American Politics the 2016 edition

Quite - we banned semi-automatics after the Hungerford massacre and following the Dunblane massacre all handguns except some sporting pistols, muzzle-loaders and "historic handguns" (which is why I suspect the "old fashioned looking" comment is significant). The murder of 16 innocent school children was one mass shooting too far for us so how you guys can do nothing after the horror of Sandy Hook leaves me speechless.

Atavachron wrote: One wonders how the Founders might've changed the Second Amendment had they had a crystal ball.

Or maybe they get a broken crystal ball which gave them the vision of an Independance War lasting 50 or 75 years and Indian Wars ending around the 22th century.

Atavachron wrote: One wonders how the Founders might've changed the Second Amendment had they had a crystal ball.

One wonders how people in the 21st Century still hold something wrote over 200 years ago for a completely different world as sacrosanct and impossible to change. 

Edited by The T - June 17 2016 at 08:34

emigre80 wrote: Dean wrote: Quite - we banned semi-automatics after the Hungerford massacre and following the Dunblane massacre all handguns except some sporting pistols, muzzle-loaders and "historic handguns" (which is why I suspect the "old fashioned looking" comment is significant). The murder of 16 innocent school children was one mass shooting too far for us so how you guys can do nothing after the horror of Sandy Hook leaves me speechless.   it leaves many of us speechless as well, and all the more frustrated for being unable to channel our horror into actual action in this damned gun-loving country.   How can you love a gun?  it's a piece of metal designed to kill someone or something.  How can anyone even bear to have one in their house?  what's wrong with people?

This is another one of those political issues that I am torn on.  Personally, I agree 100% with Terry's comment...however, just because I do not like guns shouldn't mean that those who do like guns should be prevented from owning them. 

"If you outlaw guns then only outlaws will have guns".  I believe that this is an NRA slogan and an argument that gun owners make all of the time and honestly, this is a true statement.  The bad elements in our society will always find ways to get weapons through other illegal means. 

The vast majority of guns owners or at the very least, NRA gun owners, are responsible gun owners who collect them, use them for sport or to hunt, and who feel that they and their families are safer by owning guns in order to protect them from these outlaws.  It isn't right that these people should be "punished" because of the bad apples and irresponsible gun owners.  This would be like saying that we should ban all cars because there are bad drivers that go out and kill people.  I believe that the systems that we have in place that require purchasers of guns to be vetted and that the waiting period to purchase a gun are essentially the best that we can do and should do within our system.  I do not feel that we should not impede upon others rights to be responsible gun owners.  I think that maybe like with the aforementioned cars, I would like to see that a mandatory training and licensing system be placed into use.  i.e. you would not be allowed to purchase a gun until you have completed mandatory training and passed the gun users test or something similar to this.

I am less warm and fuzzy about this when it comes to machine guns and other military use type weapons being sold to civilians but still feel that it should be an individual right as to whether or not someone wants to own one of these.  I guess that I would say additional training and background checks would be required to move up to this level of gun ownership. 

 The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves." Thomas Paine. 

I am less warm and fuzzy about this when it comes to machine guns and other military use type weapons being sold to civilians but still feel that it should be an individual right as to whether or not someone wants to own one of these.  I guess that I would say additional training and background checks would be required to move up to this level of gun ownership. 
[/QUOTE]

^  After thinking about it I deleted my response to your ridiculous statement.

^I don't think the 'no fly, no buy' policy is the MAIN thing, however I don't see it as something so idiotic. Administratively, logistically difficult, yes. But other than that, what do you see so inherently stupid with it? 

*frinspar* wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: The T wrote: Atavachron wrote: One wonders how the Founders might've changed the Second Amendment had they had a crystal ball.    One wonders how people in the 21st Century still hold something wrote over 200 years ago for a completely different world as sacrosanct and impossible to change.  It's not so mysterious. Half of households in the country have a gun. Half of the people in the country don't want gun laws changed. Legal systems aren't sacrosanct, but they still have to be followed. That's not exactly true.  I own 2 handguns, and I very much want to see gun laws changed drastically in America.

twseel wrote: I don't really agree with that NRA slogan... When exactly will you(regular civillian) need your gun against those outlaws? When they break into your house? A bread knife would be just as effective in a place with corners to hide behind every few meters. In public? As far as I'm aware it's not common or normal to carry guns around there and I wonder how often it has actually prevented shootings and stuff. Also, as said earlier, you can't compare them with much since they are purely designed to hurt and kill, and someone who collects things like that doesn't come across to me as a well-meaning family man. Also, some sports shouldn't be played at home and I don't condone hunting.

That is a problem I have as well. How often would the average person be in a situation where they are able to stop someone from committing some crime or defend themselves with a gun without being equally as likely as the perpetrator to injure an innocent bystander? The average citizen wouldn't keep in practice to make it relatively safe.
Also, if we decide to rely on people carrying to defend themselves against gun crimes, wouldn't that then cause the average person who commits crimes to be more likely to use a gun to defend themselves? It would make sense to me to be heavier with the trigger finger if I know people are likely to be packing. In theory I would be pro-gun, but in practice I find it a pretty complex issue.