Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I live in an urban setting of 400,000 people, Suburbia is 5 minutes away by freeway and rural 10 minutes beyond that.
My favorite target range for shooting is 20 minutes from my house in the country.
I regularly go hunting within 30-60 miles of my house
Should I hand in my "Assault Rifles"
How big is a city before it is considered to big to have guns?
Point taken. Thank you for the sensible comeback.
I'm rural. Biggest urban setting is 45 minutes away.
Everyone has a different lifestyle and not are all aware of that fact.
If we were debating then you just shot my comment down which puts me back at square 1.
And that's what debate does..the back and forth, the give and take, the perception and reality.
We don't do that anymore..knee jerk legal action is what we demand.
Point taken. Thank you for the sensible comeback.
I'm rural. Biggest urban setting is 45 minutes away.
Everyone has a different lifestyle and not are all aware of that fact.
If we were debating then you just shot my comment down which puts me back at square 1.
And that's what debate does..the back and forth, the give and take, the perception and reality.
We don't do that anymore..knee jerk legal action is what we demand.
I already knew you understood. It was rhetorical question was for others.
The only reason the NRA and most of you want to talk about gun control endlessly is because as things stand... about the only way for things to get any 'worse' from a gun control advocates point of view is to just require that every American own and regularly practice with a hand-gun and also keep in ready access on or more assault rifles. The rest of the world shakes their heads at the amount of gun violence in the U.S. but it worries pro-gun Americans not at all. I have a former church friend that I grew up with. he became a parole officer. His 9 y.o. daughter shot herself with his gun. Cost him his marriage and his family. Didn't change his views on guns. Sandy won't change anything for pro-gun people. A Sandy every other day would just incite them to press for evermore lax gun control laws. TALK and more TALK keeps things from being DONE. Works for the Global Warming Deniers. We have talked about Global Warming for 30 years but have yet to DO anything. Fine by the deniers since they are all for inaction. Gun laws as they are suit pro-gun types just fine.
I think its VERY interesting that a hurricane named Sandy has turned the tide of discussion about AGW from endless debate to actually getting something done, and a school called Sandy Elementary is about to do the same thing for the gun control conundrum. Yep, it took children dying to wake America up. The NRA wants it to all just go away. It wont. There WILL be something concrete in writing before Obama leaves office. He didn't want your guns but you weren't able to self police.
When I was a kid you couldn't not step in dog **** because there were no regulation of the behavior of dog owners. It got to be too much. Especially in big cities. Now only a few hard core rebel types think about taking their dog out without a plastic bag with them. Airplanes and other closed environments were awful places to be a non-smoker once upon a time. Mass shootings have resisted being addressed for more than 20 years. Personally, I don't think the 150 lives a year that an assault weapon ban might save is anything much. Be glad I am not president. If I was there wouldn't be any way for anyone to get their warm, live, hands on anything called a firearm. Period.
You may not know what caused your headache but you know that taking two Exedrin Migrane will take care of your headache. We may not know why people want to take others with them when they want to die but we know that if they don't have guns to do it with that it largely solves the problem. We know this. We have examples where this works.
I was listening to Democracy Now yesterday and one of her guests mentioned something about the Australia's gun laws that I found interesting.
"What happened in '96 was so shocking, and also the level of anger and dissatisfaction and frustration in the public was so high by then, that really that was the tipping point for Australia. As you said, the prime minister exercised leadership.He called all the states together and said, "We're going to fix this." And the laws were state laws, so we had a patchwork of different laws. Some states had stronger laws, but the states that had weaker laws undermined those with stronger laws. And what we got was a scheme of nationally uniform laws, which set a much higher standard and included bans on assault weapons and some other measures, which basically meant that the whole—that you can still own guns in Australia, but the system is just much more under control."
Rather than a top down approach from central command, perhaps a better approach would be for the President to facilitate cooperation between governors on how to make the necessary adjustments to tackle this problem.
I am a strong supporter of my 2nd Amendment right to protect myself and those under my charge but there has to be something done about the berserk savages out there who would destroy themselves and everything around them.
Americans can keep their guns...under one condition, that the realize they do not need guns. To believe you can not survive or live without them becomes a type of religion. The point is..you can have them but you are CRAZY and a cowardly wimp if you think you NEED them...Those that believe they NEED them will never live in peace and security..because they refuse to explore any other option other than fighting evil with evil that generates more evil- EVIL control is needed not gun control..THAT must be addressed..There is this secularist notion spreading like a disease in America that evil does not exist and that "mental illness" is the issue...People must discriminate between good and evil- seems that most have stopped doing this.
Should New York dictate what happens in Wyoming or California decide what's best for the people of Tennessee?
Of course not... maybe an assault rifle ban makes sense in New Jersey but what about in Utah or Montana, where it clearly isn't a problem?
The solution here is to let the states continue decide the severity of their gun control laws. It shouldn't be the job of the Feds.
And to those who say people will just buy guns illegally in the next state... well yea! Do you really think criminals would follow laws in the first place? Do you really think they wouldn't get them illegally if they were banned across the country...like the only guns in the world exist in America or that a gun won't let itself be held if the proper paperwork wasn't filled out or it happened to be on a "bad gun list"?
Perhaps tightening laws on purchases for out of state residents and new state level restrictions based on votes from the citizens of that state is the best solution. That would keep random nut-jobs from getting easy access, make places with high populations of gun haters happy and make places with high populations of gun lovers happy.
Forget the feds, give the power to the states.
Good point. And if the southern states decide a poll tax works better for them, why should a silly piece of paper like the constitution stand in their way...
And the opposite is equally true which is why you have people the middle cheering when Illinois, New York, and DC gun laws are struck down.
There is no chance that those who you speak of as cheering are just a tiny bit afraid that when those laws get spread over the nation they will be affected and don't want to be? I think there is a chance that you are trying to avoid that truth.
The only reason the NRA and most of you want to talk about gun control endlessly is because as things stand... about the only way for things to get any 'worse' from a gun control advocates point of view is to just require that every American own and regularly practice with a hand-gun and also keep in ready access on or more assault rifles. The rest of the world shakes their heads at the amount of gun violence in the U.S. but it worries pro-gun Americans not at all. I have a former church friend that I grew up with. he became a parole officer. His 9 y.o. daughter shot herself with his gun. Cost him his marriage and his family. Didn't change his views on guns. Sandy won't change anything for pro-gun people. A Sandy every other day would just incite them to press for evermore lax gun control laws. TALK and more TALK keeps things from being DONE. Works for the Global Warming Deniers. We have talked about Global Warming for 30 years but have yet to DO anything. Fine by the deniers since they are all for inaction. Gun laws as they are suit pro-gun types just fine.
I think its VERY interesting that a hurricane named Sandy has turned the tide of discussion about AGW from endless debate to actually getting something done, and a school called Sandy Elementary is about to do the same thing for the gun control conundrum. Yep, it took children dying to wake America up. The NRA wants it to all just go away. It wont. There WILL be something concrete in writing before Obama leaves office. He didn't want your guns but you weren't able to self police.
When I was a kid you couldn't not step in dog **** because there were no regulation of the behavior of dog owners. It got to be too much. Especially in big cities. Now only a few hard core rebel types think about taking their dog out without a plastic bag with them. Airplanes and other closed environments were awful places to be a non-smoker once upon a time. Mass shootings have resisted being addressed for more than 20 years. Personally, I don't think the 150 lives a year that an assault weapon ban might save is anything much. Be glad I am not president. If I was there wouldn't be any way for anyone to get their warm, live, hands on anything called a firearm. Period.
You may not know what caused your headache but you know that taking two Exedrin Migrane will take care of your headache. We may not know why people want to take others with them when they want to die but we know that if they don't have guns to do it with that it largely solves the problem. We know this. We have examples where this works.
H
Thanks for the advice for headache. I haven't had one of those things in 30 years but surely will be glad to use your method if I get one. I wonder if the reason I don't have headaches could be that I take two arthritis strength acetaminephine pills twice a day.
Now back to the topic of the thread. Is there a chance that gun control could be more truthfully cut down to control, with the left in control? I certainly think the most important word in that term is CONTROL.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
