After the eighth school shooting in seven weeks – some gun control proposals

If they are coming to take me by force, it's best to be a large force of armed opposition.

Northern Ca. is the only portion of Rep that has any size to it in the state. There are a few pockets here and there, but not of any substantial size. Now the state is going against the federal government in it's stance on immigration and offering govt opposition at the state level. To the portion that is still red, this is pretty close to becoming a physical confrontation. Talking about it, isn't helping. Now it will become a civil war for everyone in that state as the state and the US go to a legal war. If Ca loses this fight, the state will be in civil disobedience. Who will defend whom within the state? Since it's a fairly good possibility there won't be many guns due to it's gun control laws, it will be an easy target for any part of a state or federal govt to choose armed force to bring compliance.

What are the citizens going to resist with? Shovels and harsh insults?

Anti-'sanctuary state' movement picks up steam in Orange County

 

Hey @Balbus

How about instead of forcing people to address criticisms...

YOU acknowledge the merits of other people's arguments.

 

Hmm I don’t know. All those protesters’ signs at the march for life seem to indicate otherwise.

Baby steps sound nice. But when it comes to the government, if you give them an inch, they take a mile.

I’ve been listening, I’m just not convinced.

It seems that people such as you and Balbus are the good cops in this game of good-cop-bad-cop in the name of restricting our freedom of self defense.

 

Probably similar to any other law. Some people don't follow it. But I disagree with the typical gun owner argument that this means there is no point to the law. We would have literary no laws in America if we said "oh well bad guys will do it anyway so why bother".

Also there would be less guns for any criminal to use with stricter regulations in the first place. What NRA people dont' seem to get is he has a gun because you can have a gun. The system works both ways. The "bad guys" have to work much harder in other countries to have a gun. It's so expensive and time consuming it's unlikely to used in anything but serious crimes.

 

Lots of very small companies make guns.

The 4 largest firearms manufacturers account for only 5% of the market.

If you make pie illegal are people going to stop baking pies?

Lets also make wheat and pie tins and sugar and fruit heavily regulated then.

 

The unfortunate problem with any logic to take away guns is the fact that we don't even know who has them in the first place. There is a no registration policy in America. There is no way to take away a gun from someone if you don't know they have them in the first place. And any bought illegal are pretty impossible to figure out where to start.

 

Plus even if there is a record of you buying a firearm, its plausible that it could have been sold in a legal private sale and you no longer possess it.

 

Going old school with an AOL link. The gun owners worst fear being supported by a Supreme Court judge. Times really are chaging. For better or worse is a matter of opinion.

Former Supreme Court Justice Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment

Stevens argues that the amendment — which states “a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” — was borne out of concern that a “national standing army might pose a threat to the security” of individual states and is “a relic of the 18th century.”

 

How are times changing.. he is 97 years old and retired in 2010.

Im not "afraid" of that. To me its more like thank you for bringing your idiocy out in the open and having it fall flat on its face and serving as a wake up call for those of us who disagree.

Lets keep in mind that is all his opinion, and he was in the minority of the justices who ultimately upheld the 2nd amendment.

 

I saw that earlier.

Many gun owners believed (not myself) is that the left has always had this as the only way to be happy. My position is as always, if the laws of the land dictate I turn in my gun, I will comply. Repealing an amendment will not be easy or quick. But it is possible. This is why I have supported that both sides would do better to compromise and meet somewhere in between.

 

2008 heller vs DC is law.

That old mans opinion only serves as an example of what to point to as being completely wrong.

 

Plus "all the people's opinions who marched deserve respect and we should look at changing the law"

I mean give me a break. Pales in comparison to the number of AR owners and concealed carry permit holders. At 97 he cant think too clearly.

 

Kudos to Justice Stevens

And to your earlier point about about criminals not obeying the laws, that logic completely misses that laws are not just used as a deterrent, They're used as a basis for consequences. Also, ironic right, without the law, there are literally no criminals. It's just poor logic on their part

 

Show us how that's working in Chicago or any number of places like that.


The left complain about old men running the country. Unless of course the old men agree with them. Then its totally fine.

 

Bernie Sanders was no spring chicken. They loved him.

 

Yeah and if the ruling doesn't go their way. Then you stop resisting right?

 

I lold

 

Women have the right to participate in the gun debate, but that doesnt mean they should participate.

This is mens work.

Youre welcome for creating the modern world.

Long live the patriarchy. It would serve everyone well if women would get back in the kitchen. Most dont even know how to cook anymore.

But they know how to solve mass shootings.

 

I live in Boston actually. How often are you getting attacked? If guns prevented 350,000 crimes last year mathematically you’d be 0.1% safer with a gun. My point is the safety aspect is significantly over stated

Also, I support cops. I don’t think the coffee and doughnuts comment is fair or accurate

 

Hmmm. How do you know that’s the reason? Are rural areas with very low populations usually places where lots of attacks are happening? Does the kind of gun you have influence a would be attacker when they’re consideraing a target?

Do you have particular bad police? Your comment was pretty disparaging

 

I’ve tried to explain the whole “guns are crime deterrents” concept on here before. Nobody seemed to get it.