BigUnionGuy
Got the T-Shirt
First.... there needs to be a control.... on "pointy" things.
And then.... Automobiles....
Former Principal Charged in Fatal Fla. Stabbings - ABC News
guns
- Thread starter moreluck
- Start date
First.... there needs to be a control.... on "pointy" things.
And then.... Automobiles....
Former Principal Charged in Fatal Fla. Stabbings - ABC News
So until then, you believe guns in the US should be as easy to get as they are in Mexico?
brett636
Well-Known Member
Perhaps if our government wasn't giving guns to Mexico's most violent criminals in order to change public opinion on gun control here they wouldn't be so easy to get. BTW, last time I checked Mexico has some pretty restrictive gun laws and it doesn't appear to be making their violent crime situation any better.
A Practical Guide to Mexico's Gun Laws for Americans
That's the point, brett. I haven't been getting many answers, so thank you. It's completely legitimate to want no gun control whatsoever. Maybe if you want assault weapons you should be able to walk down to the corner store and buy them. Maybe convicts should be able to as well. I only hear gun rights activists talk about the laws they don't like so I would like to hear what regulations, if any, we should have.
brett636
Well-Known Member
I support any laws that cause an individual with the intent of using fire arms maliciously from doing so, but I do not support regulations that do this by limiting the rights of those who use fire arms for the infinite ways they can be used for good.
brett636
Well-Known Member
Individuals work towards their own best interests, and that includes the need to protect one's life and property. When the consequences of using a firearm maliciously go against those self interests only the very unbalanced will go forth with any malicious plans involving a firearm, and we all know you will never be able to rid society of those people but it hardly calls for an all encompassing restriction/s for the rest of us.
brett636
Well-Known Member
Yup
Non violent felons who have served their time should be allowed every freedom they were afforded before the conviction. They have paid their debt to society and if they can't be trusted with firearms then they should not have been released. Besides, one can become a convicted felon by simply moving some dirt around their backyards in some places. I see no logical reason why they can't be trusted with firearms.
Then we are back to square one. Nobody said that every single weapon that went across the border in Fast and Furious was used in any kind of violent crime. Some definitely were, most probably not. So unless I am missing something, your position is that in the US, Fast and Furious should be the law of the land and enforcement of violent crime be relied on rather than gun control. Again, I'm not saying that isn't a valid position. I do wonder about those holding that position and who are in an uproar about Fast and Furious in Mexico. I wonder why south of the border it's bad, but north of the border it's desired.
brett636
Well-Known Member
There is a difference in allowing individuals the means to protect themselves and their property, and arming drug cartels. Drug cartels and those who are associated with them have a long history of extreme violence and to purposely arm them serves no logical purpose what so ever. For the individual to own and carry firearms serves the greater society because those who would do us harm cannot tell the sheep from the wolves offering more resistance to potential wrong doings.
DS
Fenderbender
Mexican constitutional rights have long included the right to carry arms. The 1857 Constitution included the right to carry arms:
Gun politics in Mexico - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Gun politics in Mexico - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You are tip toeing into advocating for gun control. Who runs the cartels? Who finances them and protects them? In Mexico i'm guessing everyone from the casual user protecting his supplier to local police taking payments to dealers to bankers to politicians to judges. What part of them can be trusted and what part can't? More importantly, move to the US. How about the loww level crack dealer? Prison for posession, nothing major. That's what most prison population is anyway. Domestic abuse? Psych ward patients newly released? Bar patrons? UPS drivers? I don't see why this population would fare any better with 2000 weapons suddenly unaccounted for and untracked than in Mexico.
brett636
Well-Known Member
Your logic fails when you attempt to lump everybody into one group. Drug cartels and everyone that supports and supplies them by definition are criminals. Arming them is akin to dropping your kids off at a NAMBLA operated day care center. Its perfectly logical to assume a violent group of people will do violent things with weapons when supplied with them. This is completely different from the average individual who just desires to protect themselves and their property.
But we aint talking about self defense,, the topic is regulations and what would you support.
The problem lies with a lobbying group whos money can buy their way out of serious regulations on assault rifles and handguns, you know the ones, they are the ones most used in violent crime in this country.
The gun makers only concern is with profits and not peoples safety. They could care less how many of you die with their products, just like cigarette makers.
If you buy a handgun for self protection, then become a drunk and come home one day plastered and pissed off about life and shoot your wife and kids, who do you think cares from the NRA?
Who on this board who supports the rampant collection of guns do you think cares?
NOBODY.
As long as you dont take their guns, the rest of you can shoot each other to death and its all good.
Peace
TOS
soberups
Pees in the brown Koolaid
I dont completely agree with the NRA on the issue of gun control, but here it goes.
If I were king and could pass any gun laws I wanted to, I would retain and clarify the 2nd Amendment for what it really means, which is the right of law abiding individuals to keep and bear arms for their own defense as well as to ensure that an armed populace remains the final gurantee against a tyrannical government.
If I were king...the law would be that, upon reaching the age of 18, any law abiding person with no criminal record would be able to take a FREE comprehensive firearms safety course, designed by law enforcement and the NRA, and comparable to what is currently required to obtain a concealed handgun permit in most states. Upon completion of said course, as well as a criminal record background check, the person would be issued a license that would allow them to freely buy, own, and carry concealed any firearm of their choosing in all 50 states. This license would be required in order to purchase or own a gun. Denial or revocation of said license would require due process of law, with a presumption of innocence, and the buden of proof being on the state to prove why the individual should not be allowed to own a gun rather than the reverse. There would be no more patchwork of laws that varied by state or city, there would be no "waiting periods," or restrictions of any kind upon concealed carry... to those who were duly licensed.
Most NRA members would disagree with me on the license requirement. Philosophically, it is a tradeoff I would be willing to make in exchange for consistent and rational gun laws that recognize the fundamental right of free men to arm themselves for self defense and the defense of their communities.
soberups
Pees in the brown Koolaid
Blah blah blah. You dont even know the difference between an automatic weapon and a semi-automatic weapon. You dont even comprehend that AUTOMATIC WEAPONS are already ILLEGAL in the USA and CANNOT be legally purchased a gun show, or gun shops, or anywhere else. You see a gun that looks icky or scary to you and you ignorantly and hysterically label it as an "automatic" or "assault" weapon when it is NEITHER.
The fully automatic assault rifles (which are also called machine guns) and grenade launchers that the cartels are using ARENT coming from mom and pop gun stores in Arizona. Such weapons are already ILLEGAL in Arizona. They are being stolen or bought from corrupt Mexican police or military. They are being bought on the international black market in Eastern Bloc cold-war surplus military weaponry. They are being smuggled in from South America. The drug cartels have BILLIONS of dollars in cash that WE gave them for drugs, so they can buy any sort of weapons that they want from any number of buyers. Harassing law-abiding Arizona gun shops and Arizona citizens who want to excercise their 2nd Amendment rights isnt going to make a dent in the flow of arms to these cartels.
Similar threads
