I want to end gun control so that everyone will see how badly we need gun control

[JVS]

So let's all get some AK-47s and have the place turn to shit so that people will wake up.

[EdwardM]

1. I have no problem with AK-47s

As long as I don't get shot by one.

[JVS]

2. I want them at the corner store and gas stations dammit!

[billbuckhead]

14. We already have a worse murder rate than Europe, Oceania and India

Maybe if we let even deadlier guns be bought easier, we can pass South Africa and Columbia. More innocent Americans are killed by guns in American than by the Iraqi insurgents or Al queda
<http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita>
<http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita>.

[EdwardM]

31. But they aren't shooting me though.

[-..__...]

35. Yeah...

but I'm sure a lot of not-so-innocent ones were killed too.

[billbuckhead]

70. But what about the innocent ones? Are they "The Price of Freedom?"

But what about the innocent ones compared to the approximately 300 justifiable homicides every year. The gun lobby is always trying to devalue the lives of the victims of guns in America.

Many of them even say America's high death toll from guns is kind of a sacrifice. This a damn good reason to dislike and not trust this crowd. Anyhom here it is from one of the founders of the "gun rights" movement.

The "Price of Freedom"

During the 1980s, NRA Executive Vice President Harlon Carter wrote a monthly column for the NRA’s magazines titled “The Price of Freedom.” According to Carter, the “price of freedom,” measured in gun death and injury, could never be high enough to justify restrictions on the NRA’s self-perceived “right” to buy and use all types of firearms. Wrote Carter, “Nowhere is it said that we may not pay a high price for these rights. It is popularly said that the right to protect one’s life, the right to keep and bear arms, costs lives. This is said without an adequate measure that more lives are saved by arms in good hands than are lost by arms in evil hands….The paramount point to be made is that our `unalienable rights’ may not be infringed by government merely because they suggest difficulties or because they are socially or politically inconvenient or even because they may at times be painful.”

Two decades and more than a half million lives later, and despite a complete lack of reliable evidence that the unfettered access to firearms holds any benefit for society, the gun lobby’s view hasn’t changed. The day in and day out toll that gun death and injury inflicts on America—children killed in drive-by shootings, angry husbands shooting their entire families, alienated youths opening fire on their classmates, disgruntled employees shooting up their former workplaces, or hate-filled individuals shooting innocent people because they belong to a particular racial or religious group—will never exceed the NRA's “price of freedom.”

<http://www.vpc.org/pof.htm>

[PirateJoe]

91. innocent people are going to die at the hands of criminals...

no matter what. it would not matter if gun control was in place or not. also, let me remind you again that it is not the gun doing the killing. it is the person behind the gun.

[PirateJoe]

37. guns don't kill

seriously. guns aren't doing the killing here. its the people that are the problem.

[JVS]

44. Guns don't kill people

I kill people!

[ComerPerro]

46. they sure make it easy, though, don't they

not many other reliable ways to kill someone in literally a couple seconds from several yards away...

[PirateJoe]

48. not all killing is bad

and there are other ways to kill people. people will kill each other with or without guns.

[ComerPerro]

53. like i said though, the best way for some random asshole to end your life

is at a safe distance, in a split second.

[PirateJoe]

54. and the best way

to defend myself against said attacker is in the same way. and i doubt that asshole is going to care whether there's gun laws or not, as he's going to kill your ass. gun control laws don't do anything but hinder the law-abiding.

[ComerPerro]

63. yeah, cause that way you both die. That will show him

[PirateJoe]

64. i don't see..

how shooting your attacker before he has a chance to shoot you is going to result in both of you dead.

[ComerPerro]

84. If you shoot your attacker before he shoots you, YOU are the attacker

I don't know what kind of RW fantasy world you live in, but if an "attacker" has a gun pointed at you, you can bet that if he sees you flash a gun he is gonna shoot your sorry ass.

[PirateJoe]

90. what about...

an attacker breaking into your house at 3am, or being mugged in the middle of the night? those are times certainly when you could draw a gun on a person who is obviously out to harm you before he has a chance to react and shoot back.

obviously, if an attacker had a gun pointed right at your head, it would be dumb to draw. but i think you are overlooking the countless other situations in which it would be feasible to draw and fire at a person who is obviously out to do you harm.

also, getting back to the base of the argument: i would rather have it and not need it/use it, than to need it and not have it. a gun is a powerful tool, and should be treated as such. each situation is going to be different, and it is up to the carrier if drawing is a good idea or not. just because drawing a gun would not work in some situations, doesn't mean it would work in any situation.

[ComerPerro]

99. serious question now: Is this what you do at NRA meetings?

sit around and fantasize about phantom "attackers" breaking into your house, trying to envision circumstances in which you could justifiably shoot and kill someone?

Seems kind of dark and twisted and cultish to me...

[PirateJoe]

100. no

i don't belong to the NRA. i am a realist. i realize that no one is safe from home intruders, and i realize that people get their home's broken into every day. i just happen to choose to prepare myself for such an occurance. what makes you so special that you think something like that can't happen to you?

[ComerPerro]

101. gun or not, they might kill you before you know they are in the house.

[PirateJoe]

102. indeed

indeed they might. but having a gun certainly isn't going to hurt your chances, and you just might find yourself in a situation where you can use it.

i'd rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

[ComerPerro]

106. and just maybe they will see it with you and it will enrage them so much

that what would have just been a robbery might turn them into killing your wife and children

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jed Dilligan]

3. I want two or three, plus some rpg's

in case I get drafted.

[StClone]

4. That won't work

Don't ya know the jingoistic America response would be to get stealth fighters and eventually Nukes to outgun y'all. Never say surrender never give up. Kill kill Tazer Kill Ka boooom! Oh and never say your sorry... never admit mistakes and never negotiate for peace. Kill that notion.

[jody]

5. I assume you know AK-47s are tightly controlled, see 26 USC chapter 53

CHAPTER 53—MACHINE GUNS, DESTRUCTIVE DEVICES, AND CERTAIN OTHER FIREARMS

[JVS]

6. I know they are. This needs to stop so that we all can see the need for...

gun control

[GymGeekAus]

10. The impact and need for guns is a local issue.

Certain firearms are obviously inappropriate for self-protection. Let the Feds pass appropriate legislation on that.

But the rules about what a woman living alone in a house fifty miles from the nearest law enforcement official needs to protect herself is something that should be decided on a micro-level, not a macro-level.

There is no need to put the federal juggernaut into this topic at all levels.

[-..__...]

36. There's no need to allow the state or locality to get involved either.

[PirateJoe]

40. no

first off, Ak-47's are not regulated. fully automatic guns are regulated. you can get ak-47's that are semi-auto.

and anyway, i don't know how you get off on saying we need the gun control that we have. there is absolutely no correlation between crime/murder rates and gun control. there are many things that affect crime rates, and availability of guns is the least of those.

not to mention all the GOOD that can be done with a gun (such as defending yourself from a home invader, or hell, even our own government!)

[JVS]

41. They're regulated by the very fact you cannot get a fully automatic.

and by the fact that they don't sell them at the 7-11 next to the milk

[PirateJoe]

49. all guns are regulated

an ak-47 is no more regulated than your granpaws hunting rifle.

[JVS]

50. And this regulation needs to stop so that people will get shot and...

realize how important it is to have good gun laws

[PirateJoe]

51. i agree that regulation needs to be stopped

but an end to gun control doesn't mean that more people will get shot.

[Zynx]

56. AK-47 is a Class III item. Lot more difficult to get than "grandpaw's rifle"

Educate yourself.

[PirateJoe]

59. no

an ak-47 is not a class III item. fully automatic ak-47's are, but you can get semi-auto ak's

[jody]

58. Why don't you read the law I gave in post #5. If you had, you would know that law-abiding

citizens can obtain automatic guns after approval by DoJ.

[jody]

57. What do you mean by gun control? Would you prevent law-abiding citizens from

keeping and bearing arms for self-defense?

You do know that handguns are the most effective,efficient tool for self-defense, don't you?

That's why law enforcement officers carry handguns with them all the time and not long guns.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JVS]

9. Did you just say "rag-heads"? Are you sure you belong here?

[xchrom]

12. bwahahahahaha!!!

oooohhhhh -- you're scared all the time, huh?

[Kutjara]

15. I think you came through the wrong door.

Your's is down the hall to the right.

[Ravenseye]

20. Knock knock

I'm a raghead. I'm also an american. Are you going to shoot me with your gun?

[JVS]

22. Maybe if you get shot by him america will wake up and start trying...

to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people.

[PirateJoe]

42. once again, no

you seem to have a logical disconnect somewhere. the gun control we already have is doing a pretty crappy job of keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous people. all gun control laws do is make it harder for law-abiding people to get a gun.

[JeffR]

28. Is it "raghead" or "rag-head"?

Mr. Munitions spelled it with a hyphen. Maybe that's from the official FR style guide, though.

[JeffR]

23. Ah, ye poor bugger

You've managed to keep your head down since September, and then - like the song says - you had to spoil it all by saying something stupid.

[Art_from_Ark]

86. The poster said "I love you"?

Damn! I mean, Darn! I never get to see the interesting posts before they get deleted!

[JeffR]

88. Not quite "I love you"

but stupid just the same in the context of this thread.

[YellingTuna]

30. wow

Wrong forum buddy. Try typing "Neocon Nazi Forum" or maybe "Racist Republican Scumbag Blog" into the Yahoo search bar. See what your results are; I think you know what to do from their "continues nonsense and rhetorical posting."

[Atman]

8. I am opposed to "gun control"

The Bush presidency helped me see that light. I still think that it is immoral to sell small concealable handguns, but when/if the big day comes, we're all gonna need our modern-day muskets. But who the hell needs a Glock?

Still, at this point in our history, gun control is a bad idea.

.

[ComerPerro]

47. when the big day comes, the Bush loyalists and the military are gonna kill your ass

and no matter how many guns you have, you won't be able to take on the US Military.

All this "guns to protect me from the government" shit is just nonsense.

[JacksonWest]

69. Yet,

our military seems to have a problem with defeating everyday citizens. See Vietnam. See Iraq. I think an armed population is an effective measure against a totalitarian government.

[Atman]

77. Says you. But I'd rather go out fighting.

:shrug:

[derby378]

94. I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees

Actually, I'd prefer neither. But that's why the Bill of Rights, as eventually set down by the Founding Fathers, is so important to our freedoms and our way of life.

So don't hate me if I own an AK-47. Just remember that the bullet in the chamber isn't meant for you.

[whoneedstickets]

11. I've said the same thing about social welfare programs..

Let's cut social security and medicare for a generation and the squalor will turn us all into socialist! I don't think it would work because we'd instead be distracted by flag burning or some other pressing issue.

[ThomWV]

13. If You Think "Gun Control" Does Anything to control guns you're mistaken.

[billbuckhead]

25. It's a fact---Japan has almost no guns and almost no gun crime

Many of the nations with the lowest crime rates have few guns and all the ones with high crime rates have lots of guns.

I notice you have an Al Gore avatar, he along with all major Dem and many of the Republicans Presidential candidates are for stronger gun laws.

[PirateJoe]

43. what about switzerland?

switzerland has very unrestrictive gun laws, yet has some of the lowest murder rates in the world.

[billbuckhead]

79. Swiss have more restrictive gun laws than USA & is switching to EU style gun laws

Besides, why not go for the gold and copy the nations that are doing better than Switzerland?
<http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita>

[PirateJoe]

92. not really

the swiss have very lax gun laws, with mandatory gun registration in only a few cantons. also, citizens there can own things like howitzers and other items that would be considered "destructive devices" here in the states. many people there are also in the "army reserve" of switzerland, and keep a fully automatic rifle in their homes.

that link fails to take into account homocides by means other than guns.

[billbuckhead]

95. The Swiss are changing to EU style gun laws, they know something you don't

They know that guns don't make people free or safe. The gun lobby is in retreat all around the world, even Switzerland.

"And nine out of ten said they wanted to see tighter restrictions on weapon sales.

"Obviously this means that people simply don't share the views of the gun lobbies who are very well represented in legal decision-making process," Killias said.

The findings are also significant since Switzerland will have to revise its gun laws by the time it officially joins the group of European countries party to the Schengen treaty on fighting crime."

<http://www.swissinfo.org/eng/swissinfo.html?siteSect=111&sid=6107130&cKey=1127416350000>

The there's this:

Switzerland has compulsory gun ownership for military age males, yet it has a far lower murder rate than the U.S. But Switzerland also has far stricter gun control laws. Even so, Switzerland has the second highest rate of handgun ownership and handgun murders in the industrialized world, after the U.S.



Argument

Switzerland is frequently cited as an example of a country with high gun ownership and a low murder rate. However, Switzerland also has a high degree of gun control, and actually makes a better argument for gun regulation than gun liberalization.

Switzerland keeps only a small standing army, and relies much more heavily on its militia system for national defense. This means that most able-bodied civilian men of military age keep weapons at home in case of a national emergency. These weapons are fully automatic, military assault rifles, and by law they must be kept locked up. Their issue of 72 rounds of ammunition must be sealed, and it is strictly accounted for. This complicates their use for criminal purposes, in that they are difficult to conceal, and their use will be eventually discovered by the authorities.

As for civilian weapons, the cantons (states) issue licenses for handgun purchases on a "must issue" basis. Most, but not all, cantons require handgun registration. Any ammunition bought on the private market is also registered. Ammunition can be bought unregistered at government subsidized shooting ranges, but, by law, one must use all the ammunition at the range. (Unfortunately, this law is not really enforced, and gives Swiss gun owners a way to collect unregistered ammunition.) Because so many people own rifles, there is no regulation on carrying them, but 15 of the 26 cantons have regulations on carrying handguns.

Despite these regulations, Switzerland has the second highest handgun ownership and handgun murder rate in the industrialized world. A review of the statistics:

Percent of households with a handgun, 1991 (1)

United States 29%
Switzerland 14
Finland 7
Germany 7
Belgium 6
France 6
Canada 5
Norway 4
Europe 4
Australia 2
Netherlands 2
United Kingdom 1

Handgun murders (1992) (2)

Handgun 1992 Handgun Murder
Country Murders Population Rate (per 100,000)
-----------------------------------------------------------
United States 13,429 254,521,000 5.28
Switzerland 97 6,828,023 1.42
Canada 128 27,351,509 0.47
Sweden 36 8,602,157 0.42
Australia 13 17,576,354 0.07
United Kingdom 33 57,797,514 0.06
Japan 60 124,460,481 0.05
By contrast, Germany, France, Canada, Great Britain and Japan have virtually banned handguns and assault weapons to the general public.
----------------snip-----------------------
<http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-switzerland.htm>

[PirateJoe]

97. what, can you not read your own links?

Switzerland is frequently cited as an example of a country with high gun ownership and a low murder rate. However, Switzerland also has a high degree of gun control, and actually makes a better argument for gun regulation than gun liberalization.

High gun owner ship and low murder rates. disregard the point about "high degree of gun control" for a bit (this part is blatantly misleading).

what does gun control seek to do? it seeks to limit the number of firearms in people's posession, or make firearms harder to get.

this has obviously not worked in switzerland's case, because it has higher firearm ownership rates than america. it also has lower murder rates.

the bottom line is, more people in switzerland own guns, regardless of any gun control laws. in switzerland's case, there is:

1) a supposed negative correlation between firearm ownership and crime rates
2) a supposed negative correlation between gun control and crime rates.

so, it would stand to reason, that switzerland is neither a perfect argument for or against gun control, but it is certainly shows that higher firearm posession rates do not always correlate to higher crime rates. if anything, it illustrates that there are many, many factors that affect crime rates, and that firearm ownership is one of the least of those.

[treestar]

60. That could be the culture, though

These other countries have different cultures and it is possible that they don't have gun laws just because they don't need them, since hardly anybody uses them.

There could be something about our culture that increases our crime rate.

[PirateJoe]

61. exactly

my point is that guns are not the reason why we have higher murder rates than switzerland or japan.

[billbuckhead]

80. Exactly it's the culture alright, a culture that allows easy access to guns

"Statistically, the United States is not a particularly violent society. Although gun proponents like to compare this country with hot spots like Colombia, Mexico, and Estonia (making America appear a truly peaceable kingdom), a more relevant comparison is against other high-income, industrialized nations. The percentage of the U.S. population victimized in 2000 by crimes like assault, car theft, burglary, robbery, and sexual incidents is about average for 17 industrialized countries, and lower on many indices than Canada, Australia, or New Zealand.

"The only thing that jumps out is lethal violence," Hemenway says. Violence, pace H. Rap Brown, is not "as American as cherry pie," but American violence does tend to end in death. The reason, plain and simple, is guns. We own more guns per capita than any other high-income country—maybe even more than one gun for every man, woman, and child in the country. A 1994 survey numbered the U.S. gun supply at more than 200 million in a population then numbered at 262 million, and currently about 35 percent of American households have guns. (These figures count only civilian guns; Switzerland, for example, has plenty of military weapons per capita.)

"It's not as if a 19-year-old in the United States is more evil than a 19-year-old in Australia—there's no evidence for that," Hemenway explains. "But a 19-year-old in America can very easily get a pistol. That's very hard to do in Australia. So when there's a bar fight in Australia, somebody gets punched out or hit with a beer bottle. Here, they get shot."

In general, guns don't induce people to commit crimes. "What guns do is make crimes lethal," says Hemenway. They also make suicide attempts lethal: about 60 percent of suicides in America involve guns. "If you try to kill yourself with drugs, there's a 2 to 3 percent chance of dying," he explains. "With guns, the chance is 90 percent.""

<http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/090433.html>

"Compared with other developed nations, the United States is unique in its high rates of both gun ownership and murder. Although widespread gun ownership does not have much effect on the overall crime rate, gun use does make criminal violence more lethal and has a unique capacity to terrorize the public. Gun crime accounts for most of the costs of gun violence in the United States, which are on the order of $100 billion per year."

<http://www.brookings.edu/press/books/evaluatinggunpolicy.htm>

[PirateJoe]

93. ...swiss culture allows easy access to guns too...

the united states certainly is unique. though, just because we have high murder rates and high gun ownership rates, doesn't mean that there's any correlation between the two.

edit: as per your "article"

what that article seems to be saying is that guns should be controlled because they are more lethal than other things. my question is, where does this slippery slope end? a knife is more lethal than a baseball bat. do we ban knives too? what happens when people start using baseball bats instead? or perhaps just running people down with their cars?

england is having this problem right now. they banned guns, and now, (surprise surprise!), criminals are just resorting to using guns off the black market, or began using knives instead. now there's a push to ban chef's knives in britain. what this is creating in britain is a society where people are no longer in charge of minding their own well being. they don't have the proper means to protect themselves, and are increasingly falling victim to those that don't give to shits about the law (i.e. criminals).

[billbuckhead]

96. US murder rate is 3 times Europe's and more than India

Often apologists for the failure of America's gun regulations want to blame poverty, but we are now behind India.

Japan did far better than Switzerland which BTW is switching it's gun laws to much stiffer ones. The only big difference is easy access to guns.

Are American's a 3 times rougher crowd than Australia. I don't think so, it's obviously easy access to guns and a permissive attitude about using them.

[PirateJoe]

98. okay

washington DC's murder rate is the highest in the country, and it has the most restrictive gun control laws.

my point is, you'll be able to find statistics that show both positive and negative correlations between gun ownership and crime, positive and negative correlations between gun control and crime, and some that make no sense whatsoever. there is no conclusive proof that more gun control means less crime, or that less gun ownership means less crime.

[LSK]

16. is this about gun control or the draft proposal?

:shrug:

[JVS]

18. Rangel is a Jenius, the GOP is screwn! His tactic can be applied to all issues.

Abortion, civil rights, you name it we can make everything suck and then the people will see what needs to be done.

[slackmaster]

17. Wake up and...?

Realize that the gun control we had (i.e. that which we have now) was just about right?

[951-Riverside]

19. The problem has never been with legal gun owners

Its ALWAYS some asswipe with a stolen weapon responsible for most the violence in this country.

[YellingTuna]

21. Well....

True, gun control is certainly a positive thing. For example current gun laws I think are sufficient. No one seems to understand something; the people who do most of the crime, own ILLEGALE or STOLEN guns. They do not go thru the proper authorities. Our gun crime is almost always committed by individuals using guns that they are not registered to own. I do know about the accidental shooting deaths, and honestly I feel very bad for those affected by these cases. That’s why I believe in laws that require lock boxes…etc. Most violent criminals can not legally acquire a hand gun. Our current law system does a good job at restricting those who should not own them (one of the reasons why most gun violence is done by unregistered or stolen weapons.)
If the 1st Amendment is important, then how could anyone forget about the other Amendments (2nd)? It would let us stoop to the same lows as the GOP (complete disregard to our constitution.)

[Greyhound]

24. Are you aware that we already have 30 times more firearms in private

hands than the entire continent of Africa? Do you think that Africa is better off, in terms of violence, than we are?

When will we realize that legislating behavior doesn't, has never, and will never, work?

[librechik]

26. false equivalence

try again

[JVS]

29. Ok, how about we ban abortion so that when the daughters of middle...

class americans start turning up dead in motel rooms wound up in bloody coathangers, then people will vote pro-choice. Would that make you happier?

[librechik]

32. Already done. It's banned in many states. Did that make a difference?

no. And my happiness has nothing to do with it.

Here's a fact, though. Charlie Rangel ALREADY PROPOSED this bill to Congress. In fact, he voted against it himself. Only 2 members of Congress were in favor: Murtha and Pete Domenici. I know the balance of power has changed, but not THAT much!
This is to start a debate and shame the UNPATRIOTS on the Right, who let our troops go without relief. This is to END the war, becasue NOBODY WANTS A DRAFT!!NOT EVEN CHARLIE RANGEL!!!

[JVS]

34. It won't matter until its banned everywhere, only then will people care

[kiahzero]

45. State "bans" are just preemptive in case the USSC ever overturns Roe

Anything that puts an undue burden on a woman attempting to get an abortion before viability is unconstitutional since Casey.

[LittleClarkie]

27. Rather like a draft to end the war

Let's kill a few more soldiers so that people will want to see less of them killed.

That's your point, right?

[-..__...]

33. People ask me how many guns do I have...

I respond, more than I need, but not as many as I want. :evilgrin:

As far as those AK-47s go?

Promises... promises...

But, a person can always hope...

[buckettgirl]

38. Before the elections,

A friend of ours, who just finished 6 years in the National Guard, told us that he wasn't registered with either party, but if he had to choose, he would go with republican because the dems want to take away his guns. I just didn't even acknowledge this statement with an answer or anything because it is just ridiculous. To top it off, he is dirt poor with a wife who doesn't work (just lazy), can't afford health insurance, and is pagan...
I just couldn't get over how ignorant he is to think that repubs give a damn about him... especially being pagan - if you vote repub, you just shot yourself in the ass as we are talking about the president who didn't want wicca or paganism to be recognized by the military...
hhmmm... guns or religon... I think both my husband and I value our religon more that being allowed to legally have fully automatic deer rifles (which my husband is a hunter).....

[slackmaster]

52. Please, nobody is supporting "fully automatic deer rifles"

Writers who abuse hyperbole deserve to be taken out and shot.

[-..__...]

55. Well actually...

if you want to take a whole heard out at once... a "fully automatic deer rifle" isn't a bad idea (epecially if you're being bounced around in a helicopter).

:smoke:

[JacksonWest]

73. I support semi auto grenades.

[billbuckhead]

87. Just scaring people to death with guns is fun enough for some gun enthusiasts

"Too late for LBN and likely to raise a ruckus in GD so I'm pre-emptively posting it in the Gungeon. Apparently the mere sight of a firearm is more than some people's bodies can handle. In this case the gun was illegally in the hands of a man who was apparently NOT intending to do the victim any harm.

MEXICO CITY - A Mexican television actress died on Friday of a heart attack after a man armed with a pistol approached her vehicle on a Mexico City street, officials said.

Mariana Levy, 39, featured on the "Nuestra Casa" show on the Televisa network, developed labored breathing after seeing the weapon, said prosecutor Carlos Gurrea."

<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x104750>

[T Town Jake]

39. Hey, Democratic leadership! Want to get started on losing Congress in '08 like you did in '94?

...then just listen to the advice the OP is peddling.

That is all.

[Egalitariat]

62. Laws work when people obey laws

We don't have a problem with those people -- the ones who obey laws.

You need to come up with something that works for people who don't obey laws. And, by the way, a law won't work.

[JacksonWest]

71. What about anarchy in a can?

Put it in the soup aisle. That way, when the lawless shop, for soup, they may pick up anarchy. Once that can is opened, it's absence of laws will wreak havoc on the lawless individual that opens it. And, it comes in a can. Or, we could stat making marshalllawmellows. They would appear harmless and puffy, but once that lawless a-hole eats one---it's F'n high noon.

[Egalitariat]

82. That was pretty cool. I like your quote. I don't know what it means

but I like it.

Do you have more just like it?

[NuttyFluffers]

104. uh, that's what the hounds of authority are for.

"You need to come up with something that works for people who don't obey laws."

authority issues the licensed condoning of violence and punishment upon offenders to police/peace officers. nothing will work 100% because we exist in reality. but with a licensed group of people trained to mete out the wrath of the state it tends to curtail a portion of that within standard deviation. that's why states since time immemorial had security/guards/warriors/etc.

i understand what you mean between the lines, though. granted your comment approaches hyperbole and was done for effect i'm sure. one could make an argument for impressive social conditioning technology utilized by native americans and other cultural groups. but even then, even amongst the most lenient and peaceful, they still had things very much like "laws." y'know, a rose by any other name...

[Threedifferentones]

65. Riiight

I want George Bush to declare martial law so that everyone will see why having guns is so important.

[JVS]

66. Sounds good!

[Redstone]

67. This being your sarcastic jab at the people who want to reinstate the draft, yes?

I like it. I like it a lot. Well-said.

Redstone

[JVS]

68. Thanks

[Redstone]

72. Astonishing how many people in this thread didn't understand. And I thought I

was oblivious!

Redstone

[Atman]

78. I got it. I just think the connection is bogus.

What can I say? No one is seriously considering a draft. They're just setting up/exposing the right wing hypocrites. Trying to turn the tables and play some hardball for a change.

Astonishing how many people don't understand that.

.

[JVS]

81. At what point does supporting legislation become serious consideration?

[Atman]

83. Who is supporting the legislation?

I'm not sure I understand your point. Rangel is exposing hypocrisy. He needs the DEMOCRATIC congress to go along with it for it to advance, which will not happen. Period. It WON'T HAPPEN. Democrats want to stay in power in 2008. This is for the REPUBLICANS' "serious consideration," to make them lie in bed and wonder what would happen if Buffy and Biff got sent to war. Sometimes theater is made to entertain us. Sometimes it is made to rip our guts out and make us THINK.

.

[JVS]

85. You said "No one is seriously considering a draft."

So are we to believe that people propose things in the highest bodies of government as some kind of joke? That is quite a high place for an idea which hasn't been seriously considered to show up

[Dunedain]

110. Thats where you lose me

"exposing hypocrisy"

What hypocrisy is being exposed by this line of thought?
I assume your point about theater falls to the gut ripping side in this case.
Walk me through this please.
He calls for a draft, puts a poison pill into the bill; plausible deniability.
As you say, the Democratic congress plays along, and then what?
No draft ensues, by design, but the issue is raised.
The Republicans are hypocrites for it because they'll vote against it as well?
I don't get it, avarice sends our people to die and be maimed, and the "we'll show you" response is to send more, and by conscription?
I feel like I'm missing some big point, because all I see is that it's a gaint spoon of cod liver oil for everybody.

[HughBeaumont]

75. Amazing how far this flew over people's heads.

I, too, am against Rangel's little "point".

What's even MORE amazing is the "alternatives" by some of the more gamblin' kind on this site -

"To continually recycle our current troops into battle over and over again?"

"To ask our nation's poor to fight over and over?"

Oh. My. Fucking. GOD.

THE ALTERNATIVE IS STOPPING THIS ILLEGAL WAR, PERIOD!

THE ALTERNATIVE IS KICKING OUR FUCKED UP ADDICTION TO MILITARISM, PERIOD!!!

Then, there would BE no more recycling troops or asking the poor/working class/everyone else to bear the burden.

Why is no one suggesting this, as if it's not an option to be peaceful and only an option to talk about more military action, as if THAT'S going to stop a war?

Because aggressive militarism has gotten America SO far in the past 30 years, let me tell ya.

[ejbrush]

76. Hey, here's a crazy idea -

Let's give the people charged with enforcing the *existing* gun laws enough support that they can do their job. My father is a gunsmith in his spare time, and I can tell you that the problem is not that the laws aren't there. They are. Wisconsin alone merited a thick black binder of state, city and municipal ordinances. The Fed's had two binders. This was 15 years ago now, probably more now.
To imply we have no laws is disingenuous. The statutes are very specific on who can and can't purchase a firearm, when they can or can't, where they can or can't posses or use said firearm, and what penalties there are for breaking the law. But unless you give those charged with enforcing our laws every convenience available, even total prohibition would have scant positive effect. Guns, like drugs and liquor, are relatively simple things to make and distribute. Take away cheap and easy channels for an illicit product and expensive and circuitous channels will emerge.
I hasten to add that in addition to full support, both in terms of funds as well as public opinion, full oversight is needed as well. With such a contentious issue as this, the chance is always too great for overzealous and narrow interpretation of right and wrong. Think of the FBI in the 1950's and 60's re communists, anti-war protesters, etc. Or lackadaisical and lazy enforcement, such as the current administration with the EPA, INS, OSHA, etc.
Ultimately, dealing with crime is not solved with prohibitions and registrations. Crime is a product of underlying social and economic conditions. How many criminals are such because this country lacks the basic systems needed to provide adequate health care to all her citizens? How many criminals are such because this country lacks the social networks that can provide those who are mentally ill the treatment they need? How many criminals are such because the education system failed to reach them in it's vigor to hammer out good test scores? How many criminals are such because their economy has ground to a halt and left them with no seeming options?
Democrats win with those issues, even in red states. Gun control, not so much.

[everythingsxen]

89. How I envision Gun Control should be handled

Taking away everyones guns is a fundamentally bad idea. If only the Government has guns, what stops the Government from doing whatever it wants? That is why the Founding Fathers thought guaranteeing people the right to bear arms was so important.

All that being said, here is my proposal:

Starting in 1st Grade, all the way to 12th, a new class is added. Every student is required to take this class. Call it survival or what have you, but the overall aim is martial in nature. It would begin in lower grades with basic hand to hand combat and survival training. Each year it would grow progressively more complex. I would say sometime around 5th or 6th grade, Firearm courses would start. Each year students would increase their familiarity with firearms, hand to hand combat and survival techniques. Sort of like the Boy/Girl Scouts only with a more martial theme.

This program would accomplish the following:

Weapons familiarity. I am not proposing to turn every child into a master sniper. I am simply talking about teaching children what a gun is, what sorts of forms it takes and how it works. Children die every year from gunshots caused by playing with guns and not really understanding that one end of the gun equals death. This would rectify that. I understand that more people need gun locks/cabinets etc. etc. however, this is the better way, because you never know when you may need to shoot a gun.

Hand to hand combat training. Martial arts, at it's core, is about discipline. This is something very important to instill in our children. It will also improve feelings of self-reliance and self-worth. It helps to take away natural fearfulness to situations since the person trained in martial arts will always know they have a weapon and if the teachings are done properly, they will be taught the wisdom to know when that weapon should be used.

Survival training. I think it's pretty obvious that in general, children should be taught basic survival techniques. You never know what is going to happen.

I would like to add in closing that this is part of my plan of how I intend to reform the school system if and when I am elected President. I plan on vastly increasing the budgets for schools and bringing the United States back to the forefront of world class education.

[NuttyFluffers]

103. there are a few places already that have zero to none arms control

they tend to be located around failed states... or at the very best just recently recovering from/devolving into a civil/guerilla war.

:D you can buy grenades in yemen for around $0.50 a pop! :evilgrin: and the congo could be seen as a bastion of currently pioneering this novel idea you speak of!

one would think that restraint and regulation on the means of violence and destruction would be essential to the stabilization of society and the state. but naturally, it is just a coincidence... right? :evilgrin:

[Beacho]

105. Yet another sidelined wedge issue, appearing out of nowhere

curioser and curioser

[Renew Deal]

107. AK's are great for duck hunting

:evilgrin:

[Lilith Velkor]

108. Great plan!

Look how well it's working in Iraq :rofl:


;)

[spoony]

109. Great post, JVS :)

For the record, I "got it" lol

[Moderator]

111. locking....

This is flamebait.