We prohibited Alcohol and that worked so well that we

[RegieRocker]

prohibited drugs. Now since that is working so well some of you want more prohibition of firearms? I have that correct right?

[Tejas]

1. 10 out of 10 dictators agree. n/t

[shadowrider]

116. They sure do

See sig line

[Cleita]

2. We want more regulation of firearms, just like alcohol

is regulated and drugs would be if they were made legal. I'm all for people owning firearms. I just want some legal responsibility in ownership just like we have for alcohol, legal medical marijuana and even car ownership.

[RegieRocker]

4. How would you go about it?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

7. What would you like to see that is not already in place

Remember that it is a right not a privledge

[Cleita]

11. I would like to see gun owners licensed in their state

just like you are licensed to drive a car and own a car. Yet, many gun owners don't want this. We own guns in our family. We are rural. No one in my family would object to this. People don't know how to drive don't get a license. If they are irresponsible drivers, they lose their license. I believe it would be easier for law enforcement to keep track of firearms and their owners in case there is a theft or a shooting. I don't think that kid would have been able to buy a gun if he had been screened for a gun owner's license to begin with.

[RegieRocker]

13. Wasn't he 22 yrs old? A kid I think not.

Over 21 probably had no record. You understand that right?

[Cleita]

15. He already had trouble with the law and was deemed

by many to be mentally ill. I would definitely make a psychological evaluation be part of the gun ownership license requirements. I mean work places do it routinely before hiring people. Why not for this?

[RegieRocker]

17. Deffinitely

I couldn't agree more with that. But understand there was some talk about making ex-vets with ptsd unable to get a weapon. I bet you might have a problem with some of it though.

[Cleita]

21. I'm not against people with mental problems being

main stream Americans as long as they are being treated for it and take their meds. I have a provision on my driver's license that says I must wear glasses. I believe the same provision could be made that specifies that the person getting a gun license needs an up dated evaluation from their doctor stating that their issues are under control and that they won't be a danger to society because of them.

[RegieRocker]

22. That is a tough one. People commit suicide with guns also

that too is very sad. I feel some kind of line should be drawn somewhere though.

[Cleita]

28. This is true. My late husband's doctor,

who it turns out was bi-polar, killed himself with a shotgun. It turns out he had stopped taking his meds. I mean a license wouldn't be fool proof and it wouldn't stop people from obtaining guns illegally. I just think it would cut incidents down and be a real help to law enforcement in regulating gun traffic.

[RegieRocker]

31. That is realistic and not a fantasy.

Some where though you can only do so much. People have been killing people for eons. Bombs kill people. Fires. Some here have fantasy's and are not in touch with real life. Protection is a part of life.

[SteveM]

88. Driving is a privilege, not a right. The standard for regulation is different. nt

[SteveM]

86. Oh, God! "Psychological evaluation" is one step from literacy tests...

Who would be the evaluator? What would be the (latest) standards in psychological practice? Would this be through a court of law (to satisfy that amendment which so many people trample on, the Fifth)? Who would pay (given poll taxes have been ruled unconstitutional)? How long would the evaluation be good for? Can a prospective purchaser "venue shop" for a different set of shrinks to evaluate?

I don't think the workplace "routine" has the same kind of protections that a constitutional amendment provides. If someone has "trouble with the law," then let convictions prevent a legal purchase. (BTW, they already do under current law.) It is NOT enough to prevent the purchase/possession of a gun because someone has "trouble with the law and was deemed by many to be mentally ill." There's that thing called "due process." It's in the Fifth.

[Hoopla Phil]

111. You're right. We should also implement that same standard for voting.

We cannot allow mentally unstable people influencing our elections.

[benEzra]

25. I *have* a license. Just as with a car, most states require a license to legally carry

a concealed firearm in public. Generally speaking, you don't have to have a license to own a car or drive it on private property, only to drive it in public, just as with guns.

[-..__...]

47. Ahhh, the ol' "we license drivers, why not gun owners" argument.

Personally... I feel that the licensing gun owners/drivers analogy has been, and always will be a weak and invalid argument.

Never mind that one is a Constitutionally protected right, whereas the other is a "privilege", it's an apples and oranges comparison.

But... if you want to go down that road, try this on for size.

How would you feel if the roles were reversed and we licensed drivers like we license gun owners?

A background check in order to obtain a DL?

Those found mentally incompetent or committed is grounds for denying a DL for life?

Conviction of a felony or misdemeanor that could carry a sentence of greater than 2 years is grounds for denying a DL for life?

Abuse of any illegal drug, narcotic, alcohol is grounds for denying a DL for life?

Dishonorable discharge from the military is grounds for denying a DL for life?

People living in the country illegally could not obtain a DL?

Police Chiefs could have wide discretion/latitude in issuing a DL and also have the same discretion in revoking it (applies to "may issue" states)?

What if we treated licensed gun owners the same way we treated licensed drivers?

The license would be honored in all states with no conditions.

16 year olds (and up), would be allowed to purchase, posses and carry the firearm of their choice.

Infractions (accidentally shooting yourself or someone else, discharging a firearm in public, neglecting to follow safe firearms procedures, etc), would only result in a small fine (if any), with no loss of license or jail time. Repeat offenders would face stiff penalties, but could apply for and have their firearms license restored within a a year or less.

Now myself (as a gun owner), I can see a lot of positives in the latter viewpoint, but nonetheless, licensing gun owners the same way we license drivers (and visa versa), is a road I'd rather not travel on.

[Cleita]

53. The licensing people for gun ownership was originally

proposed by a Republican and a military man, General Colin Powell. Even military realize lethal weapons in untrained hands isn't cool.

[-..__...]

55. Did you mean to respond to another poster...

and not me (it happens sometimes),?

Because your response has nothing to do with, nor answer any of my questions.

If I'm wrong... gee, do you really think that any military commander would think otherwise?

Facing an armed civilian populace?

What's the worst that could happen? :shrug:

[derby378]

56. Doesn't matter if that was Powell's idea or not

Driving is legally considered a privilege. Gun ownership is, according to the Constitution, a right. You do not need a permit to exercise your Constitutional rights.

[oneshooter]

48. When did you get your license to vote?

And your permit for Internet service.
Not to mention a license to gather in a group of mqre than four people?

Driving a vehicle is a privilege, all of the above are rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the United States of America.

Try amending the Second Amendment.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Cleita]

51. I got my license to vote when I went and swore my

allegiance to the USA when I was considered old enough to know what I was doing and that was at the age of eighteen. Then I got a certificate stating that I'm an American citizen FROM BIRTH and can vote. I was born of American parents in a foreign country but they just weren't going to let me vote until I got my license proving my citizenship or gosh golly all them ferriners would be here wanting to vote. You admit Texan it is a good idea to have laws like that. Why would anyone need a license for internet service? It's not a lethal weapon like a gun or a car or other heavy machinery you have to be licensed to operate.

Owning a gun is also a privilege. The Second Amendment only talks about an armed militia, not any one all over the place being armed. Why would anyone need a group gathering license although it seems like a good idea to require it from KKK members? :sarcasm:

[PavePusher]

85. That's not a licence.

You paid no fees, took no tests, didn't have a background check, don't have insurance, don't get inspections, etc., etc.

You proved you were eligible under the rules, i.e. have to be a Citizen, and vote in the district you live in. Poor you.

The Second says "right of the people". Militia is not a restricting condition.

[Cleita]

104. Paid no fees? Boy are you wrong,

Had no inspections? Who do you think inspected whether I had done my five years residency? I had to file all my addresses and schools I attended to an INS inspector.

[PavePusher]

106. Oops, heavily edited due to lack of my own reading comprehension.

Have you paid a fee at the voting booths? I doubt it.

[SteveM]

91. Owning a gun is A RIGHT. Please understand this, and don't deny reality...

The militia clause has been exploded many, many times in this forum. Even its biggest proponent, Laurence Tribe, now concedes that the Second recognizes an individual right not contingent upon membership in a militia. The clause is not the operative portion of the Amendment, and great majority of constitutional scholars recognize this. As for "group gathering licenses," these "parade permits" were used by LEOs frequently to thwart marches during the 60s, and were just as frequently shot down by the Courts. Similarly, licenses are not required to own and bear arms.

[Cleita]

105. I never said it wasn't a right.

Marriage is a right (unless you're gay at the present time and I hope this is changed). However, to get a marriage license, there are conditions. It varies from state to state, but one condition is that you aren't already married. So see, even rights are conditional.

[PavePusher]

107. And I don't think that's a good thing either.

You should be free to marry as many people as you want.

'Course, you'd better have approval from all directly involved parties....

[Hoopla Phil]

112. In post 51 you said "Owning a gun is also a privilege". It is not a privilege, it is a RIGHT.

[ClassWarrior]

3. No, just "well regulated" firearms.

NGU.

[Hoopla Phil]

113. Somehow I don't think you are using the correct definition of "regulated"

with regard to the 2A. Perhaps a look at the "Heller" references page would be helpful.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

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

[Odin2005]

6. Gun control has racist roots.

It started out because then Governor Reagan hated the Black Panthers.

[caseymoz]

67. But actually, the second amendment does, too.

One reason to keep and bear arms was that hostile Indians were all around. In other words, a principle justification was it would enable massacre of the Indians.

Of course, they also enabled people to hunt for food.

Just pointing out, you could find racism on either side, but is it really motivated by racism?

[SteveM]

93. Racism was and is the motivation behind modern gun-control laws...

Please read up on the history of the 1968 GCA, and the dissatisfaction by even gun-control advocates about the tenor of the debate. The history of gun-control laws from antebellum times, through Jim Crow, and into the modern era is replete with overtly de jure racist sentiments. This makes the comparison to racism against Indians as a "motivator" is to trivialize history. You should be aware that Indians were well-armed, from colonial times up through their subjugation in the late 1800s. And they were pretty good at massacres, too.

[Kolesar]

77. bollocks...eom

[Odin2005]

102. What a brilliant rebuttal.

:rofl:

[Kolesar]

109. I know you are but what am I?

[PavePusher]

110. Sirrah, your eloquence overwhelms me. I shall repair to my sleeping chamber to ponder. n/t

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

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

[madinmaryland]

9. Thanks, Mods for dumping this where it belongs!

[sharesunited]

10. Alcohol and drugs are voluntarily consumed. Bullets enter you without consent.

[RegieRocker]

12. It does if you shoot yourself what the hell does what you had to

say have to do with only criminals will have guns? Nothing that is what. Make it illegal and only Criminals will have guns. Freakin amazing how many people don't grasp this.

[sharesunited]

14. Making them scarce should be the objective. Difficult to obtain for everyone.

[RegieRocker]

16. Then only criminals will have guns. Sorry that is not a good idea.

[sharesunited]

18. Scarcity is the only way to end the violence. Make them scarce.

The general public should not have guns and ammo.

Criminals are just a subset of the public at large.

[Tejas]

19. LEO's commit domestic homicides on occasion,

but I'm sure you have a cure for that too.

[RegieRocker]

20. I totally disagree with you. You will not have my guns.

[sharesunited]

24. Couldn't I convince you if I came to your door wearing a badge?

Or would you make your final stand?

[Straw Man]

41. The Badge

Couldn't I convince you if I came to your door wearing a badge?

Or would you make your final stand?

Ah, so we're ready for the police state, are we?

Spoken like a true totalitarian.

[Katya Mullethov]

44. The end game of submission is the same

But we can control every belief and religion when we are the mind controllers .

[sharesunited]

45. We can't control thoughts. We CAN control the damage which flows from them.

[Katya Mullethov]

46. My thoughts are counter to your aim

Not only are these thoughts counter to your goals , but if "they bring a knife , I will bring a gun" , I will "get in their faces" and any victory you enjoy in this regard will result in "hand to hand combat" as I "punish my enemies " . Pretty violent rhetoric aye ?

[shadowrider]

73. You didn't see what you saw

2 + 2 = 5 and we've always been at war with East Asia.

[Katya Mullethov]

75. Guns are only a diversion anyway

It's the air waves and the internet , our collective " thoughts " that are in need of regulation .

I see what they did there , you might say .

[oneshooter]

50. How are those arrangements going?...

The ones that will allow the Mexican and Canadian army's to collect all the firearms in the states?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[beevul]

52. Is that where youd take things shares?

Coming to peoples doors wearing a badge to "convince" them?

What if they simply say "no".

What then.


Are guns so terrible in your view that you'd strap one on along with a badge and go door to door confiscating them?

[Katya Mullethov]

57. We have people for that

This is why the fuzz in Jersey get SOOO PISSED over citizens carrying weapons in their car or on their person . If anybody needs killing in Jersey they are gonna do it .
An unintended consequence is it doesn't happen anywhere near as often as it needs to .

[oneshooter]

61. He is currently making arrangments for the

Mexican and Canadian armys to do the job for him.

So, how is that going?

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[PavePusher]

87. Do you claim that you would actually come yourself?

Or would you send hired minions, presumably armed?

[SteveM]

94. I don't think you have what it takes to put on a badge and then "convince" someone.

[Katya Mullethov]

23. Criminals are just a subset of the public at large.

Criminals are just a subset of the public at large.
Criminals are just a subset of the public at large.
The public at large are just a subset of criminals.
The public at large are just a subset of criminals.
The public at large are criminals .

You're well on your way to creating your own currency

[sharesunited]

27. Before Saturday, Jared Lee Loughner's worst offense was pot possession.

Now he is a mass murderer, because he had the means to conveniently and efficiently kill.

[RegieRocker]

34. Get a grip people have been killing for eons and will

continue to do so. Taking away guns will not stop that. Would you have preferred he use a bomb? It befuddles me the fantasy people live in their heads.

[sharesunited]

36. He could have used a bomb, but didn't.

Why didn't he?

A gun and ammo were easier to come by, and more reliable.

Plus, he supposedly had a Constitutional right to possess a gun and ammo.

Now that's what I call fantasy!

[Katya Mullethov]

37. You control every mind and belief

By being the mind controller !

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

26. The stats for many years disagree with you

[beevul]

49. Criminals are just a subset of the public at large.

Yes they are.

What you don't seem to grasp, is that they would be the subset left with the guns.

Scarce by definition, means that theyd be soully in the hands of criminals, when you bounce it all off a little reality.

[Katya Mullethov]

58. What you do at that point is declare war on crime

They can do whatever they want I guess .

But it will take a lot of concertina wire .

[one-eyed fat man]

64. Criminals are just a subset of the public at large.

With one teeny, tiny difference you steadfastly refuse to acknowledge. Laws do not affect them. In fact, it is the scarcity of banned and illegal commodities that most empowers them.

Al Capone provided booze, broads, and gambling to a city where there was a demand.

Mexicans are shooting each other by the truckload with military grade weapons also so you can score some blow in the men's room of the building where you work.

You go so far as to claim if they were scarce, like Morgan dollars, they'd be to valuable too shoot, no one is making any more. (Excepting the Chinese who are minting Morgan dollars by the sackful.)

For an ordinary person, yes, for a criminal, it's just part of the overhead. It just gets passed on to the consumer. Just like bribing the government of Cook county and Chicago was for Capone.

For the life of me, it is completely incomprehensible to me that anyone living in Chicago does not understand the basics of corruption and criminal enterprise. The city has been a post-graduate course in industrial level criminality since 1924 when Capone threw the mayor down the steps of city hall while the mayor's police escort did nothing but watch!

Prostitution is banned in Chicago and on Craigslist. Look here, and tell me again with a straight face how effective bans are in the face of a consumer with cash. Criminals thrive and flourish on bans! Prohibitionists are their best ally, along with corrupt officials.

Idiots are a subset of the public at large too, sometimes they get elected Mayor.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

29. Do your feel the same way about voting booths? How about union elections?

[sharesunited]

30. Voting and elections are good. Taking up arms is not.

Been there, done that. It was called the Civil War. Never again.

[RegieRocker]

32. Are you sayng you were in the civil war?

[sharesunited]

35. We the People. The Nation.

If the 2nd Amendment isn't an anachronism empowering crackpots to unilaterally act out, what is it?

As a pretend "right," what does it seek to accomplish, other than that?

It was rendered moot by the Civil War, and has no place in our modern society.

[Katya Mullethov]

38. States rights were rendered "moot " And federalism upheld

But judging by recent events ,that doesnt appear to be over .

[sharesunited]

40. Don't you think your attitude enables that pointless and redundant struggle?

[Katya Mullethov]

42. The end game of submission is the same

It's a mathematical certainty .

[RegieRocker]

69. Whether guns or phasers it will have a place in a FREE society forever

In any society that wants to protect themselves. You want someone else to protect you. I did that for you. While I was doing that I had to protect myself. Unlike you. I will continue protecting myself. I want to tell you now I extremely don't appreciate your and others ambition to take away my ability to protect myself. I know your type. You have never owned a gun nor served in the military. You know nothing about upholding the constitution or what that means. I personally think a person shouldn't be able to vote unless they serve their country.

[beevul]

54. A few million...

"Voting and elections are good"

A few million dead iraquis might say thats not always the case, if they could.

"Taking up arms is not."

You might not have the freedom to say what your saying, were it not for the taking up of arms.




How about this:

Speaking in absolutes is bad.

[PavePusher]

89. Yet you seem bent on endorsing actions that would almost certainly...

trigger the Second American Civil War.

I am highly suspicious of your motives, means and goals.

[Straw Man]

43. Voluntarily?

Alcohol and drugs are voluntarily consumed. Bullets enter you without consent.

I see. So are people voluntarily mowed down by drunken drivers?

[TheCowsCameHome]

33. ASP

[applegrove]

59. No. It is just that a magazine of 31 bullets is a little high don't you think?

Perhaps another assault rifle ban should be ordered.

[oneshooter]

62. And the Democrats will rue the day, loosing both houses of Congress

And the White House for a very long time.

Oneshooter
Armed and livin in Texas

[ManiacJoe]

63. What number would you prefer?

And what logic do you use to arrive at that number?

As for the ban, you are probably referring to the so-called "assault weapons" ban, which banned no assault rifles. Assault rifles have been federally restricted since 1934 even though they were not invented until the 1940s.

[PavePusher]

90. "Assault rifles" are highly restriced...

and had fuck-all to do with this.

I swear, the rampant, arrogant, prideful ignorance consistently dragged in here makes me wonder how the Democratic Party can lay claim to logic and rationality with a straight face.

[SteveM]

95. Why do you think it is "a little high?" What does the AWB have to do with it?

Curious, isn't it, that "assault weapons" can be expanded into whatever the controller/prohibitionist wants?

[benEzra]

121. McCarthy isn't trying to outlaw 31-rounders, she's trying to outlaw *11* rounders.

30 rounds has been a standard capacity for small-caliber civilian rifles for a couple of decades, and most full-sized 9mm pistols hold 15 to 20. McCarthy is using one tragedy committed with a rare magazine---which would have happened just the same with two standard mags---to try to ban hundreds of millions of privately owned magazines for the most popular lawfully owned civilian firearms in the United States.

That is shameless political opportunism, and it is going to give the party another black eye if it is not reined in.

[lawodevolution]

60. If you want gun registration and gun ownership licenses you have to give up the 5th amendment

Because you will have to prepare a document yourself that will be used against you if you happen to use your gun in a crime which is self witness or self incrimination. If you are willing to give up the 5th and allow the police to do whatever they want to you to get a confession out of you go ahead and clear the way for real and legal gun registration. But meanwhile we will be knocking down state run gun registration systems soon because they are in violation of the constitution. Gun licensing schemes are the same as gun registration schemes and are a violation of the 5th as well.

I know you are just wishing you could get water-boarded to get you to confess to not paying your taxes correctly, but I'd rather keep the constitution as it is and not have useless gun registration schemes.

[caseymoz]

68. No. A violation of the 5th would be . . .

. . . if you're made to admit that you would commit a crime beforehand. Demonstrating that you owned the gun would not be the commission of the crime, unless having a license plate on your car is a prior admission to that you'll commit a hit and run, too. Then, as in with the gun, they should arrest you when they register.

Unless you believe that ownership is a real life demonstration that you will commit a crime with it, an extraordinary thing to believe if you're pro-gun.

This does not violate the 5th Amendment. Period. You might have other complaints, but this one is not . . . legally or Constitutionally informed, nor is it logical.

[lawodevolution]

70. I'm sure you'll be saying that as gun registration schemes are

knocked down based on violation of the 5th. You will be talking about how the courts are wrong like with the Heller and McD case.

The purpose of car registration is to get the car back after a theft or to figure out who owns a car who is running, but the registration system is not meant to bust someone for using a car in a crime because the car is often just the transportation device and not the weapon used.

A gun is thought to be often used as a weapon at a crime scene (look at stats), a gun registration system scheme would be established because the view of those who establish it is that all gun owners are potential criminals and must be observed (not my view) thus as you apply for your gun permit and register it you are forced to prepare documents that are designed to be used against you once you commit a crime with it (which is thought to be a high probability by those who established the registration scheme, but not my opinion). It is in fact designed to be a form of self witness. A violation of the 5th.

[caseymoz]

97. The purpose of the gun registration is also to get the gun back if its stolen.

If you ask me, auto registration has other uses, too.

Yes, I would see them as wrong, because you can't infer a prior crime from a simple ownership registration. Period. If you can't predict the crime from the registration, then the registration is not evidence of a future crime. I would wait until the court comes out with its decision to gloat about it, though.

But, who knows, the courts just ruled that corporations can take charge of our elections. That's a rather imprecise description, but good for shorthand.

You're also going by assumptions that courts and law enforcement, not the people who enacted the law, are not likely to make. They know guns are lost, stolen or borrowed. But I don't even find it likely that people who enacted the law think all gun owners are potential criminals. That is a straw man. That sounds overwhelmingly paranoid to me. The law is the law, and unless the law is written stating that that is the assumption, the assumption will not be made. Period.

Only other thing, unless they can prove you had criminal intent when you filled out the registration . . . but even then, a registration for a gun is no more an admission of a crime or criminal intent then a registration of a car involved in vehicular homicide. They might as well use your auto registration as proof of drunk driving.

But, a judge might agree with you. The bench is full of blockheads.

Why doesn't it seem likely to you that police investigation would be easier if they could trace the origin of a gun? Also, law enforcement happens to know that guns are frequently stolen and resold, or auctioned off at estate sales. They're frequently "borrowed" by a friend or relative, too.

[jazzhound]

65. Despite the fact that the percentage of citizens who would

favor an all-out ban of firearms has been dropping steadily, I'm still amazed at the number of folks who can't figure out the obvious --- which is that a strong demand will create it's own supply.

Even our friend Rachel -- so sharp on so many issues -- can't put this one together.

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/rachel-maddow-late-night-jimmy-fallon?ref=http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/rachel-maddow-late-night-jimmy-fallon

[caseymoz]

66. Are you saying that guns give you a buzz?

That's really what I always thought it was about. Thank you for confirming that.

[RegieRocker]

71. Take one of your pills you need one to think clearly.

Prohibition!

[caseymoz]

72. Ah, a snazzy comback, showing that a gun-high also make you dumber.

Prohibition has worked on non-intoxicants. I mean, I don't see people trying to sneak Segways into cities where they have been prohibited. When was the last time you were able to buy leaded gas for your 1970 Ford Pinto? Have you tried to score some mercury or chlordane recently? I don't even think there's a huge black market for them, either. Moreover, do you see those as serious abridgments of your freedom?

All this time I thought guns were supposed to be practical, like power tools. A bulwark, defending our persons and liberties and such. Now I hear them compared without irony to alcohol and drugs. What's so unclear about that observation?

I'm not against the Second Amendment, but I do have qualms about somebody getting buzz from something because it gives them the power to kill other people. Just sayin' that's creepy, and what's wrong with pointing that out?

And it makes think of children playing with gun toys, which used to be made to look authentic. Why would they be so attracted to those particular tools?

[RegieRocker]

74. Seriously take your Ritalin and look in the mirror and ask yourself

why do I act just like the radical rw's who like to spin and twist what people have to say into something different than the intended meaning? Then ask yourself is that a thing to be doing?

[caseymoz]

76. It's called satire, and sarcasm.

I originally meant to underscore the fact that guns make you feel powerful, and much of the motivation behind making pro-gun arguments is due solely to that fact. Definitely gun marketing plays on this and solidifies it.

So now, does this feeling of power have a drug-like allure almost a high? Yes. You gave me a chance to underscore this.

You categorized gun prohibition with drugs and alcohol. Now look at those three things, is one of them not like the others? If so, your statement is horseshit. If not, you unwittingly underscored that there is an intoxication involved with having a gun. Children see it. Toddler boys go after toy guns like nothing else, and unfortunately, they get killed or maimed in a lot of gun accidents. That attitude generally doesn't change in adulthood.

You just made an unconscious connection. I made it explicit, and so now that I've outed your unconscious it's sending you all kinds of indignant feelings.

So, if I "look in the mirror" what do you expect me to see that would be so traumatic?

[RegieRocker]

81. My point which you are unskillfully avoiding is

If you make guns illegal then only criminals will have guns. Let me explain so your thick head can understand. There are more people like me than you. People who are sick and tired of both the right and left wing radicals. Tired of your nonsense of twisting and spinning things instead of countering the topic at hand. People that understand one side wants to kill us and the other wants to make it easier for them to do so. You may get high off guns buth the people that are like me do not. They might be proud of a particular gun they own but as for getting a high you talk out your but. There probably are individuals that get a high as you call it from takings guns away from people. You're talking about a extremely small amount of lpeople that get high off guns . It's very clear you're talking about something you know absolutely nothing about first hand. It's very clear you only know what you read or are told. That kind of thinking is what got marijuana illegalized and keeps it that way. I'm done with you, your a waste of my time, there are more sensible people to talk to.

[caseymoz]

84. Well, if you make guns legal, you could count on criminals having guns.

Oh, we've done that, haven't we? One thing will absolutely stay the same: like with Gifford, they will still tend to have their guns out and pointed at you first, though there are exceptions plenty of exceptions. Like Gifford, though, you still don't tend to fare very well when it does.

There, I countered the topic at hand. Wasn't hard. Are you happy now?

So, there are radicals like yourself who are sick of radicals, who see that there's a conspiracy of radicals, not including yourselves. Sounds a little self-defeating when I put it that way, doesn't it?

Okay, here's my entire entire plan for implementing gun control, without any satire whatsoever, this is it:

1) Let people be free to buy as many weapons and as much ammunition as they want. The first part has been successfully implemented. I mean, there's a Second Amendment, let's allow it. Oh, and it agrees with you. It's not so radical is it?

2) The US will then fall into anarchy due to other social, environmental and economic problems not related to guns. This might sound radical, but I'm pushing against this. I just think it's inevitable.

3) After about seventy years of Congo/Somalia-like anarchy, people living on the rubble will then be sick and tired of having so much gun freedom. They won't call it freedom anymore.

4) Then they'll implement gun control-- that is if they environment isn't so destroyed that it doesn't matter.

That's my entire political plan for implementing gun control. Right there. Pretty lazy isn't it? I don't call for anything, and I don't organize with anybody for tougher gun laws, or any gun laws. Now, what part do you find to be so radical about it? Maybe you don't like it's predictive nature, but I won't keep you from proving me wrong about it in any way.

All I ask in the meantime is that people don't deny facts or feed each other bullshit about guns to avoid the more unsettling thoughts about it. Be truthful, ask yourself the tough questions. Why, really, do people carry guns, and what do people sacrifice by carrying them everywhere? If you find that threatening, I would call you paranoid.

Now, to the subject at hand, power gives people a rush. Now, there are so many studies confirming this . . . do you really need a source? A gun is the power to easily kill somebody. Now, do you need me to prove this? That's a lot of power, especially if you're down there on the totem pole. If power gives people a rush and guns give a feeling of power, not to mention security, then having a gun gives people a rush. Which step of this is illogical to you?

Fact is, when you say "It's very clear you're talking about something you know absolutely nothing about first hand," you are not only taking yourself too damn seriously, but you're admitting that you can't communicate. Why then? What is there about the experience of having a gun that can't be communicated to somebody like me? I almost hate to point out, but by calling it something I have to experience to understand, you make it sound more like a drug experience than you did originally.

Or, if it can't be communicated, it might mean you're reluctant to tell somebody like me something about it. Why? So,which is it? And indescribable experience, or an experience you're reluctant to describe?

Oh, damn, I lost you! Doesn't stop other people from reading this, and they know how foolish you look now.

[RegieRocker]

82. Who you are.

If you make guns illegal then only criminals will have guns. Let me explain so your thick head can understand. There are more people like me than you. People who are sick and tired of both the right and left wing radicals. Tired of your nonsense of twisting and spinning things instead of countering the topic at hand. People that understand one side wants to kill us and the other wants to make it easier for them to do so. You may get high off guns but the people that are like me do not. They might be proud of a particular gun they own but as for getting a high you talk out your but. There probably are individuals that get a high as you call it from takings guns away from people. You're talking about a extremely small amount of lpeople that get high off guns . It's very clear you're talking about something you know absolutely nothing about first hand. It's very clear you only know what you read or are told. That kind of thinking is what got marijuana illegalized and keeps it that way. I'm done with you, your a waste of my time, there are more sensible people to talk to.

[SteveM]

96. Satire and sarcasm are often fall backs when one's argument is...

crap to begin with. Your rather pedestrian poop-psychology is lame and very predictable. Alcohol and drug prohibitions have failed, and so would gun prohibition. You know that. Quit playing games.

[caseymoz]

98. Predictable? Okay, predict now what I'm going to say.

I've emailed my answer to myself, and I promise to attach it time stamped. Now, tell me what predictable thing I've said.

[SteveM]

100. You are going to say crap.

[caseymoz]

101. Wrong, here it is.

7:35 PM (2 hours ago)

No, I don't think it'll fail. It just won't happen. But I'm not playing games, either. If he felt there was no comparison between alcohol, drugs and guns, he really shouldn't have used prohibition his basis of comparison. The appeal of drug and alcohol is apparent, but, pointing out that there's some of that appeal in having a gun . . . well, why couldn't he just laugh it off? Because he's not comfortable with it.

[RegieRocker]

114. I never laugh at b.s. when someone believes it's the truth. You really

suck at reading someones thoughts.

[caseymoz]

103. So, I'm not so predictable.

Thank you for proving that point before you left.

[RegieRocker]

115. You're are funny.

[Kolesar]

78. That's a lame analogy ...eom

[RegieRocker]

119. The truth is hard for you.

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

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

[X_Digger]

80. Err, no, violent crime went UP during prohibition.

The homicide rate pre-prohibition? 7.2/100k. Homicide rate at the height of prohibition? 9.0/100k. Homicide rate five years after prohibition? 6.8/100k

[RegieRocker]

83. It's a mental block they just can't grasp this truth. They try avoiding

It anyway they can . If you make all guns illegal only criminals will have guns.

[PavePusher]

92. I guess I'd be joining the criminal ranks then. n/t

[caseymoz]

99. And since they're legal criminals are guaranteed to have them.

One thing that hasn't changed: criminals are still the ones most likely to have them out and pointed at you first, and so you're still screwed. There are exceptions, of course, and it might be worth it to have one because there are. Packing definitely made no difference for Gifford, though.

[RegieRocker]

117. Neither did having a police force paid by tax payers. Your analogy

Is empty. Tax payers normally don't have body guards or can call police to protect them at their whim either. No matter how hard you try you can't sanely justify asking people to go without protection and that is what you want. People still get killed in cars while wearing seat belts. According to you then they too are a bad idea. Seat belts have also killed people. You can babble all you want.

[Shagbark Hickory]

108. If MJ was legal, I would likely have some. Since it is illegal, I don't. The ban on drugs is working

to some extent.

If alchohol was illegal and I had to buy it on the black market, I wouldn't have any of that either.
IF there is some obstacle to buying guns, many people who shouldn't own them, wouldn't own them.

[RegieRocker]

118. Lol do you really consider yourself a law breaker? Ask someone

who breaks laws if they would risk breaking the law to own a gun.

[shadowrider]

120. Alcohol was illegal during prohibition

yet it flowed by the thousands of gallons, provided you had the means and connections to get it. All it did was enable organized crime to gain a solid foothold.

Because YOU wouldn't buy it if it were illegal, doesn't mean hundreds of thousands wouldn't either.