Yes Dave, it's time to raise the issue again

Hocky said:

For me, if it could be done in a fashion that EVERY firearm was collected from the public, I would be indifferent. I think it sets a bad precedent, but I think having the worst murder rates in the civilized world does, too. But they can't possibly do that, so no, I wouldn't.

Click to expand...

I have a hunch that most of our murders in this country are related to drugs... or a good chunk of them anyway... So, if you believe in the 'every action has an equal and opposite re-action' theory... If you get rid of guns.... does that mean that the drug problem gets worse since there would be .... I would assume....more drug dealers alive?

It is a sociological issue in my opinion....

Here is another question: Is the gun Gabby Giffords got shot with going to be banned? What about RFK, JFK, MLK, President Reagan, John Lennon (this is a music forum)? The gun squeaky fromme tried to use on President Ford? Any of these guns getting banned? I don't think? Point being, people will find a way if they are crazy enough. Which brings us back to the 1 common thread ... 'crazy'....

I am not really a big 'gun guy'.... but, again here we are talking about the reaction... not the cause.

timm said:

I have a hunch that most of our murders in this country are related to drugs... or a good chunk of them anyway... So, if you believe in the 'every action has an equal and opposite re-action' theory... If you get rid of guns.... does that mean that the drug problem gets worse since there would be .... I would assume....more drug dealers alive?

Click to expand...

No. There is that whole supply and demand thing going on there.

timm,

That is a good point. I am more alarmed that so many politicians are using tragedies to forward their own agendas. This is the way I view it. I understand that some people on this forum disagree with me on that. However, I would ask why the push for stricter gun control now? Why wasn't this a big issue when the election was going on? If it is such a large problem in America then why are we only so focused on it right after a tragedy?

I believe it is to take advantage of people's emotions. I also feel that there is something inherently wrong in trying to take advantage of someone's fear. I also understand that the NRA does the same thing in many regards. I am not a member of the NRA and there are many positions that they take that I do not agree with. I do however strongly support the intent of the 2nd amendment. I believe that the right to bear arms is in place to arm citizens in case of government tyranny. Now please do not misunderstand me; I do not believe this is going to take place any time soon. It may not even be during my lifetime or my children's lifetime. If you look back in history there have been many democratic governments that have spiraled out of control into a tyrannical government. It has happened in Germany, Italy, Japan, etc.

The 2nd amendment is in place to combat that possibility. Please do not argue with me about the likelihood of that happening. That is all moot. If there is any chance at all of the government of the United States becoming a tyrannical government at any time in the future, then the 2nd amendment should remain in place and the American people should never give up their right to bear arms.

runnin17 said:

I guess a question for members here would be: Would you support a representative, senator or president that proposed banning all guns and doing away with the 2nd amendment?

Click to expand...

NEVER..............

EDIT: Also, I wanted to see what people thoughts are on Governor Cuomo's legislation in New York state. I am curious to see if the majority of people understand the implications of the restrictions put in place in New York.

Click to expand...

if you read my post on the last page (#195) you would have somewhat of an understanding of politicians and their general knowledge of 'guns'.......case in point ....Cuomo / NY State. The Gov was quoted last week stating that you don't 'hunt' with an AR-15 and you don't need 'ten bullets to kill a deer'. What I guess he didn't realize is that in his OWN state, hunting (varmint) is legal with a AR-15, deer hunting it is not and I agree....you don't need ten rounds to kill a deer !

runnin,

To answer the question in your first paragraph, it's because politics is, by nature (and even more so today) reactionary versus pro-active.

I'd also like to suggest another way to look at the current, suggested, gun control laws. It worked with tobacco, clean air standards, car fuel efficiency, car safety, etc.

Look at seeing societal rewards / benefits from a long term perspective, say twenty, thirty, forty years from now. I fully agree that these suggested controls will have no short term impact. I fully believe, if reasonably crafted, implemented and enforced, they will create a safer environment without significantly compromising 2nd Amendment rights, decades from now.

GG

PS: Given our society today and in the future, the chances of the 2nd Amendment being repealed is less than zero.

Gordon,

You have a level head about the subject. I would definitely like to hear some "reasonably crafted" ideas from politicians. I fear that that won't come to pass anytime soon. No matter how many different proposals or ideas that I keep reading about gun control or focusing on gun control alone, I cannot deny that in the back of my mind many of the problems could be solved by looking at the argument from the standpoint of dis-regulation and with a focus on education.

So much of the gun control debate is steeped in fear and a general misunderstanding of guns in general.

I was musing about the subject today and realized that the president is, as was stated many times earlier in this thread, a target that is constantly surrounded by protection and by guns. Now try to picture if guns were more of a part of everyday life in this country. I am not saying that they are used more often, but if more people carried handguns around and in general seeing someone wearing a pistol on there hip was not a rare occurrence. Would the overall crime rate go down? Is it possible that the presence of more guns in society would be a large deterrent to violence in this country?

I do not know the answer, but it is something that I have thought about. Granted that thought does come with me pausing to realize that in that situation the vast majority of people would have to have a proper education and respect for guns in general. Which, in my opinion, is not the case in today's society.

EDIT: I knew I had read this quote somewhere and I found it. Please feel free to comment on it. I am not inferring anything, simply pointing out that the current administration has used the words, "To protect our children..." many times in the gun control debate.

“The state must declare the child to be the most precious of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.” – Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler

I also understand that the abuse of ideal of "we must do this to protect our children" is used by all politicians. I would argue that if the purpose of the politician is the "curtailment of liberty" that they are inherently wrong in their reasoning and justification of their actions.

FWIW, Just wondering what the specific -- NOT general BS -- objections there are to the President's proposals.

Here they are:

1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.

2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.

3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.

4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.

5. Propose rule making to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.

6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.

8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).

9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.

10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.

11. Nominate an ATF director.

12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.

13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.

14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.

15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.

16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.

18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.

19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.

20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.

21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.

22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.

23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.

For my part, I don't see anything anywhere in the above list where anyone is striving to take away anyone's guns. Hopefully, this will trigger a grown-up discussion among Congressional members that will lead (finally) to some sanity in our laws that will reduce these terrible acts of mass violence in our Country.

Len,

I assume that's a summary of the 23 executive orders signed by the President.

Gordon

runnin17 said:

Len,

You are becoming increasingly hostile. You are obviously very emotional about this issue. Also, where was I attempting to limit your freedom of speech exactly??? I merely asked nicely that we be civil and stay on topic. If you would like to deny that you are not willing to stay on topic, then please feel free to prove me wrong and let us stay on topic in this thread.

Click to expand...

First, it seems to me (and probably most here) here, that you are the one who is having a difficult time with their emotions. Just re-read your posts if you have any doubts.

Second, I am absolutely staying on topic. Just because someone posts something you personally do not like, does not mean that the post is off topic. Further, with your statement, "If you would like to deny that you are not willing to stay on topic..." it appears you confused yourself by using a double negative. I think you may have meant to state your concern in a more articulate manner...

runnin17 said:

If you would like to get all worked up by bringing your uncontrolled emotions into this debate then that is your right. I won't try to limit that, but I will also not be limited in pointing out that you are being overly hostile and emotional in your arguments. If others disagree or even if you disagree, I understand, that is the nature of debates after all.

Click to expand...

Again, you might want to try looking in the mirror. It seems in this instance it may be like "the pot calling the kettle black."

runnin17 said:

I am not trying to sway anyone at all over to my side. In fact, I would like to understand the mindset of people dead set on very strict gun control. I just don't understand it.

Click to expand...

I agree -- I don't think you understand it either.

That being said, I don't see where there are very many folks here -- on in the Country -- that are "dead set on very strict gun control." Certainly not President Obama -- despite your (and Fox News) suspicions to the contrary.

runnin17 said:

Also Len, to address the issue that at least Obama is doing something about it, you are absolutely correct. Please name off the 23 executive orders and explain to me how the government will enforce them or how they will make any appreciable difference in reducing gun violence.

Click to expand...

Well, first of all, President Obama did not sign "23 executive orders." Don't feel too bad, there were a number of reporters (who should have known better) who, in their evident paranoia and eagerness to criticize President Obama went off half-cocked with the notion that the President was "signing executive orders." For a hilarious review of this please see:

http://www.slate.com/authors.david_weigel.html

then select "Seven reporters who falsely claimed..."

runnin17 said:

I do not believe the president is making the correct decisions regarding gun violence in America. You bring up the republicans and the NRA, but where have I said that I agree with any proposals that either one of those entities have made? I admit that there should be a serious debate about gun violence and what can be done to decrease it. I do not think knee jerk reactions or what appears to be taking advantage of a terrible tragedy are the correct decisions about something as important as the 2nd amendment.

Click to expand...

Yes, runnin, we ALL know by now that you disagree with President Obama on reducing ready access to guns and hence gun violence.

Hmmm. "...knee jerk reactions", "taking advantage of a terrible tragedy", -- thanks for not "bringing your uncontrolled emotions into this debate..."

runnin17 said:

Again, I am not in anyway trying to limit your free speech. You bringing up that actually does more to hinder your credibility as a rational poster in my opinion. I will continue to try and steer the conversation back on topic because I truly believe this is an issue that is very, very important and deserves a careful, educated decision making process by our government.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your gracious agreement to not try to limit my free speech. I apologize if I misinterpreted your comments. I again respectfully disagree, however, that I went "off-topic" in any way. Certainly their is widespread agreement that this issue deserves a well thought out approach to reducing these all-too frequent instances of gun violence and mass killings.

Again a post dedicated to attacking me personally. The fact your post is riddled with sarcasm is just icing on the cake.

Len continue to state your opinions please. We will never see eye to eye on this issue.

Now that that is done, I hope others in this thread are not discouraged by Len's hostile nature. I would still like to continue to have a civilized debate.

Gordon Gray said:

Len,

I assume that's a summary of the 23 executive orders signed by the President.

Gordon

Click to expand...

Correct. I understand these were the President's proposals, as developed mainly by the Vice-President and his committee.