12 years ago
There is only so much the laws can do and none that will answer your very vague and potentlally dangerous “senseless access to guns” remark.
saturnsport8k about 12 years ago
What is the statistic of children that die from a gun while inside the house vs those that die from a gun while outside the house? How many of those were done with an illegally obtained weapon? I could give you stats that say kids should be concealed carrying to school for their own safety, but that wouldnt make sense given the maturity level of CHILDREN. Statistics will always back up whatever point you are trying to make.
Every cop has a gun around his waist, and the precinct has access to hundreds of guns; how many shootings do you hear of happening at police stations?
Every military base has access to thousands of “fully-automatic, assault style” guns. How many shootings have you heard of happening at military bases over the hundreds of years of .mil service? Of those, how many were done with an M16 or worse? Even the Ft Hood shooter used a pistol. If his mind were psychologically stable, he would not have murdered anyone, with anything.
You still dont get that the problem isnt with the access to the gun, it’s with the PEOPLE that get access to them. Fix the problem with the people using guns incorrectly (gun education, marital counceling, mental help, job opportunities, etc), and the guns will lose the negative stigma attached to the crimes in which they are used.
saturnsport8k about 12 years ago
Every one of your own examples point to the person being the problem; yet you insist that their access to a gun was the problem. so let me get this right… the mental instability of the VT and Arizona shooters was perfectly ok for them to walk around with until they got access to guns?