Bignugget

Actually what she said in a taped interview that she wanted to do was: "If I could have banned them all - 'Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns' - I would have!" How in the F is that constitutional, and how is she able to still stay in office? To me that is a blatant disrespect and attempted violation of the 2nd amendement. Alas her constituents reelected her. You are missing the point.... Individuals like you, and the senator, don't decide what is and is not constitutional in the United States. The Supreme Court decides that. SO, if a previous restriction of the 2nd amendment was heard by the Supreme Court, and NOT found to be unconstitutional, then the only precedent on the constitutionality of restricting the 2nd amendment would show that it is in fact constitutional. You might not think so, but you aren't the one deciding, so it doesn't matter. Did the last ban get heard by the SCOTUS? Matt I don't know to be honest, I was just pointing out how the person misunderstands the way the government works in the USA. Constitutionality is decided by the judicial branch. Hence the emphasis on SO, I was just following the logic through for him.

O Crap Hes a Supreme Court Justice? FML. I stand corrected in that case. He does get to decide.

I'm of the mind that COULD is really WILL. The crooks are gonna keep theirs now you add in the defenders of the 2nd and you have more illegal weapons...simply because you passed a "law". I agree the odds of more guns being turned in than kept will turn it into a WILL instead of a COULD. But its a catch 22. I thought this report was pretty well written it helped to show how complex trying to preserve life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness really is, especially true in 2013 when we are more dense, and more callous as a society than ever.

I'm of the mind that COULD is really WILL. The crooks are gonna keep theirs now you add in the defenders of the 2nd and you have more illegal weapons...simply because you passed a "law". So how come the inverse is not also true? Legalize all guns and you'll have fewer illegal ones. Eliminate speed limits and you'll have fewer speeders. Legalize drunk driving and you'll have fewer DUIs. Same logic. Well just as literally, it IS true. Legalize all guns, and by definition, there are NO illegal guns. THAT is his whole point. Just think about it. If it is impossible to own a gun illegally, how can there be illegal guns? Conversely If it is impossible to own a gun legally, how can there be legal guns? ETA: I didn't bother addressing the other examples since this is a gun related thread, but the same logic applies. If drunk driving is legal, you will have 0 DUI's. And with no speed limits, you can't have speeders.

+1, never owned a gun before, not really to interested. Went out and bought a 9mm just because I can ( right now ). Going out to the range today with my neighbor. Who knows maybe, maybe I will turn from a rather uninterested to NRA member soon May I strongly suggest some organized training? This is what I meant. So I don't know the answer to your question precisely pops. But how I see it is Fear--->Random dude buying 9mm (while he still can) I dont know who/what comes before the Fear, but thats who I would be "blaming for the high price of ammo". Prices increase as sellers see more random dudes wanting 9mm's etc.

Actually what she said in a taped interview that she wanted to do was: "If I could have banned them all - 'Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns' - I would have!" How in the F is that constitutional, and how is she able to still stay in office? To me that is a blatant disrespect and attempted violation of the 2nd amendement. Alas her constituents reelected her. You are missing the point.... Individuals like you, and the senator, don't decide what is and is not constitutional in the United States. The Supreme Court decides that. SO, if a previous restriction of the 2nd amendment was heard by the Supreme Court, and NOT found to be unconstitutional, then the only precedent on the constitutionality of restricting the 2nd amendment would show that it is in fact constitutional. You might not think so, but you aren't the one deciding, so it doesn't matter.

You mean the NRA. As far as I know the NRA hasn't drove up the cost of gun related things in the past 10 or so years. Why would they do it now? And to what end? I think the ones responsible for the price hikes and shortages are the media. Well, the fear of losing the ability to purchase guns and ammo is what is driving the price up. So whoever you blame for telling everyone to be afraid of the government taking their guns is who you should be mad at.

lol, that was funny.

You are correct. In fact I don't know anyone you know, and you don't know anyone I know. I'm glad you have confidence in his judgement and believe him passing guns out to people is ok. I am with Wendy.

That's not what he suggested at all. He seemed moderate on gun control. He just pointed out by definition people become criminals and their guns turn from legal to illegal if they refuse to comply with a ban, which COULD lead to more "illegal" guns than you had before. Its TRUE, but its not a reason to give up....as he goes on to say and I also quoted.

"(6) Does all this mean that the state should abandon any efforts on gun control at all and leave things go their own way? Certainly not. It would be irresponsible to deny the benefits of minimising the access of risk populations to guns on the one hand, and to ensure and improve responsible gun ownership on the other hand. In that very basic meaning gun control makes sense and is necessary." Agreed. He did pretty well looking at it from both sides. He does split hairs a bit, though it he is right it's a very real problem that if you make owning guns illegal you turn all previous legal guns into illegal guns, and so in effect make your problem worse....its a catch 22 but we still come to the same conclusion in the end. "It would be irresponsible to deny the benefits of minimising the access of risk populations to guns on the one hand, and to ensure and improve responsible gun ownership on the other hand."

I just found him today. Hes great. I love youtube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-o5scD_nYIo&list=UUx7jt4I-KPT6guTWwLxn50w Ironically I found him while watching a video on how to remove a power steering pump from a 2003 Ford Taurus. The dude making that video was a fan.

Before or after a background and mental health check? lol...if I'm giving you a firearm worth hundreds of dollars, I don't need to do a check. I know you. You see 0 problem with that approach I am sure. Which is of course the major problem. Of course people give guns illegally to friends and family all the time. One of the many ways illegally possessed firearms come about. And a perfect example of why having so many easily available for you to buy to give away illegally is such a bad idea.

Before or after a background and mental health check?

I think yoink said it best.

Gotcha. So stop getting distracted with the massive homicide rate in the USA, and focus on preventing teen suicide which is a real problem.

Oh, I missed that. I thought the distinction was: Taking your own life, doesn't take someone else's life and Taking someone else's life, does take someone else's life. So in my mind killing yourself is fine by me, killing me is not.

Well "I" don't. It was a broader discussion implying that a law restricting access in ways described had been legally passed through the legislature and signed into law by a president..... Sorry if that wasn't clear in that post.

I think you missed the point. That gun can also be used, quite effectively, to kill people....including small children. Add that to your list. Any gun can be used quite effectively to kill a grown adult, the AR-15 is no more lethal than Remington 750 rifle chambered in .223. What is the difference in the two? One is made of synthetic materials and looks cool. The problem isn't the gun, it's the person behind the gun. I have absolutely no problem with making it more difficult for ALL guns to get into the hands of the wrong person. Maybe it cant stop the full grown deer....but it has no problem destroying a 7 year old kid. That's what im talkin about! Step 1 Reduce levels from highest in world, to second highest in world. Achieve this by stopping all manufacturing of firearms in the USA. Then offer a buyback of public firearms at some determined market value. Stiffen penalties for unlicensed firearms, and strip away all existing licenses. Those who wish to be legal can reapply and hope to get their guns licensed, those who want to become felons can roll the dice. As guns come into the LEO system, they are removed. We are on our way after that Im pretty sure. Id bet money we get down to 2nd highest in the world. Diane, is that you? Matt If that was a joke I missed it, but....I am a man, and I am not named Diane although that would have made growing up more interesting. ETA: I think I got it now! i had to sip my beer a bit more but the senator who wants to ban the guns is named Diane right? That idea wont work unfortunately. You cant just ban a small slice of the pie. Gotta ban the whole pie.

While we are talking about american violence, let's open up the discussion beyond street violence. Do you care to comment on the amount of violence commited by the american government in relation to other nations? sure. We shouldn't be policing anyone but ourselves. when Bignugget is president our foreign policy has the same military profile that Brazil and Iceland have. That helps pay for when I put all the people out of business who are making guns in the USA.

Considering that far, far more kids die from prescription drugs (pain pills mostly) than from guns, should they find out which students have easy(ier) acces to those? You're absolutely right. I regularly see stories of kids coming into school and wiping out a handful of their classmates with their parents Oxycodone... It happens more often than you might think. Prescription drug deaths are way, way up. Especially among kids. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121016092848.htm What about prescription drug murders?

And therein lies the rub. You've got on individual who violently killed 26 people. In response, the government tells 10's of millions if not 100+ million americans, "ok. Here's the game plan and if you don't comply your a felon and we'll throw you in prison (another form of violence)...but you should be on-board because maybe...possibly..it could..save one child." As proposed I don't see justice being done. It's not just guns. Everyday new laws are being passed which make otherwise law abiding citizens suspects and criminals. Guns I think are just the line in the sand for many. I'm glad this proposed legislation is not going to pass...we need less violence, not more and this proposed legislation is a great way to get more violence. I think it's fair to revisit the issue in the future. However, for the government to have any credibility it's going to get the rafter out of it's eye before trying to remove the straw from the peoples.... no. you have a country with more guns than any other, and firearm murder rates competing with third world africa. and... you should be on board because otherwise you risk losing your family, job, home, and life when you go to prison. Laws infringe on individual liberty for the good of the whole, thats life. I want a pit bull, why can't i have one!!!! shit is unjust as hell.

Lol well yea dude, you become a criminal....i.e...don't turn in guns once they are banned Thats how you do it. Then you can be like them. Its not that tricky.

I consider it discussing, not arguing. I think people that are "pro-gun" misconstrue what people who are "anti-gun" are against. Or they mistakenly think we honestly believe guns are capable of moving around and killing people. Of course the problem is the PEOPLE with the guns. We just have no way to stop manufacturing stupid people. We can stop manufacturing guns. Pitbulls arent going around killing people and attacking old ladies ...or fighting each other to the death....because thats what they do.....PEOPLE acting irresponsibly leads to that type of thing.... We cant stop pitbulls from existing, we can restrict the ability for people to possess them. I UNDERSTAND you dont want to lose something you have, the ability to have a personal collection of guns to use responsibly. I would like to have a pit bull so I understand your desire to do what you want.... I also understand society has decided the only way to deal with the irresponsible ones among us is to take away the ability to BE irresponsible by restricting access to whatever it is people are being stupid with. We agree on making guns harder to get, not quite on the degree but much closer than most "pro-gun" people I have discussed the issue with. I really would be sympathetic to my dad losing his rifles because he has no real need for them (and would never be out murdering kids) but if that helped save a class of kids some day, i can live with that.