Morgan is an asshole and he seemingly goes out of his way to make himself look like and act like an asshole. That Alex Jones guy gave EVERY gun owner a black eye. You're on national TV and you shout into the camera like you're giving a Nazi powerplay speech? "1776 will rise again?" Go back to living in your fucking parent's basement. I know there are lots of responsible gun owners (an even builders) on here so I have to ask you: do any of you honestly believe that in a nation with over 316 known firearms, that somebody is coming to take your guns? That fucking clown was yelling like the people will stand up to the government if they "get uppity", but little does he realize...they can't. He forgets the government has bunker busters, Predator drones and smart bombs.
In 1995 Senator Dianne Feinstein said, "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here." (Emphasis mine.) All she's waiting for is enough votes in the Senate. It's true that even an outright ban would not remove guns from the public, but it won't stop Congress from trying. It would be as successful as Prohibition and the War on Drugs have been. Later in 1995 she also said, "I know the sense of helplessness that people feel. I know the urge to arm yourself because that's what I did. I was trained in firearms. I'd walk to the hospital when my husband was sick. I carried a concealed weapon. I made the determination that if somebody was going to try to take me out, I was going to take them with me." What a fucking hypocrite.
...except that both booze and drugs are consumable entirely out of the public eye with no major indication that they've been used. The very nature of a gun means that it's not possible to use it discretely. If someone has a drink or smokes a joint, there's little left to indicate they've done so. If you shoot something, it's not so subtle.
What are you talking about? I have a private range at my grandfathers farm. If I packed them in my car in the garage no body in my neighborhood would even know I owned them, much less when Im using them. At my grandpas place you can here other people shooting off in the distance sometimes but it'd be hard to tell who exactly was shooting. My point is, what is your point?
If they become illegal in the first place, I might as well start making suppressors. Seriously, guns are very heavily restricted in places like Chicago and New York yet criminals still illegally carry and shoot them all the time. Now it isn't anywhere near the scale of the ATF knocking on my door with 4473 forms I've filled out in hand, but those laws still don't stop people from using them relatively indiscretely. I don't think it's a likely scenario, but then again we have agenda-driven officials like Sen. Feinstein in office who are clear about their goals and have some power too. Hope for the best, prepare for the worst.
Wild West In Ohio Over 1,000 Ohio teachers sign up for firearms training to specifically address shootings in schools and training centers are willing to offer education at little to no cost.
Yes, I know you can shoot at a range, or put a suppressor on the gun. That's not the point. The purpose of the gun, and the principle arguments that most gun advocates make, surround using the gun to punch holes in living things, be they people or animals. Right? The second amendment isn't targeted at making holes in paper. It's about making holes in representatives of a tyrannical government. Home defense isn't about knocking cans off a fence. It's about knocking pieces off of an invader. When drugs and alcohol are used for their intended purpose, they are consumed internally and the only external sign of their use is behavioral. When a gun is used for its intended purpose, there is blood, a shell casing, a piece of metal in someone or something, and perhaps a corpse or a hospital victim. I just think that saying a gun ban would only be as effective as the war on drugs is a little deluded. Sure, people could own guns without being discovered, but you don't generally just own things, and it's a lot harder to use a gun covertly than it is to smoke a joint. The fact that people use guns illegally now is not relevant, unless you're implying that shootings from illegal firearms happens on the same scale as drug abuse.
Owning guns is also possible without any indication that someone possesses them. The government has no idea how many guns I own. The discussion is about owning/banning guns, not using them. It's already obvious that we've failed in preventing people from using them. Ms. Feinstein is not suggesting that the government stop everyone from shooting. She wants to ban guns and confiscate them from the public. The semantics of the intended purpose of guns is unimportant when we're discussing only ownership. It is entirely possible to own guns and never shoot them. And again, banning the possession of firearms would result in the same miserable failure as banning alcohol and other intoxicants has been in the U.S. That doesn't mean Congress won't try.
This is patently absurd. It almost boggles the mind. You can't separate the ownership from the use. Nobody wants to ban guns because they're really, really sick of collectors displaying them in glass cases. The government hasn't entered into the war on drugs because people are keeping kilos of cocaine on shelves in their living room. Seriously? You want to have a ridiculous semantic argument over the fact that, technically, you can possess a gun without using it? All I was stating was that the outlawing of drugs and alcohol has been ineffective because the primary use of these things are in private with no effect on anyone or anything else. That is not the case with firearms.
We have owned nuclear weapons for something like 65 years and only used them twice. However, they're a pretty awesome deterrent.
Ah. Silly me, I forgot discussing guns entails the use of insane comparisons and ridiculous hyperbole. I'll bow out of this thread again. Incidentally, I'm not even for a total gun ban. I just think the attitude of "I should be able to buy anything I want, any time, with no serious restrictions, and anyway there's nothing we can do at this point" is crazy.
Are you insinuating that guns are primarily used in public and on people then? On the flip side, I'd bet the vast majority of bullets fired are on private property or at a private range without any harm to anything (or anyone)- on the same scale of the millions upon millions of guns existing the US to the miniscule fraction actually used in crimes. Hardly a public thing.
The effects of strong and violent deterrent, whether it's a gun or a nuclear weapon, whether it's in a household or on a national level, isn't exactly hyperbole. Dead is dead and either will ruin your day. I think you're more upset that someone came up with a parallel example without having to reach too far.
Re: Wild West In Ohio I'm not so sure the answer to every problem involving guns is "more people need guns", but let's just set that potential clusterfuck aside for the moment. There is one question I'd like to see answered before any of the others: Can you fail this class?
The world knows the US has a tremendous nuclear arsenal. How many people know I have (or don't have) guns in my house?
Re: Wild West In Ohio I can't speak for this class, but when I took a CCH class last year two people didn't pass because they could not shoot accurately enough. I'd imagine the requirements are even more stringent in a class such as this.
Good god your biases make you dense sometimes. Are you saying that because guns make noise and create holes in people that it would be easy to confiscate all of them from the American public? Yes, every time a gun was used against another person, it would be obvious that the user owned a gun. Based on the number of gun homicides every year in the U.S., we could positively identify about 11,000 guns annually. How in the fuck do you propose we locate and confiscate the other 309,989,000 guns? Obviously, you know little or nothing about firearms. It's not that "technically" you can own a gun without using it, the fact is that's generally what happens. How many guns do I own, and how often do I shoot them? You have no fucking idea, and neither does the government, and they have no mechanism, legal or otherwise, to find out. I use them so infrequently that unless I told someone I have them, nobody knows. That's the point I'm making. A gun ban passed by Congress would have absolutely no effect on the number of guns I (and most other gun owners) own. That is the very definition of "ineffective."
I think you entirely miss the point. Prohibition made booze illegal. Did it stop the production or consumption of booze? Did it make for a more peaceful society? Drugs were made illegal. Did it stop the production or consumption of drugs? Has it made for a more peaceful society? If we make guns illegal, what in your opinion will happen?
Why does this argument always boil down to "More Guns vs. Less Guns" instead of "Lets try to keep guns away from idiots and the mentally ill"? Fuck, people. Should you have to be licensed to own a firearm? Absolutely. This should be stringent and you should be able to fail. Should you have to register what guns you own with the government? Absolutely not, although I could see it being relevant if you own something exotic (which I'm very much in favor of allowing). Instead of running a ban on the scary looking "assault weapons," limit civilian magazine size. Seriously, is being limited to a 5 round magazine instead of 30 or so really going to have that much of an impact on your hunting/range shooting/etc.? Sure, its not ideal, but people need to meet in the fucking middle on this thing. Nobody wants people shooting up schools/malls/the co'na sto', and if everyone stopped waving their dicks at each other they could figure out a way to reduce gun violence that doesn't infringe on a reasonable right to gun ownership.