Con_Alma;1342848 wrote:Qualms....? No, I would not have an "uneasy" feeling about it.

If it were not a right which should not be infringed upon and guns were illegal I would be following the law and expect everyone else to also.
The point of my contribution in this thread was a response to your desire to have "pro-gun" folk acknowledge something about why their position is what it is.

Mine is not inspired by freedom or protection. We as a nation have adopted this right as one which shall not be infringed upon.

In a normative sense do you think it would be right or wrong to amend the constitution so that it would not include the right to bear arms?

tk421;1342833 wrote:you keep saying this as though it has any bearing on this country. Other "industrialized" countries do not have the culture and the constitution that we have. It is written into our very constitution that we have a right to keep and bare arms. The courts have echoed the right for American citizens to carry and conceal guns. The fact that japan or britain or any other country bans guns has no impact whatsoever on this country.

Since you think it would work, because obviously what works for one country always works for another, tell me how exactly you would implement it? Congress is not ever going to pass a law banning guns on a national level. You aren't going to get an amendment passed. The courts have already sided with the citizens rights. So, unless President Obama declares himself dictator and unilaterally bans guns himself, it isn't going to happen. And if that were ever to happen, it wouldn't happen quietly.

You're switching the argument to a pragmatic one and therefore you make a lot of assumptions about the way the world is that are not set in stone. Hearts and minds can change. In 2004 most people in this country were against gay marriage and the legalization of Marijuana and that has been reversed in less than a decade.

BoatShoes;1342877 wrote:I have argued that state by state gun regulation is ineffective in a federal system....

countries with national level gun control have had success.

And countries like Switzerland that has the highest private citizen gun ownership rates, have the lowest levels of violent crime.

So what?

tk421;1342839 wrote:banning guns wouldn't have stopped the tragedy, the perpetrators were clearly in the state of mind where they were going to commit an atrocious act. You don't just wake up and decide to murder people, children included. If it wasn't a gun, it would have been a homemade bomb or something else. Just because a clearly disturbed individual uses a gun in a crime is not reason enough to ban them for the rest of us.

More people were killed in this one tragedy today than in all of Japan in its worst year for homicides. That is a culture that stormed the beaches of China and raped and murdered 300,000 Chinese people in a single massacre. It's not like every man with desire in his heart to commit crimes is MacGuyver. Guns and body armor are readily and easily available in this country and it is hard to see what tangible benefit they provide to society beyond the idea that they might have been a reasonable precaution against tyranny back in 1789.

are you not going to answer my question about how the national gun ban would work, BS? Again with the amendment, you aren't going to get one passed by the states. Congress will not pass a gun ban, they know what would happen the next election cycle. So, how would it work? The President himself banning guns, you think the American public would go for that?

jmog;1342894 wrote:And countries like Switzerland that has the highest private citizen gun ownership rates, have the lowest levels of violent crime.

So what?

That has already been covered in this thread. The Swiss have private gun ownership in place of traditional armed forces not because it is the right of each individual citizen endowed by our creator or for protection against tyranny. Do you even look into this before you post this stuff? The vast majority of men between 20 and 30 are conscripted to serve as militiamen because they have militias instead of an army and the guns are kept at home for their milita obligations. As a consequence, the use and ownership of private small arms is highly regulated at the national level way above and beyond national gun regulation in the United States.

BoatShoes;1342888 wrote:You're switching the argument to a pragmatic one and therefore you make a lot of assumptions about the way the world is that are not set in stone. Hearts and minds can change. In 2004 most people in this country were against gay marriage and the legalization of Marijuana and that has been reversed in less than a decade.

you are equating the usage of marijuana to the constitutionally protected right of owning firearms? lol

are you aware of how many states have modified their own constitutions to protect the rights of their citizens to keep and carry firearms? You really think an amendment has any hope in hell of even getting close to the required amount of states to agree? You are truly living in a fantasy land. I noticed you didn't even try to argue the point, just that minds can change. Are you aware that after the crime bill was passed in 94, the dems immediately lost Congress the next election? You think the republican held house would pass a gun ban? You think the democrats from traditional gun states would vote for it, knowing what would happen? I don't think so.

jmog;1342894 wrote:So what?

It makes a difference because if Chicago highly regulates guns but the United States does not and Indiana does not it is patently obvious that you can go over to Gary, Indiana to get a gun.

I'm done trying to argue with BS, it's like talking to a 2 year old. Going on and on about other countries smaller than Ohio, and saying how marijuana and gay marriage have become more accepted as a reason for a future gun ban. No sense of reality at all. Just like most other liberals.

tk421;1342907 wrote:you are equating the usage of marijuana to the constitutionally protected right of owning firearms? lol

are you aware of how many states have modified their own constitutions to protect the rights of their citizens to keep and carry firearms? You really think an amendment has any hope in hell of even getting close to the required amount of states to agree? You are truly living in a fantasy land. I noticed you didn't even try to argue the point, just that minds can change. Are you aware that after the crime bill was passed in 94, the dems immediately lost Congress the next election? You think the republican held house would pass a gun ban? You think the democrats from traditional gun states would vote for it, knowing what would happen? I don't think so.

I didn't equate the two...I simply was making a point about how attitudes change toward different things. Not sure if you can believe it...but our country was founded with the institution of slavery and some states even rebelled to protect it and the economy it supported but we eventually got around to passing an amendement to change that.

We've had some pretty incredible tragedies involving guns lately. Republicans only held onto one house of Congress because of gerrymandering and as of today the future doesn't look good for them. It'd probably be best to start figuring out if all of these guns provide any tangible benefit as opposed to just relying on the fact that it was put in our constitution in 1789 for a good reason and believing that it will always be that way...

BoatShoes;1342896 wrote:More people were killed in this one tragedy today than in all of Japan in its worst year for homicides. That is a culture that stormed the beaches of China and raped and murdered 300,000 Chinese people in a single massacre. It's not like every man with desire in his heart to commit crimes is MacGuyver. Guns and body armor are readily and easily available in this country and it is hard to see what tangible benefit they provide to society beyond the idea that they might have been a reasonable precaution against tyranny back in 1789.

Most of us don't want to live in a country like Japan.

WebFire;1342972 wrote:Most of us don't want to live in a country like Japan.

Absolutely.

I find it interesting that my friends on facebook attacking guns (instead of the deranged individual) are Obama supporters. The same Obama ordering drone strikes overseas killing innocent civilians left and right.

This gem was my favorite:

Guns don't kill people. What they do is slaughter masses.

BoatShoes;1342928 wrote:I didn't equate the two...I simply was making a point about how attitudes change toward different things. Not sure if you can believe it...but our country was founded with the institution of slavery and some states even rebelled to protect it and the economy it supported but we eventually got around to passing an amendement to change that.

At the price of over 600,000 lives.

BoatShoes;1342928 wrote:We've had some pretty incredible tragedies involving guns lately. Republicans only held onto one house of Congress because of gerrymandering and as of today the future doesn't look good for them. It'd probably be best to start figuring out if all of these guns provide any tangible benefit as opposed to just relying on the fact that it was put in our constitution in 1789 for a good reason and believing that it will always be that way...

You are right there have been some tragedies. But to have national laws severely restricting the personal use of firearms would take a great intrusion by the federal government on large numbers of its 300 million citizens. Are we going to start stuffing federal prisons with these people? For having a Glock in their bed stand drawer? And when the feds conduct a raid they will look they are about to conduct a raid on a Taliban held village. You can imagine the high cost in dollars enforcement of this scale you are implying would bring. Not to mention blood. There millions of well armed people an large numbers of them will not be parting with their firearms. The levels of violence it would produce in this country would make prohibition levels or drug violence look like a walk in the park. Quite frankly in would likely inaugurate civil war.

As mentioned an amendment would be needed. Which is not going to happen. But then again the feds are pretty good at finding ways around the constitution so who knows.

WebFire;1342972 wrote:Most of us don't want to live in a country like Japan.

Well what makes you think that?

It may be true (which I'm not sure if people, when you really broke it down, would be happier with less gun deaths but more security) but even if it is...

That's fine. What did I say earlier in the thread? People should just own it. We have multiple senseless mass shootings in our country but that is the cost of being free. We'd rather have the chance that our kids could get murdered at school if it means preserving the ability of self-determination when it comes to owning firearms.

majorspark;1342994 wrote:At the price of over 600,000 lives.



You are right there have been some tragedies. But to have national laws severely restricting the personal use of firearms would take a great intrusion by the federal government on large numbers of its 300 million citizens. Are we going to start stuffing federal prisons with these people? For having a Glock in their bed stand drawer? And when the feds conduct a raid they will look they are about to conduct a raid on a Taliban held village. You can imagine the high cost in dollars enforcement of this scale you are implying would bring. Not to mention blood. There millions of well armed people an large numbers of them will not be parting with their firearms. The levels of violence it would produce in this country would make prohibition levels or drug violence look like a walk in the park. Quite frankly in would likely inaugurate civil war.

As mentioned an amendment would be needed. Which is not going to happen. But then again the feds are pretty good at finding ways around the constitution so who knows.

These are all good points. The United States really is a unique case because the horse left the barn a long time ago.

It's funny, I was thinking about it today...how would you deal with all those guns already out there?

I've figured it out.

The ultimate liberal spooge fest...a Federal Reserve initated firearm by back program.

Instead of "printing money" by buying up treasury securities, the fed could offer various amounts of money to purchase back firearms. It would be a massive monetary stimulus and also decrease the amount of guns out there.

BoatShoes;1343009 wrote:These are all good points. The United States really is a unique case because the horse left the barn a long time ago.

It's funny, I was thinking about it today...how would you deal with all those guns already out there?

I've figured it out.

The ultimate liberal spooge fest...a Federal Reserve initated firearm by back program.

Instead of "printing money" by buying up treasury securities, the fed could offer various amounts of money to purchase back firearms. It would be a massive monetary stimulus and also decrease the amount of guns out there.

It would decrease the amount of junk guns that havent been fired in 50 years. People scam that system all the time.

LJ;1343010 wrote:It would decrease the amount of junk guns that havent been fired in 50 years. People scam that system all the time.

I was joking but I dunno...the FED being able to create money at will could offer some tempting prices for non-junk guns...

BoatShoes;1343023 wrote:I was joking but I dunno...the FED being able to create money at will could offer some tempting prices for non-junk guns...

Time to start robbing people and stealing their guns.

Guns don't kill people, bullets do.

So there you go, solution is obvious.

gut;1343149 wrote:Guns don't kill people, bullets do.

So there you go, solution is obvious.

With Obama in office, a consumption tax on bullets will surely yield enough revenue to close the deficit

BoatShoes;1342883 wrote:In a normative sense do you think it would be right or wrong to amend the constitution so that it would not include the right to bear arms?

It's not a right or wrong issue. I would support that which is law. It's the people's choice through representation. The collective determine's that which we are trying to be through the legislative process.

What's "right" is what we choose for it to be.

To make things as clear as possible, I personally would permit the ownership of guns if I had such an ability.

BoatShoes;1342912 wrote:It makes a difference because if Chicago highly regulates guns but the United States does not and Indiana does not it is patently obvious that you can go over to Gary, Indiana to get a gun.

How is that an issue? Each State should have the ability to determine the type of commerce they deem acceptable.

ccrunner609;1343274 wrote:guns dont kill people, people kill people

but guns make it so much easier to do it.

majorspark;1342994 wrote:Are we going to start stuffing federal prisons with these people? For having a Glock in their bed stand drawer?

There are thousands of people sitting in cages right now because they were in possession of a plant, I don't see why locking people up for having a weapon designed to kill would all of a sudden be an unprecedented step.

James Gatz;1343486 wrote:There are thousands of people sitting in cages right now because they were in possession of a plant, I don't see why locking people up for having a weapon designed to kill would all of a sudden be an unprecedented step.

It's not unprecedented. It's also not desired ...yet.