|
You only need a license to drive a vehicle legally. We should also consider banning school buses. The high capacity of kids they carry increase the chances of mass death. If even one child's life can be saved we should take the executive action to do so. From hear forward all kids should only be transported in vehicles with a seven passenger capacity or less. |
|
+12
|
Posted by sako  - 1/21/2013 1:13:42 PM
|
|
|
|
|
I do enjoy the argument that no one NEEDS specific firearms. I also find it interesting that those same people drive a car that goes over 75mph.... and cars that go over the posted speed limit kill more people than the scary firearms... with that being the case shouldn't there be a ban on all cars that go over 75mph? you don't NEED one....just a thought... and please don't say you need a license to drive a car because it doesn't matter if you are licensed or not traveling over the speed limit is still illegal.... |
|
+14
|
Posted by HHS89 - 1/21/2013 10:08:47 AM
|
|
|
Diogenes and rider30.....YES,YES,YES! AMEN,AMEN,AMEN! |
|
+6
|
Posted by witness - 1/19/2013 8:01:12 PM
|
|
|
think they are playing with fire. you take the guns from the people you are going to have a war. its our God given right to bear arms. our country was founded on the constitution with GOD involved with everything, now they try and take GOD out of everything. we had better wake up in this country. its not the guns killing people its the people using them. its the govt and states fault for not getting the people with mental issues the help they need. they get put on the back burner. instead of sending billions overseas we had better start helping our own people here in the USA! |
|
+16
|
Posted by rider30 - 1/19/2013 9:00:22 AM
|
|
|
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Let’s forget the 2nd Amendment issue per se for a little bit. Its main principle has been very well covered already and it’s very easy to read and understand. It doesn’t take much research on the internet to find out what the founding fathers understood it to mean and how it’s been understood historically. There are several issues that overshadow this one and directly impact the discussion at hand. The Constitution is a document that limits the power of the Federal government. The Bill of Rights was added to put additional restraints on the Federal government and make certain that the people’s rights were protected. The Federal government is not the source of our rights, it is to be the protector of those rights. Every one of our representatives takes an oath that they will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and thus our rights. The President specifically says that he will “preserve, protect and defend” it. Limiting the people’s rights as clearly outlined in the Bill of Rights is a direct violation of that oath. The other overlooked issue is the 10th Amendment (ignoring the 4th for the time being). “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Since everyone is so concerned about controlling firearms this is where they should be looking. The Federal government is prohibited from limiting the people’s rights but the individual states can handle this issue based on the will of the people of each state. This is why state’s rights are so critical when dealing with what are perceived as national issues. Overreaching Constitutional limits is what has created the monster we are now faced with in nearly every aspect of our lives. Anyone who believes that it’s a benign beast knows nothing of history and human nature. |
|
+25
|
Posted by Diogenes - 1/18/2013 6:33:43 PM
|
|
|
These laws chance nothing except the government will have more control. Sick people will still kill, method will change. If a car accident kills 1 person is consider part of life risk. If an airliner goes down and kills 200 it is not mass murder. A defective person is part of life risk and not the tool. Outsider, the word you are looking for is balance. |
|
+20
|
Posted by dragracer - 1/18/2013 4:57:59 PM
|
|
|
Yes, laws against rape and murder are there to punish transgressors. Following that line of logic, firearms laws are there to punish transgressors as well. Scary though, by simply owning a product that is currently legal, Sen. Feinstein's proposed law will make me a criminal (transgressor) if I do not register my weapons. This is my line in the sand. I refuse to simply allow the government to dictate to me that I must tell them what I own and then be licensed, fingerprinted, photographed and basically kneel before them to be allowed to keep my property, and then be told that I cannot pass that property on to my heirs. As to the comments about drones, etc. The men that founded this country felt that citizens needed armament on the par with any standing military they may have to go up against. If a government is using drones and satellites to spy on its citizens then don't you think there might be a bigger problem heading our way? Ever read orwell, huxley, and their takes on what the future might be like? We are rapidly moving in the direction that they forsaw. Two presidents in a row have signed laws allowing for indefinite detention of individuals without due process or recourse to a court of law, be it a military tribunal or otherwise. The current tenant of the white house has now extended it to American citizens on American soil with the NDAA law in 2012 effectively doing away with the right of habeus corpus. We are being incrementally stripped of our rights and a good chunk of the American public is either asleep or just so apathetic they are letting it happen. Or worse yet, they are willing to sacrifice their freedom in the name of "security", which is nothing but a lie to build more centralized governmental control of people's lives. |
|
+34
|
Posted by leelees1 - 1/18/2013 10:15:31 AM
|
|
|
What I find difficult to understand is how can someone say " No one wants to take away your handguns and rifles", and then support a ban on over 120 specific firearms and render the sale of numerous others by limiting the features that make up their design. To say that these have NO legitimate use is pure ignorance of the topic as a whole. There are numerous, law abiding people using these very firearms every day for recreational competitions and target practice. Why should they or any future participant in these activities be denied their right to choose their own brand/style preference to support that? I have taught 4H shooting sports, hunter safety education to literally 100's of youth over the years and have never heard of any of those charged with any gun crime. Your rights are not affected by someone who owns an AR-15 with a 30 round magazine who is responsible and law abiding. Far more children are killed every year by (insert object here) than these so called assault weapons, yet, we do not hear anybody calling for the Government to step in and pass laws to prevent anything other than the one item we are afforded the right to own by the US Constitution. It is extremely hypocritical to stand before the American people and say "if it will save the life of even one child...." and then go back and never mention the things that could save thousands of lives. |
|
+24
|
Posted by sako - 1/18/2013 10:11:17 AM
|
|
|
See...that's the myopic nature of your argument...can't logically respond, so launch into some far fetched statement that has nothing to do with the issue being discussed. Right...laws are in place to punish people who violate the rights of others and to a degree, society. Tell me again, how a law that seeks to punish someone for owning an object that in itself does not violate the rights of others, or society is rational or reasonable? Aren't those laws that ban things based on the intentional acts of the person who committed them...not the tool in which they chose to use? Is murder worse because a gun was the tool, rather than a knife, bat or car? Doubt the victim cares. See...laws punish for the action that causes harm to others, the act that interferes with their life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (property including houses). Tell me again how a weapoins ban, or a magazine ban does this again? Tell me again how the ownershipo of a certain weapon that is categorized by appearance and function only (almost racist if you think about it) somehow interferes with your, or anyone else's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Certainly, if someone uses that right in a criminal fashion that interferes with your life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, they should be punished, but we already have laws for that... |
|
+21
|
Posted by Yoda - 1/18/2013 10:10:01 AM
|
|
|
Oh yeah...if a person is currently a law abiding citizen, they can obtain a Uzi, or other fully automatic weapon (actually what are assault weapons), and there are many people that actually do this. How many of those actual assault weapons that are legally owned are used in crimes? How many of those law abiding citizens have used their legally owned weapons to commit mass homicide? So, this proposed legislation will make it harder for the law abiding citizen to legally obtain a gun. There is no logical debate or explanation that is otherwise. There is no logical reason for such a law. There is no logical debate that the reason for such a law is one based not on the majority of law abiding citizens, but actually based on the lunacy of the criminal and deranged minority. There is also no logical debate that rights are not based on NEED, they are based on CAN...people who believe their individual rights should be regulated based on perceived NEED defy logical explanation, reason, and a basic understanding of what a 'right' is. |
|
+25
|
Posted by Yoda - 1/18/2013 10:00:39 AM
|
|
|
Wait, you're against bans on rape, robbery, and murder because they happen anyway? I just always assumed the laws are in place to have a platform to punish people that do those things. Same with the gun laws. I see how incredibly stupid I am now! Thanks for sharing your vast intelligence with me. :) |
|
-42
|
Posted by parapraxis - 1/18/2013 9:52:36 AM
|
|
|
It's pretty simple actually. The current proposals seek to outlaw/make illegal weapons based solely on cosmetic issues. The proposal will have zero impact on anything, other than to potentially criminalize otherwise law abiding citizens. I mean really, how have the bans against rape, robbery and murder worked out? How about alcohol in the 20s...the only thing that got us was organized crime. The current proposals are simple solutions to complex problems that solve nothing, the result of those proposals is the reduction of individual right, freedom and liberty. Anyone should be concerned about that, whether they like or hate firearms. Hell, no one even understands what an "assault rifle" actually is. Laws that say you can't kill in the name of rligon...no problem with them. They have worled out so swell. Interesting though, over history, the spoken word and religon have been responsible for more murders of people than anything else...it's not even close really. Maybe the problem isn't the weapon, maybe its just religon and speech. Right, no yelling fire in a crowded building. Ever wonder why this can be regulated? Simple again, because yelling fire in a crowded building, assuming there is no fire, potentially could lead to panic, and subsequent injury to other innocent people. A person can yell fire in an empty building all they want. There is not potential for panic. So, let's take high capacity magazines. Inherently, they are not by themselves dangerous. Millions of people actually own them, legally, and have done nothing illegal with them. A very small minority have. So, is it the ownership of the magazine that is the problem (person yelling fire in the empty building) or is it the deranged use of them by the small minority (person yelling fire in a crowded builkding) that is the problem. Why should the government be able to restrict the rights of the many, because of the deranged and illegal acts of the minority? Do we really want to live in a society where the rules are set and determined by the lowest common denominator? Oh yeah, owning a house is a right...it's that whole property thing. The government cannot take your house without compensation and a poublic purpose, because it is a right to own a house. But your failure to recognize this most basic concept, explains a loty of the rest... |
|
+30
|
Posted by Yoda - 1/18/2013 9:48:01 AM
|
|
|
See cuddy...you fall into a myopic trap of thinking this has something to do with a black president. It has nutt'n to do with a black president. It has everything to do with individual right, and potential oppression from a a tyrannical central government. Nutt'n more, nutt'n less. The color of the person at the head of the table is irrelevant, it is the action of that person, and those in power around him or her that determine...but hey, if you want to play the line of turning this into a 'race' thing, have at it. It is overly simplistic, and entirely misses the point of the purpose of the U.S Constution... |
|
+31
|
Posted by Yoda - 1/18/2013 9:32:04 AM
|
|
|
I agree with the laws that say you can't kill in the name of religion. I believe in the laws that say I can't use free speech to yell FIRE in a crowded theatre. Having a house isn't a right, so I'm not sure your connection with that one. I have rights, but so do others. Yes, I DO advocate for a government that makes laws based in the best interests of the people as a whole, because I believe we are all in this together. :) |
|
-27
|
Posted by parapraxis - 1/18/2013 9:30:37 AM
|
|
|
What do you feel your rights are, exactly, in regards to gun ownership? What in the upcoming proposals will negatively effect you? Honestly curious. :) |
|
-36
|
Posted by parapraxis - 1/18/2013 9:27:50 AM
|
|
|
Hey parapraxis...do you really need whatever religon you subscribe to? Do you really need free speech? Do you really need the house you live in, or the cars you own, or all the rest of the property you have? I mean seriously, do you really need any of those things? Do you really advocate for a system of government that determins what the citizen can have based on what the government decides that person needs? I agree with your take on "personal liberty legislation" and am equally concerned about that...by its nature, it is the government incrimentally eroding individual liberty...but alas, if and when it ever gets to the breaking point, what will the citizen be able to do about it? |
|
+28
|
Posted by Yoda - 1/18/2013 9:27:27 AM
|
|
|
I find it interesting that people who are so concerned with controlling their uteruses (rightfully so btw) are so concerned with the opinions of others who express the same amount of interest in their rights...just may not be the uterus...oh, as to the fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, children reference...exactly...it is not them who the citizenry should fear, or have the right to arm themselves against...it is the people who would chose to give them orders that the citizenry has the right to arm themselves against. But, you should at least now understand why those fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters and children would be less likely, unlikely perhaps, to fire on their fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters and children should there ever become a reason for the citizenry to invoke the unalienable right granted to it by the 2nd Amendment. |
|
+17
|
Posted by Yoda - 1/18/2013 9:23:31 AM
|
|
|
That is a fantasy among many of my fellow gun owners, at least based on conversations I've had with them. Gun owners and soldiers will join forces and rise up against our black president and his secret police.
Cuz that's how civil wars always pan out. Folks just need to relax. We have a good thing going here, I don't get my so many are so paranoid and mad all the time. |
|
-31
|
Posted by cuddy5 - 1/18/2013 9:22:13 AM
|
|
|
cuddy5...I certainly respect your right to do whatever you want with your property, whether I or anyone else agrees with the reasoning behind it. It is your right, and your decision. But, why are you so interested in sacrificing my property and my rights too? Oh, as for the government having all sorts of weapons, that assumption is based on a notion that every single person who controls those weapons will fall into order with the government's desire. That is an assumption that is based on fallacy...assuming that an American citizen in the military will pull the trigger on other citizens because he or she is ordered too by someone else is quite the assumption indeed...If you think this is crazy, spend some time talking to those folks in the military that are the one's who would be pulling the trigger. |
|
+17
|
Posted by Yoda - 1/18/2013 9:17:36 AM
|
|
|
You can't legislate guns, but you can legislate marriage and uteruses (uteri? uterususus?). |
|
-22
|
Posted by cuddy5 - 1/18/2013 9:16:09 AM
|
|
Oh aye. The 'DUH' retort. Used by our founding fathers, I'm sure.
Listen, guys. No one wants to take away your handguns and rifles. There is no logical debate you can come up with as to why you need an uzi in your home. They are meant to kill a lot of people in a short amount of time. Period. If you are a law abiding citizen, how is regulation going to make it 'harder' for you to obtain a gun? You have to wait a few days for a background check? You need to be responsible for the guns you purchase? First world problems.
If you own guns you need to insure them and report asap is they are lost or stolen, or else you should be held liable in any crime committed with it. That is only responsible.
The people most concerned with "their rights" regarding guns are the same ones that seem least concerned with other personal liberty legislation. I find that really interesting. |
|
-23
|
Posted by parapraxis - 1/18/2013 9:13:43 AM
|
|
|
Hey, does anyone have any quotes from the Founding Fathers on how a rifle will protect you from a government with drones, satellites, and aircraft carriers? No? Well that's weird. |
|
-28
|
Posted by cuddy5 - 1/18/2013 9:06:51 AM
|
|
|
If anybody, including our government thinks that by banning hi-cap mags will hinder any of the assaults that are taking place in our country they are sadly mistaken. Crooks will only carry more small cap mags. DUH! |
|
+19
|
Posted by witness - 1/18/2013 8:57:38 AM
|
|
|
I find it interesting that the same 'patriots' who want unlimited defense spending, also want to arm themselves against our soldiers. Since our soldiers are our fathers, brothers, sister, mothers and children; exactly why do you want to take up arms against them? |
|
-27
|
Posted by outsider - 1/18/2013 8:57:04 AM
|
|
|
If you bother to read any of the writings of the founding fathers on the subject "well regulated" means that the average citizen has the means at hand to immediately step up and do what is needed to stop all enemies foreign and domestic, including a tyrannical government. It does not refer to firearms laws at all. To all of you that claim anything about the 2nd amendment being about hunting and simple self defense, read a bit more of the history and intent behind it. The 1st amendment is the one of the major promises of liberty, the 2nd amendment is the one that guarantees it and all of the others. |
|
+32
|
Posted by leelees1 - 1/18/2013 8:13:26 AM
|
|
|
I would say the 300 major Federal gun control laws and approximately 20,000 other related local and state laws may "well regulate" if not over regulate. |
|
+23
|
Posted by sako - 1/18/2013 8:05:04 AM
|
|
What does "well regulated" mean to all you would be militia?
Are things like 'when he tries to turn our "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" into another of the regimes of his ancestors' really not against the AUP? |
|
-26
|
Posted by parapraxis - 1/18/2013 7:41:15 AM
|
|
|
We are seeing the same type of incremental policy change taking place right now with Obamacare. We got a so called "affordable" healthcare bill pushed through and now are finding numerous problems and unsustainable elements within it. Eventually this will morph into a single payer, Government run socialized plan, which is really what they wanted initially, but, realized it would have to be done incrementally. That is what the anti-gun lobby will try as well. You have to put the frogs in cold water and slowly boil them or they just jump out. |
|
+22
|
Posted by sako - 1/18/2013 7:38:45 AM
|
|
|
Banning high capacity magazines will do nothing to change "body counts". We had that exact ban in place when Columbine happened. Do you really believe a mentally deranged person who can look at his own sleeping mother and pull the trigger will abide by ANY law concerning type of firearm or magazine capacity? There are millions of semi-autos already in existence and even more high capacity magazines. The supply chain does not change by passing a new or regenerated law. Criminals acquire there firearms from the cuurent supply, illegally. Unless you condone total confiscation of the supply line, you are only passing "feel good" legislation. Then, if you are seriously concerned about "body counts", look at the statistics and you will see that a miniscule amount of the deaths by firearms are a result of a semi-auto, so called assault weapon, but rather, cheap, easily concealed hand guns by a huge margin. The anti-gun lobby is well aware of all the statistics, but, also are very good at using current events and the uninformed, emotional public sentiment to advance their cause. They realize, in order to reach their ultimate goal, they must proceed incrementally, thus, the massive defense by gun owners attempting to stop any new legislation from advancing. |
|
+27
|
Posted by sako - 1/18/2013 7:31:01 AM
|
|
|
For a person who does own a gun YET,Im highly against the idea of new gun laws.. our fore fathers have fought for our freedom and for our rights..If Obama passes this law, our country will be f***ed..God bless America and all that WE as the people stand for |
|
+15
|
Posted by nldg32 - 1/18/2013 6:11:43 AM
|
|
|
"I think it is disgusting that our government is trying to put all these new gun laws into effect. The only reason Obama wants to do it is because when he tries to turn our "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" into another of the regimes of his ancestors, we will have no guns to fight them off, which you can bet will happen."
That's one of the most bizarre rants I think I've ever seen on Talk back. |
|
-26
|
Posted by cuddy5 - 1/18/2013 5:39:25 AM
|
|
|
I don't care about "assault rifles" as much of what makes them "assault rifles" is cosmetic. I am in favor of banning large capacity magazines and shutting down gun shows, unless any and all sales are made with the requisite background checks. I am a gun owner, but after the Newtown shooting I got rid of my semi-autos.
My house is still a rather unpleasant place for an intruder to walk in to, I assure you.
I don't think magazine restrictions will prevent or even reduce the frequency of mass shootings but I do think they will reduce the body counts. For the shootings to stop, our whole attitude about violence has to change, and I am as guilty as anybody. |
|
-30
|
Posted by cuddy5 - 1/18/2013 5:37:14 AM
|
|
|
I like a semi-auto for the same reason law enforement likes them. For protection from the bad guys. If you need ten or twenty shots to stop the criminal, you sure don't want to be two rounds short. Always remember, if a bad guy is worth shooting once, to stop them. And they're still a threat, they're worth shooting multiple times, to stop them. Ask any law officer how many times they would shoot an offender. Hell ask them how many times they shot that old man in the hallway at the NPPD. All he had was a knife, |
|
+18
|
Posted by tess tickle - 1/17/2013 8:41:29 PM
|
|
|
The fallacy of any law, or support of it based on a perceived "need" is that it fails to recognize that rights are not based on "need". They are principals of "CAN". Which is entirely different than "need". Can is the equilivent of freedom. I can do something, or I can chose not to do something. Seems to be a base of comon sense. Determinations of common sense, based on what others think I need, or worse yet, what the government thinks I need, are unfortunately common, but they lack any sense. Sorry Luger, but do not sacrifice my rights for what you think I need. Its not your place. |
|
+30
|
Posted by Yoda - 1/17/2013 8:23:55 PM
|
|
|
I am in my 70s and have been an NRA member , hunter, target shooter and low key gun collector. I have normally always agreed with NRA stances on gun issues, but even their ideas need a certain amount of using common sense. My main feeling would outlaw the high cap mags for semi auto assault type rifles. Other than using the rifles in target competition, there cannot be a need for 30 cap mags if using the weapon for hunting. If you can't hit the target with a normal round mag. you shouldn't be in possession of a 30 rounder.
The present proposed law changes consist of a few common sense ideas while also containing an excess of stupid thought ideas being dragged into the mess by non hunters or those with no knowledge of firearms in general. an example of the latter, see how many people know the difference between an automatic vs a semi automatic weapon. To the unknowledgible individual they are one and the same. Yet hese are some of the people behind drawing up the restrictions. LORD save us from the uneducated who we elect to important political positions.
My vote is there are merits to parts of the proposed bill while if taken as a whole is idiotic. |
|
-20
|
Posted by Luger - 1/17/2013 8:13:14 PM
|
|
|
I would not be opposed to a new law if it would do something to stop crime, save lives, make us safer and did not restrict law abiding citizens from making their own choice of ownership. So far there has not been any such law or regulation proposed meeting that criteria, therefore, enforce what we already have and stop the "slap on the wrist" punishments and revolving door sentences. |
|
+63
|
Posted by sako - 1/17/2013 7:21:56 PM
|
|
|
or restrict....sorry |
|
-9
|
Posted by witness - 1/17/2013 7:00:53 PM
|
|
|
will not under any circumstance give any info on what weapons I have or where I keep them! If they take our restrict our guns people, only criminals will have guns!
|
|
+36
|
Posted by witness - 1/17/2013 7:00:20 PM
|
|
|
I think it is disgusting that our government is trying to put all these new gun laws into effect. The only reason Obama wants to do it is because when he tries to turn our "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" into another of the regimes of his ancestors, we will have no guns to fight them off, which you can bet will happen. The men and woman of this great nation that fought for our freedoms and the "GUARENTEED" rights of our constitution do not deserve to have their patrotism trampled like that! I am both a military veteran and a former special deputy from another state and |
|
+16
|
Posted by witness - 1/17/2013 6:58:17 PM
|
|
|
Good job NPB...I'm curious how talkback will weigh in on the poll. I'm against more laws myself. |
|
+25
|
Posted by Onlooker - 1/17/2013 6:39:21 PM
|
|
Quick Links
= No current warnings. Any past warnings have expired.
= Minor offense. Post was edited where neccessary. Yellow flags fly for 7 days.
= A more serious offense. This user can't post to Talk Back for 7 days. The offending post has been permanently blacked out. Red flags fly for 7 days.
= The most serious offense. This flag is reserved for those with multiple or particularly agregious offenses. Last step before permanent banishment. Black flags fly for 30 days.
= Banned.
