Change Brady to a charity, or give it away for free.

[Moderator]

Hmmm… So because I only favor one of the "trio of reasonable measures to curb gun violence" proposed by King, I am part of the problem, not the solution? Sounds more like a verdict than rational discussion.

As long as those guns and ammunition are still available for anyone who makes it past or around the other measures, then we still have a problem.

[GNTLGNT]

And that is the way you want to 'rule the world'?? With the power of the majority?

I hate to burst your bubble, but we are not a true democracy. We are a Constitutional republic for the very reason you are describing. ie, the power of the large to roll over the small. It is the reason we have so many checks and balances in our government. And why we have a Bill of Rights, and why Amending those rights are not simply due to a majority in congress...but an overwhelming majority of the states.

However, I would argue that 80 million gun owners is not exactly 'small'

Now maybe you are simply stating it in regards to here...at this forum. And that is quite alright. I did not exactly think I would be welcomed with open arms. But I am a vocal person. I speak my mind. So I made the decision to come here and state my viewpoint.

...no, to be quite honest...if I were Ruler of the World, people would smelt pelt at 50 paces to decide thir differences...and you are entitled to share your opinion, but not besmirch another member...

[Todash]

Yes. There are limitations. And we already have them. And they should all fall into the exact quote you use at the end. The old, "Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose"

Am I asking for the right to shoot anyone anywhere? Of course not. We have laws against murder.

My right to OWN an item however and use it lawfully to defend myself does not effect 'your nose' at all, unless you are the one coming at me to hurt me and I am using a firearm to defend myself. And in that case, you are the one swinging a fist, and I am defending myself.

So laws against murder are a sufficient protection against being murdered? Because we have laws against home invasion, burglary, rape, assault, and so on too. By your logic, those laws should be sufficient to protect us all, and therefore you don't need a gun. See how silly that sounds?

Laws against murder do nothing to prevent murder. They only punish the offenders. Sadly, the victim is an eternal one.

Regardless, I am not talking only about the right to not be killed. I'm talking about the INALIENABLE rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Because our country is so much more dangerous than other comparable countries, and because guns make it so as evidenced by available data, my right to a reasonable level of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is arguably unnecessarily infringed upon by this country's very poorly controlled access to guns.

Every resident of the United States has the right to have a reasonable expectation that they are not living in the most homicidal affluent country in the world. That right is currently being infringed upon.

[jay1799]

Because exzel and jay1799, I do not believe that anyone except the military should have ever had those types of weapons. I do not believe in the slightest that taking away those weapons is against your civil rights as you are still allowed to have guns to defend yourself. I further believe that the proliferation of these weapons and the easy access to obtaining them is a major contributing factor and a self-fulfilling prophecy for the fear-based thinking and paranoia that has also become prevalent in our society. By owning and promoting ownership of these types of weapons you, just as much as criminals, are creating a situation that is endangering the general population by escalating the alleged "need" for them. You are not the solution, you are a part of the problem and by refusing to accept that until something is done to reduce the amount and types of weapons and ammunition that can so easily massacre large numbers of innocent victims and by continuing to make them accessible to the general public, you are indeed violating my civil rights and the general welfare of the country to expect a safe and secure environment in which to live. In spite of my personal convictions against guns, I would support your right to own certain ones but not the ones being discussed for future bans as I see it as a slippery slope to escalating to even more dangerous ones.

And I see your way of thinking as a slippery slope for the removal of all private firearm ownership. Now, of course, that maybe just what you want.

But then, as is often is said, the only people that will have guns, will be the bad guys. Defensive uses of firearms are estimated to be around 600,000-1 million per year. Some say it is higher, some say it is lower. But this is a median number. Disarmament will lead to 1 million more victims of crime(homicide and other crime) every year. A policy of disarmament victimizes Americans far more than them owning semi automatic rifles.

Take a look at Chicago for a good example of how disarmament of the civilian population goes. It has gotten so bad, that the police force is no longer even responding in person to 'minor' crimes....per policy.

They are living in basically a lawless society, and the people have basically no way to defend themselves because of out of control 'gun controls'

As far as civilians never have been being allowed to own them....what guns are you referring to? A civilian AR15 or a military M16? There is a pretty big difference.

An AR15 is nothing more than a magazine fed semi automatic rifle. There are literally hundreds of models of this type of firearm. Literally with tens of millions in civilians hands. And considering their very infrequent use in crime or homicide(as stated, a blunt instrument kills more people per year than a magazine fed semi automatic rifle), then statistically...magazine fed semi automatic firearms are one of the safest instruments to defend oneself with available today. Heck, more people die every year from hands and feet than by a semi automatic rifle...or ANY rifle for that matter. Should we cut off peoples hands and feet as well? /rollseyes

Notes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012...t-want-to-see/
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...095565762.html

[Moderator]

What conveniently gets ignored when opponents of gun control cite the statistics about Chicago and other areas with stricter gun controls is the fact that although they have strict gun laws, surrounding areas do not and they can be legally purchased elsewhere and then brought into Chicago, etc. Which confirms my argument that as long as they are legally available anywhere, proponents of unrestricted gun rights are part of the problem by not doing more to prevent access to them.

[~Ally~]

And I see your way of thinking as a slippery slope for the removal of all private firearm ownership. Now, of course, that maybe just what you want.

Stop trying to put words in other peoples mouths! If that is what she wanted then she would bloody well come out and say so. She has been more than clear/concise in stating her opinion so where your above suggestion came from I have no idea, but it's not appreciated. One question, since I really can't be bothered to go back through the thread and check...have you read SK's essay?

[jay1799]

It's all perspective, isn't it? I see the Brady Campaign and other like organizations as defending my views. I see Wayne LaPierre as the voice of the NRA POV diminishing my opportunities for a safe environment in which to live. In spite of the vast amount of research that supports gun control as being the biggest factor in reducing gun violence, those who oppose any limits do not see it and you could make the same claim with your research to support your view. I'm inclined to go along with the President's recent quote, "We don't have to agree on everything to agree it's time to do something."

BOTH are simply adding to the political discourse on this issue. Both are political lobbying organizations.

Whether you agree with one sides views or not, both are the exact same thing, and neither are 'unbiased'.

As far as 'gun control' being the biggest factor in reducing gun violence....please cite these statistics.

Gun violence is no different than any violence. The causes of violence are socioeconomic factors. The tool that someone used to commit a violent act is not the cause of the violent act. Until those wanting 'gun control' realize this, they will always be 'gun grabbers' and not 'violence solvers'

If you want to lower violence....any violence, you need to actually deal with the underlying issues that actually cause violence,

ie,
Gang Activity
The Drug War
Lack of Education
Lack of job opportunities
Crime
Lack of stable family units
Lack of mental health treatments

Work on those problems if you want to actually 'lower violence' in this country. I know that is harder. And it is why it is easier for a politican to stand in front of a poster board full of guns and say 'she is tough on violence and crime' because she wants to outlaw a bunch of firearms. But she is actually contributing to the problem of crime, thus increasing violence, by disarming citizens.

[jay1799]

but not besmirch another member...

And when did I do that? Pat? Maybe you should be looking at him instead of me when you are saying someone is 'besmirching another membet'

Or do I not count as a member in your eyes, because I am new?

[exzel]

And what often gets conveniently ignored in regards to the high murder rate in Chicago, is the fact that we don’t discuss that in part -- Chicago’s high murder rate could be attributed to law-abiding citizens not allowed to carry guns and defend themselves. Or that if ownership of a majority of firearms were made illegal, guns would just be smuggled into the country in much greater numbers to fill the demand of criminals -- just like drugs which are illegal?

[hossenpepper]

Now, speaking to the latest reincarnation of OPMM, GL, etc. etc., your "thread" long ago called for this, but I have been off my game as of late.

Today, I shall eat a burrito for lunch. Not just any normal burrito, but a delicious Taco Bus jumbo burrito. I tell ya folks, these things are amazing. They are truly authentic Mexican. The Bus is becoming famous here in good old Pinellas County, Florida. Now, it is normally a downtown St. Pete thing only, but I made a call and got them to come near me due to the large number of businesses and industrial parks in a concentrated area. They posted flyers around on folks' cars last week saying they are coming today, and NO ONE is more excited than me!! I tell ya what, I am tickled pink and green if ever I was.

Now this may seem off topic, but you see when the thinly veiled attempt to "debate", wrapped in the illogical and dismissive-to-reality blanket of the neocon mind, rares its fugly head in the middle of more salient thinkers, it is simply time in that thread to

BURRITOTIZE IT!!

Now I got my bone to pick with you Mod and Jordan. I asked nicely for a burrito and/or possum themed emoticon from the smiley list, but NADA!!!! Help a guy out here, OK?? But back to the nonsense tripe spewing from the "rite" ( I use that spelling to denote the faith based version of "logic" espoused in right wing views [and purported to be opinion, not some form of pseudo-religious canon] such as " I gots my rights from the (G)god(s), not some damn guv'ment" or whatever nonsense my favorite remaining, yet not new, neocon was blathering on about earlier)... have a burrito!! After all, logic dictates that if you're chewing on a big fat burrito, it is almost impossible for you to speak more silliness. Let the deliciousness of it permeate you and settle your ire. Burritos have this power...

Besides, a debate isn't what you want. It's simply to let us all know how silly WE are and show us mercy and rain pity upon us; the genesis of which lies in golden cities of lore from whence thee came. Magical bergs these, bereft of any divergence; paved only with the flagstones of the truly learned and intellectual. Such micro-cephalics as the typical SKMBer to which you refer, could never dare dream to understand the vast complexities of your advanced thoughts and ways. To the uninitiated as us, we are too simple to see the depth inherent. Rather only interpreting such pontifications as paranoia. Oh, how wrong thy words have collectively proved us to be.

As such, burritos for all. And to all, a gassy night.