Make USA a Gun-free zone?

[Dr.Zoidberg]

What do you think of this comment after the Virginia Tech massacre?

Nugent: Gun-free zones are recipe for disaster

By Ted Nugent
Special to CNN


Editor's note: Rock guitarist Ted Nugent has sold more than 30 million albums. He's also a gun rights activist and serves on the board of directors of the National Rifle Association. His program, "Ted Nugent Spirit of the Wild," can be seen on the Outdoor Channel.

Read an opposing take on gun control from journalist Tom Plate: Let's lay down our right to bear arms

WACO, Texas (CNN) -- Zero tolerance, huh? Gun-free zones, huh? Try this on for size: Columbine gun-free zone, New York City pizza shop gun-free zone, Luby's Cafeteria gun-free zone, Amish school in Pennsylvania gun-free zone and now Virginia Tech gun-free zone.

Anybody see what theevil Brady Campaign and other anti-gun cults have created? I personally have zero tolerance for evil and denial. And America had best wake up real fast that the brain-dead celebration of unarmed helplessness will get you killed every time, and I've about had enough of it.

Nearly a decade ago, a Springfield, Oregon, high schooler, a hunter familiar with firearms, was able to bring an unfolding rampage to an abrupt end when he identified a gunman attempting to reload his .22-caliber rifle, made the tactical decision to make a move and tackled the shooter.

A few years back, an assistant principal at Pearl High School in Mississippi, which was a gun-free zone, retrieved his legally owned Colt .45 from his car and stopped a Columbine wannabe from continuing his massacre at another school after he had killed two and wounded more at Pearl.

At an eighth-grade school dance in Pennsylvania, a boy fatally shot a teacher and wounded two students before the owner of the dance hall brought the killing to a halt with his own gun.

More recently, just a few miles up the road from Virginia Tech, two law school students ran to fetch their legally owned firearm to stop a madman from slaughtering anybody and everybody he pleased. These brave, average, armed citizens neutralized him pronto.

My hero, Dr. Suzanne Gratia Hupp, was not allowed by Texas law to carry her handgun into Luby's Cafeteria that fateful day in 1991, when due to bureaucrat-forced unarmed helplessness she could do nothing to stop satanic George Hennard from killing 23 people and wounding more than 20 others before he shot himself. Hupp was unarmed for no other reason than denial-ridden "feel good" politics.

She has since led the charge for concealed weapon upgrade in Texas, where we can now stop evil. Yet, there are still the mindless puppets of the Brady Campaign and other anti-gun organizations insisting on continuing the gun-free zone insanity by which innocents are forced into unarmed helplessness. Shame on them. Shame on America. Shame on the anti-gunners all.

No one was foolish enough to debate Ryder truck regulations or ammonia nitrate restrictions or a "cult of agriculture fertilizer" following the unabashed evil of Timothy McVeigh's heinous crime against America on that fateful day in Oklahoma City. No one faulted kitchen utensils or other hardware of choice after Jeffrey Dahmer was caught drugging, mutilating, raping, murdering and cannibalizing his victims. Nobody wanted "steak knife control" as they autopsied the dead nurses in Chicago, Illinois, as Richard Speck went on trial for mass murder.

Evil is as evil does, and laws disarming guaranteed victims make evil people very, very happy. Shame on us.

Already spineless gun control advocates are squawking like chickens with their tiny-brained heads chopped off, making political hay over this most recent, devastating Virginia Tech massacre, when in fact it is their own forced gun-free zone policy that enabled the unchallenged methodical murder of 32 people.
Thirty-two people dead on a U.S. college campus pursuing their American Dream, mowed-down over an extended period of time by a lone, non-American gunman in illegal possession of a firearm on campus in defiance of a zero-tolerance gun law. Feel better yet? Didn't think so.

Who doesn't get this? Who has the audacity to demand unarmed helplessness? Who likes dead good guys?

I'll tell you who. People who tramp on the Second Amendment, that's who. People who refuse to accept the self-evident truth that free people have the God-given right to keep and bear arms, to defend themselves and their loved ones. People who are so desperate in their drive to control others, so mindless in their denial that they pretend access to gas causes arson, Ryder trucks and fertilizer cause terrorism, water causes drowning, forks and spoons cause obesity, dialing 911 will somehow save your life, and that their greedy clamoring to "feel good" is more important than admitting that armed citizens are much better equipped to stop evil than unarmed, helpless ones.

Pray for the families of victims everywhere, America. Study the methodology of evil. It has a profile, a system, a preferred environment where victims cannot fight back. Embrace the facts, demand upgrade and be certain that your children's school has a better plan than Virginia Tech or Columbine. Eliminate the insanity of gun-free zones, which will never, ever be gun-free zones. They will only be good guy gun-free zones, and that is a recipe for disaster written in blood on the altar of denial. I, for one, refuse to genuflect there.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/19/com...ent/index.html

Such a comment can only come from a member of the NRA. USA is one of the few countries in which you are allowed to possess firearms by law.

Why?

I think this is unnecessary. I know, if you want arms you will get them, even with a law against possession of firearms, but it woul be harder to get them. And I´m confident that the people would think twice about getting a gun, if it´s forbidden.

And to his statement:

Who has the audacity to demand unarmed helplessness? Who likes dead good guys?

It´s one point to possess weapons, but another one to use them. I don´t think a good guy is able to shoot a person down. A good guy with some conscience will think about shooting someone and probably will be shot down from the consciencless offender who doesn´t care a pap for it.

[Mavdog]

It seems non-sensical to argue (such as nugent does) that if there were more guns possessed by citizens and circulating in our society that there would be fewer gun related events and fewer "good" people harmed.

the key to what happened in Virginia is that the laws on background checks were not followed and thsy should have been. the shooter was able to get his guns and ammo even tho he should have been denied those items (according to federal laws) due to his prior court directives to seek psychiatric help.

there will never be a day in america when guns will be prohibited, it is too ingrained in our culture to have the right to possess firearms. I would like to see the day however when handguns and the ammo are very tightly regulated, and people such as this one in virginia are denied the opportunity to purchase multiple weapons and an inordinate amount of ammo, and a situation such as this could be avoided or at the least the ability of a person such as cho to inflict harm on others is minimized.

[Usually Lurkin]

let's just ignore the examples ted cited for us, and then pretend that the government could possibly do a better job regulating firearms than it does regulating anything else.

[Dr.Zoidberg]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

let's just ignore the examples ted cited for us, and then pretend that the government could possibly do a better job regulating firearms than it does regulating anything else.

We are not in the wild wild west, are we? My opinion is that to be allowed possessing arms leads to more negative incidents than it will prevent from execute criminal acts with weapons.

Those few positive examples he named, don´t convince me anyway at all.

[Mavdog]

...or we can just "ignore" the examples of people killing other people and expect that things will be diffferent in the future even tho we don't change a single thing.

there are goods and services that are regulated by the government, and regulated to the betterment of all of us. there are some goods and services that have not been well regulated and should be left to the marketplace.

guns and ammo are in the former group IMHO. we should NOT leave weaponry to the marketplace to regulate, that was what we refer to as "the wild west" if you recall.

[alexamenos]

nice article....thanks...

I got you in a stranglehold baby,
come on, come on. come on.........

Nugent rocks.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Dr.Zoidberg

USA is one of the few countries in which you are allowed to possess firearms by law.

Why?

That has alot to do with the natural law philosophy shared by so many of the folks that wrote the constitution. Natural law philosophy, briefly, meaning that by virtue being alive a man is naturally endowed with certain rights -- first and foremost among these rights is right to protect one's own life--a firearm is arguably useful to that end.

cheers

[Dr.Zoidberg]

Yes Nungent rocks, but his thinking about arms is plain and simple shenanigans and would be a step back in evolution of humankind.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Dr.Zoidberg

Yes Nungent rocks, but his thinking about arms is plain and simple shenanigans and would be a step back in evolution of humankind.

fwiw I think the notion that mankind is evolving is three-parts wishful thinking and one-part technology, but I digress....

I don't know whether you're familiar with debate in the US -- it goes a little something like this.

if you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns.

i'm not a gun owner myself, but I find this nonetheless to be an imminently sensible position.

I mean, marijuana is outlawed in the US, but everyone knows how to get marijuana if they want it (or at least they know a teenaged kid who can tell them where to go). Likewise, everytime a new gun law passes a new black market arises, so there's no question that guns will still be readily available to those who desire to put them to use for nefarious ends.

So, gun laws would not prevent people who don't concern themselves too much with the law anyway from attaining guns. Not a good situation, self-evidently in my estimation.

cheers

("but I'm really angry right now" - Homer Simpson, when told by a gun salesman that he had to wait five days to get his pistol)

[dalmations202]

Evolution has nothing to do with it. Control does.

Nugent, much like myself, doesn't want to be controlled by a lone gunman, or the government, or anyone else. He believes we have the right to defend ourselves, and control our own destiny.

Without the weaponry to do this, you cannot. A 75lb 6th grade girl with a gun becomes more powerful than the baddest 7' 450lb weight lifter in the world. You must have a gun to defend yourself, and your loved ones.

Guns level the playing field. You remove them, then only the bad guys have them, and more people get killed, not fewer. If you cannot see the logic, then you really have a closed mind, and have never been to place where you can't have guns.

Edit: Don't say Germany, because I spent time there, and always had guns. Same with the time I spent in England.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

You must have a gun to defend yourself, and your loved ones.

Guns level the playing field. You remove them, then only the bad guys have them, and more people get killed, not fewer.

as George Orwell said, "the great age of democracy and of national self-determination was the age of the musket and the rifle."

[SeattleMavsFan]

Without the weaponry to do this, you cannot. A 75lb 6th grade girl with a gun becomes more powerful than the baddest 7' 450lb weight lifter in the world. You must have a gun to defend yourself, and your loved ones.

Guns level the playing field. You remove them, then only the bad guys have them, and more people get killed, not fewer. If you cannot see the logic, then you really have a closed mind, and have never been to place where you can't have guns.

exactly! criminals will always have guns no matter if the US bans guns or not. that just takes guns away from the normal citizen and then we can't defend ourselves at all. i don't know if there necessarily will be less deaths but there will be a lot less good people deaths.

Then please explain why in other countries the people can live without that law. Is it such dangerous in USA that you need a weapon to stay alive? A scary thought. In Germany for example are not many criminal acts with weapons. And situations in which you have to protect your own life will probably appear more rare if arms are forbidden and hard to get. As I said before, I know that you never can deny a criminal from getting a gun.

A child (little girl) with a gun also is a very scary imagination for me. My logic is, if you have more weapons in circulation because everyone is allowed to possess one, it will lead to more criminal acts and deaths and not less. And of course has evolution something to do with it. We are no longer in stone age, where you batter each other skull.

I know an adjustment would be very hard to do, as it´s a fundamental right to possess arms and therewith it would oppose to the constitution and in USA it´s probably too late as there already are to much arms in circulation, but don´t forget that America after all is by far in position number one regarding criminal acts with weapons and deaths based on shootings!

yes other countries operate fine and have very little gun deaths. but they started that way. we have had guns for so long that we can't change that now. the US is a dangerous place whether you see it or not. It gets worse and worse everyday too. I agree that is is scary to see a little girl with a gun but if she does not have that gun with her when some dude comes to rape her, then she's dead. at least with a gun, she can scare him a way or kill him. that would get rid of the nasty people in this country. It would also free up our prisons so we don't have to keep kicking people out of prison because we need the room...

[Dr.Zoidberg]

Then please explain why in other countries the people can live without that law. Is it such dangerous in USA that you need a weapon to stay alive? A scary thought. In Germany for example are not many criminal acts with weapons. And situations in which you have to protect your own life will probably appear more rare if arms are forbidden and hard to get. As I said before, I know that you never can deny a criminal from getting a gun.

A child (little girl) with a gun also is a very scary imagination for me. My logic is, if you have more weapons in circulation because everyone is allowed to possess one, it will lead to more criminal acts and deaths and not less. And of course has evolution something to do with it. We are no longer in stone age, where you batter each other skull.

I know an adjustment would be very hard to do, as it´s a fundamental right to possess arms and therewith it would oppose to the constitution and in USA it´s probably too late as there already are to much arms in circulation, but don´t forget that America after all is by far in position number one regarding criminal acts with weapons and deaths based on shootings!

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Dr.Zoidberg

Then please explain why in other countries the people can live without that law.

i don't know -- maybe these other countries are different from the US?

cheers

[Dr.Zoidberg]

To prevent the impression that all American are supporter of having the right to possess arms, here the opposing article:

Plate: Let's lay down our right to bear arms

By Tom Plate
Special to CNN


Editor's note: Tom Plate, former editor of the editorial pages of the Los Angeles Times, is a professor of communication and policy studies at UCLA. He is author of a new book, "Confessions of an American Media Man."

Read an opposing take on gun control from Ted Nugent: Gun-free zones are recipe for disaster

LOS ANGELES (CNN) -- Most days, it is not at all hard to feel proud to be an American. But on days such as this, it is very difficult.

The pain that the parents of the slain students feel hits deep into everyone's hearts. At the University of California, Los Angeles, students are talking about little else. It is not that they feel especially vulnerable because they are students at a major university, as is Virginia Tech, but because they are (to be blunt) citizens of High Noon America.

"High Noon" is a famous film. The 1952 Western told the story of a town marshal (played by the superstar actor Gary Cooper) who is forced to eliminate a gang of killers by himself. They are eventually gunned down.

The use of guns is often the American technique of choice for all kinds of conflict resolution. Our famous Constitution, about which many of us are generally so proud, enshrines -- along with the right to freedom of speech, press, religion and assembly -- the right to own guns. That's an apples and oranges list if there ever was one.

Not all of us are so proud and triumphant about the gun-guarantee clause. The right to free speech, press, religion and assembly and so on seem to be working well, but the gun part, not so much.

Let me explain. Some misguided people will focus on the fact that the 23-year-old student who killed his classmates and others at Virginia Tech was ethnically Korean. This is one of those observations that's 99.99 percent irrelevant. What are we to make of the fact that he is Korean? Ban Ki-moon is also Korean! Our brilliant new United Nations secretary general has not only never fired a gun, it looks like he may have just put together a peace formula for civil war-wracked Sudan -- a formula that escaped his predecessor.

So let's just disregard all the hoopla about the race of the student responsible for the slayings. These students were not killed by a Korean, they were killed by a 9 mm handgun and a .22-caliber handgun.

In the nineties, the Los Angeles Times courageously endorsed an all-but-complete ban on privately owned guns, in an effort to greatly reduce their availability. By the time the series of editorials had concluded, the newspaper had received more angry letters and fiery faxes from the well-armed U.S. gun lobby than on any other issue during my privileged six-year tenure as the newspaper's editorial page editor.

But the paper, by the way, also received more supportive letters than on any other issue about which it editorialized during that era. The common sense of ordinary citizens told them that whatever Americans were and are good for, carrying around guns like costume jewelry was not on our Mature List of Notable Cultural Accomplishments.

"Guns don't kill people," goes the gun lobby's absurd mantra. Far fewer guns in America would logically result in far fewer deaths from people pulling the trigger. The probability of the Virginia Tech gun massacre happening would have been greatly reduced if guns weren't so easily available to ordinary citizens.

Foreigners sometimes believe that celebrities in America are more often the targets of gun violence than the rest of us. Not true. Celebrity shootings just make better news stories, so perhaps they seem common. They're not. All of us are targets because with so many guns swishing around our culture, no one is immune -- not even us non-celebrities.

When the great pop composer and legendary member of the Beatles John Lennon was shot in 1980 in New York, many in the foreign press tabbed it a war on celebrities. Now, some in the media will declare a war on students or some-such. This is all misplaced. The correct target of our concern needs to be guns. America has more than it can possibly handle. How many can our society handle? My opinion is: as close to zero as possible.

Last month, I was robbed at 10 in the evening in the alley behind my home. As I was carrying groceries inside, a man with a gun approached me where my car was parked. The gun he carried featured one of those red-dot laser beams, which he pointed right at my head.

Because I'm anything but a James Bond type, I quickly complied with all of his requests. Perhaps because of my rapid response (it is called surrender), he chose not to shoot me; but he just as easily could have. What was to stop him?

This occurred in Beverly Hills, a low-crime area dotted with upscale boutiques, restaurants and businesses -- a city best known perhaps for its glamour and celebrity sightings.

Oh, and police tell me the armed robber definitely was not Korean. Not that I would have known one way or the other: Basically the only thing I saw or can remember was the gun, with the red dot, pointed right at my head.

A near-death experience does focus the mind. We need to get rid of our guns.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/18/com...ate/index.html

[dalmations202]

Other countries have the "right" to do as they please.

I believe that it is my "right" to defend myself and my loved ones.
I believe that is my duty to defend the right to life, and liberty.

When I married my wife, I agreed that I would consider her life before my own.
When I had children, I agreed that I would give my life for theirs.
When I was in the military, I agreed to give my life to the needs of my country.

Evil exists, and it is my right to utilize guns -or anything else for that matter - to defend myself and innocent others.

If you believe that it is the governments right to tell you how, when, where, and what you can utilize then more power to you. I will watch as you are helpless, and then try to offer my life or the life of my child to help you when you are being slaughtered.

So let's just disregard all the hoopla about the race of the student responsible for the slayings. These students were not killed by a Korean, they were killed by a 9 mm handgun and a .22-caliber handgun.

This has got to be the most short sighted stupid thing ever written. The guns did not kill them - a crazy, maniac did. These guns didn't carry themselves there, and they didn't go off unintentionally. If someone with a concealed carry permit would have had one earlier, maybe lots less would have been killed. Dumb-ass short sighted thoughts.

If you outlawed the guns, and he didn't have them, could he have finished the bomb he was making, and killed even more people? If he didn't have the guns, could he have gassed the place? Could he have used viruses, or chemicals? Could he have rented a plane, filled it with fuel, and flown it into the building? Could he have changed wires and electrocuted people? Could he have gotten a semi full of fertilizer and diesel and blown it up mid campus? My point is that guns are not the reason for a killer to kill, just a tool that is used. Taking away this tools from others, just enables the killer.

<edit> and just for the record. Tom Plate is a coward.

[Dr.Zoidberg]

we have had guns for so long that we can't change that now.

Thats what I have feared and this point is in my opinion the biggest problem in USA.

It would also free up our prisons so we don't have to keep kicking people out of prison because we need the room...

I don&#180;t think so. If everyone is able to get guns (has guns) the inhibition level to use them will probably drop and therewith prisons will be (are) more overcrowded. I wonder how often altercations end deadly, because a gun is used imprudent and in emotion.

The guns did not kill them - a crazy, maniac did. These guns didn't carry themselves there, and they didn't go off unintentionally. If someone with a concealed carry permit would have had one earlier, maybe lots less would have been killed. ... If you outlawed the guns, and he didn't have them, could he have finished the bomb he was making, and killed even more people? If he didn't have the guns, could he have gassed the place? Could he have used viruses, or chemicals? Could he have rented a plane, filled it with fuel, and flown it into the building? Could he have changed wires and electrocuted people? Could he have gotten a semi full of fertilizer and diesel and blown it up mid campus? My point is that guns are not the reason for a killer to kill, just a tool that is used.

As I said before you never can&#180;t deny a criminal of doing that. It&#180;s the same everywhere and if you look to those countries where weapons are forbidden (and it&#180;s the most) and you can&#180;t get them that easy, you will notice that the criminal acts are considerably less there, than in USA. And how can you prevent that a madman like Cho get&#180;s weapons? You can&#180;t look into somebodys mind and so it&#180;s a scary thought if guns (tools!!!) are that easy to get, but you can make it harder to get them. For what is the police in the USA? Have you such little confidence in them?

Thank God I never was in such a situation but certainly it&#180;s not that easy to shoot somebody down fast enough before he will shoot you down. I can imagine that the most people, especially in a life-threatening situation, are frightened at first and to keep a clear head will be almost impossible. How can you be sure you will strike the offender and not a threatened person, as you are jittery and mostly not very good trained with the gun? The offender always has the advantage, as he is prepared and has no scruples! For me the disadvantages outweigh the advantages.

If I read you descriptions, America must be at war.

[come_on_now]

Both sides of the argument are wrong.

A: Getting rid of guns won't solve our propensity to kill each other.
B: Everyone having a gun won't stop gun violence or slow it down.

Guns are not the problem. The gray matter in our skulls is the problem. There are tons of guns all over the world among industrialized, democratic nations, and yet somehow we're the only ones that run around shooting each other.

If you take the guns away people will just start making more bombs to get the job done.

And this fundamental right to bear arms is so dated and archaic. That was granted when we were in a position where you could fight against a tyranical government. Well, the tyranical government owns us now and there's not much we can do about it other than refusing to go to work, buy gas, etc like the French do. They get it done over there when their government starts screwing up. But then again they've been doing the democracy thing much longer than us and are just better at it.

Parents. We need more parents. It all starts with teaching young ones when they need to be taught. We refuse to do it though. We'd rather sit them in front of the X-Box so we don't have to deal with them as both parents work 60 hours a week because they have to, are never there, then we hope the government takes the guns away so they don't kill each other.

No music, gun, movie, or anything like that is responsible for your child's delinquency. You, the parent, are.

[dude1394]

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=041907D

'Only in America'? Gunning Down a Claim
By Steve Stanek : BIO| 20 Apr 2007


In response to the horrible mass shooting at Virginia Tech on Monday, overseas leaders as well as many Americans have condemned the "gun culture" of the United States. Perhaps these overseas leaders and American citizens would be less hard on our country if we discuss what has been happening in other countries.

Major news outlets reported on April 18 about the shooting deaths of at least 19 gang members in Rio de Janeiro by rival gangs and police. These shootouts occurred despite Brazil's strict gun control laws.

Also in Wednesday's newspapers are reports about Tuesday's shooting death of the mayor of Nagasaki, Japan. Japan has some of the strictest anti-gun laws in the industrialized world.

In Scotland authorities are enacting knife control policies because violent crime has continued to climb (with knives as a weapon of choice) in the wake of the nation's gun bans. Should Americans speak contemptuously of Scotland's "blade and booze" culture?

Last November in Emsdetten, Germany, a teenager shot and wounded more than a dozen persons before killing himself. In 2002 in a school in Erfurt, Germany, a gunman killed 17 people and himself.

Five years ago I did research for an article on mass shootings. Here are a few of the headlines I came across:

"8 slain at council meeting"

"Teen wounds 5 in tech school"

"Suspected gang shooting leaves 4 dead, 2 injured"

"Man kills ex-bosses, principal, himself"

"Gunman kills self, 7 others"

The incidents these headlines describe occurred in France, the Netherlands, Japan, Germany and Italy, respectively. In the five years since that research, crime rates have continued to climb in many other countries with far stricter gun control laws than those in the United States.

......

(more at the link)..

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by come_on_now

Both sides of the argument are wrong.

A: Getting rid of guns won't solve our propensity to kill each other.
B: Everyone having a gun won't stop gun violence or slow it down.

Guns are not the problem. The gray matter in our skulls is the problem. There are tons of guns all over the world among industrialized, democratic nations, and yet somehow we're the only ones that run around shooting each other.

If you take the guns away people will just start making more bombs to get the job done.

And this fundamental right to bear arms is so dated and archaic. That was granted when we were in a position where you could fight against a tyranical government. Well, the tyranical government owns us now and there's not much we can do about it other than refusing to go to work, buy gas, etc like the French do. They get it done over there when their government starts screwing up. But then again they've been doing the democracy thing much longer than us and are just better at it.

Parents. We need more parents. It all starts with teaching young ones when they need to be taught. We refuse to do it though. We'd rather sit them in front of the X-Box so we don't have to deal with them as both parents work 60 hours a week because they have to, are never there, then we hope the government takes the guns away so they don't kill each other.

No music, gun, movie, or anything like that is responsible for your child's delinquency. You, the parent, are.

Very good post. You're to no small degree right about the archaic nature of the right to bear arms. See Waco, Mt. Carmel, for an example of the futility. All the same, I think a person has the right to defend themselves against more petty crimes and criminals. cheers

[MFFL]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

Very good post. You're to no small degree right about the archaic nature of the right to bear arms.

* Second Amendment – Right to keep and bear arms.
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.

The second amendment is misunderstood by so many people. The US did not have a military back then so citizens would have to be called up as militia. And a militia needed guns. But this amendment became outdated when the US decided to form a standing military.

* Third Amendment – Protection from quartering of troops.
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

That third amendment is the one that should be addressed. Man - I can't tell you the number of times the military has tried to house troops at my home. It SUCKS.

[usafreedom3]

Why don't we let our next President shed some light on this issue?

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...U3YTU4YzNmNGE=

[big_pth]

Gun control is vital not because guns are dangerous, but because people are stupid and have bad tempers. I don't think you should ban all guns, but there are a lot of weapons like assault rifles, sub-machine guns, actual machine guns, RPG's and the like that civilians should not have. Simply because civilians as a whole are stupid and have bad tempers. I fall into both categories, thus I have no guns. Too many times I think it is very tempting to yank out a gun and blast some idiot driver for being a bad driver. Thus I have no guns. The issue with the VT kid was that he was nuts and should not have had access to guns. But he got them easily and did bad things with them. Do I think those guns he used should be banned? No. Do I think there should be more stringent laws regarding background checks and licensing? Yes, simply to keep guns out of his hands, and mine. Because I am stupid and I have a bad temper.

[Dr.Zoidberg]

I think the suggestion of big_pth to sharpen the law, is a good compromise for the USA.

To the article of dude: This are very few examples he can name, if you notice that these incidents happened worldwide and in the last 5 years.

To the shooting in Rio de Janeiro: As far as I know, Rio belongs to the cities with the highest quota of criminal acts at all and therefore is a outlier.

To the shootings in Germany I have to say, that these have been committed by bedlam and depressive persons which both get their arms from their fathers. Both farthers were hunter and didn&#180;t secure their arms good enough.

If you look at the named examples, you will notice that it mostly was a madman or bedlam person which committed the killing frenzy. So finally I have to say that you never can deny a criminal to get a weapon but you can definitely make it harder (with more stringent laws) for mentally disturbed persons to get them.

[Thespiralgoeson]

I can't stand these silly debates. Guns, abortion, and many many other things that people will never agree on are here to stay.

[come_on_now]

Originally Posted by Thespiralgoeson

I can't stand these silly debates. Guns, abortion, and many many other things that people will never agree on are here to stay.

It's because we don't want to talk about poverty and our failing, monopolizing, greedy capitalistic system.

When we realize that capitalism in it's current state has failed and do something about it things will get better. Until then, it's crazy time!

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by come_on_now

It's because we don't want to talk about poverty and our failing, monopolizing, greedy capitalistic system.

When we realize that capitalism in it's current state has failed and do something about it things will get better. Until then, it's crazy time!

Yeah, maybe we could try socialism. If only our failing, monopolizing, greedy capitalistic system weren't so rotten, we'd have a lot more people trying to get into this country. Silly.

[Dr.Zoidberg]

Originally Posted by Thespiralgoeson

I can't stand these silly debates. Guns, abortion, and many many other things that people will never agree on are here to stay.

I have the solution for you. If you can&#180;t stay those debates, don&#180;t want to contribute or don&#180;t like the topic, keep away and let the interested people discuss! And a debate can&#180;t be named as silly only cuz you don&#180;t like the topic or an opinion which differs from yours.

[Thespiralgoeson]

Originally Posted by Dr.Zoidberg

I have the solution for you. If you can´t stay those debates, don´t want to contribute or don´t like the topic, keep away and let the interested people discuss! And a debate can´t be named as silly only cuz you don´t like the topic or an opinion which differs from yours.

First of all, I never said I didn't "like" the topic, nor did I point out any opinion which differs from mine.

I said the debate is silly? Why is it silly? Because guns are here to stay. The second ammendment will never ever be replealed. At least not in our lifetimes. Hence, I think debates about whether or not guns should be banned are pointless because it's never going to happen.

Second, piss off.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Thespiralgoeson

I can't stand these silly debates. Guns, abortion, and many many other things that people will never agree on are here to stay.

Guns/Abortions are definitely sort of mirror images to each other. Neither side wants to budge for fear that they'll give up ground.

As the recent supreme court ruling about PBT shows. You'd think that roe v wade had been overturned to hear the howling.

The fact is that we do have quite a bit of gun laws in the country, but our constitution declares that it's a right (sort of like free speech) and folks kinda take those things seriously (thank goodness).

[Usually Lurkin]

from the Fred Thompson article linked above:

Whenever I've seen one of those "Gun-free Zone" signs, especially outside of a school filled with our youngest and most vulnerable citizens, I've always wondered exactly who these signs are directed at. Obviously, they don't mean much to the sort of man who murdered 32 people just a few days ago.

[dude1394]

As an example. All of the democrats assailed the abortion ruling this week. But the NYTimes (shockingly) puts it in perspective.

Only some 2,200 of the 1.3 million abortions performed annually in the United States involve the banned procedure.

See only only .2% of aborted babies are born and then have their brains sucked out. But oh my goodness what a terrible decision for the "rights" for an abortion.

Actually couldn't believe we were aborting the equivalent population of swaziland every year. Wow...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._by_population

[Dr.Zoidberg]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

from the Fred Thompson article linked above:

It isn&#180;t about, to install prohibition signs. Which offender would stop shooting because of signs? Nonsense.

The point is to make a harder verification, as you want to buy a weapon. For me it looks like everyone in USA can get a gun trouble-free, without any check whether you are qualified to conduct a gun or not.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Dr.Zoidberg

It isn´t about, to install prohibition signs. Which offender would stop shooting because of signs? Nonsense.

The point is to make a harder verification, ...

The wider point is that laws don't stop bad guys. If they did, we woudn't call them bad guys.

And zoidberg, read all the examples cited in this thread about good people using guns to stop bad people. If you want to ignore those examples, then that's your choice, just realize you are ignoring them.

[Rhylan]

Did I just hear "capitalism in its current state has failed?"

Normally I wouldn't call someone out just for their opinion alone, but that is the most unforgivably idiotic thing I've read in years. Please feel free to pack your bags and pick your favorite socialist, totalitarian, communist, or primitive communal society. Move there. Be sure to write. We'll miss you.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Rhylan

Did I just hear "capitalism in its current state has failed?"

Normally I wouldn't call someone out just for their opinion alone, but that is the most unforgivably idiotic thing I've read in years. Please feel free to pack your bags and pick your favorite socialist, totalitarian, communist, or primitive communal society. Move there. Be sure to write. We'll miss you.

Pretty ridiculous isn't it? Reality is not strong in this one.

[u2sarajevo]

Originally Posted by Dr.Zoidberg

And to his statement:It´s one point to possess weapons, but another one to use them. I don´t think a good guy is able to shoot a person down. A good guy with some conscience will think about shooting someone and probably will be shot down from the consciencless offender who doesn´t care a pap for it.

This point cracked me up. So instead of giving the "good" guy the CHANCE to defend himself against a criminal that would ignore gun bans you would rather him just die without a chance?

[Dr.Zoidberg]

Originally Posted by u2sarajevo

This point cracked me up. So instead of giving the "good" guy the CHANCE to defend himself against a criminal that would ignore gun bans you would rather him just die without a chance?

Of course not! I would have nothing against the good guy shooting down the offender. I only would question that in such a sudden and unprepared situation he can keep a clear head and therewith probably isn´t able to shoot him down fast enough. Also I would doubt that good guys always will carry weapons on one´s person.

[u2sarajevo]

Originally Posted by Dr.Zoidberg

Of course not! I would have nothing against the good guy shooting down the offender. I only would question that in such a sudden and unprepared situation he can keep a clear head and therewith probably isn´t able to shoot him down fast enough. Also I would doubt that good guys always will carry weapons on one´s person.

I'm a good guy. So there goes that theory.

[Murphy3]

Originally Posted by Dr.Zoidberg

Of course not! I would have nothing against the good guy shooting down the offender. I only would question that in such a sudden and unprepared situation he can keep a clear head and therewith probably isn´t able to shoot him down fast enough. Also I would doubt that good guys always will carry weapons on one´s person.

Why in the world would you think the good guys aren't capable of keeping a clear head in such a situation?