# Constitution 1, D.C. 0



## Matt Crooks (Jun 26, 2008)

Supreme Court says Americans have right to guns - Yahoo! News


----------



## Drew (Jun 26, 2008)

I'd call that "Constitution 0, DC 0" myself. 



> "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."



My take is that the Bill of Rights specifically ties the right to gun ownership to the need for a militia to protect the states. I think that to support this decision the following connections would have to be made:

1.) That with or without a militia it protects the states to have private citizens with guns.
2.) That handguns specifically are necessary, and rifles (which were legal) would not suffice.
3.) that it would place an undue burden on these aforementioned citizens aforementioned duty to protect the state to require them to store guns unloaded and with trigger locks; i.e. that the state could not protect itself with locked, unloaded weapons in storage, but it could if they were, to reverse a phrase, unlocked and loaded. 

I don't really feel that any of those points were sucessfully made. I thought conservative justices were supposed to take a strict reading of the constitution, and were opposed to so called "judicial activism" that they accuse their liberal bretheren of?


----------



## eaeolian (Jun 26, 2008)

Drew said:


> I thought conservative justices were supposed to take a strict reading of the constitution, and were opposed to so called "judicial activism" that they accuse their liberal bretheren of?



Ideologues work the same way on both sides of the aisle. After all, it's only "activism" when you don't agree with it.

I think there was little doubt this SCOTUS would decide any differently when the case was accepted.


----------



## telecaster90 (Jun 26, 2008)




----------



## noodles (Jun 26, 2008)

What does the Constitution define as arms, anyway? I think I should be legally allowed to carry a rocket launcher, a few grenades, and drive a tank. Oh, and I want some tactical nukes, too. 

The Constitution was pretty specific about preventing the states from restricting the ability of private citizens to own and maintain a rifle, which is needed to server in the militia. It doesn't say anything about giving us the right to carry small weapons, designed to be easily concealed, until needed to whip out at a moments notice to kill someone.

...and back to the 7000+ murders a year in DC, just like the 70s.


----------



## Infused1 (Jun 26, 2008)

Upholding the Constitution! Score for all of us in the US, even if you dont like guns. The government should not have the power to take our ability to own weapons if we are law abiding citizens period. If we allowed this to continue, other rights could be taken from us later down the road......"Free speech". They are on the Fairness Doctrine again, lets see where that one goes. This second amendment ruling could help other rulings pertaining to other amendments in the future so keep an open mind.


----------



## D-EJ915 (Jun 26, 2008)

noodles said:


> ...and back to the 7000+ murders a year in DC, just like the 70s.


Oh that's going to happen for sure.


----------



## Lucky Seven (Jun 26, 2008)

I get to keep my CZ!


----------



## noodles (Jun 26, 2008)

I think this picture says it all...


----------



## Metal Ken (Jun 26, 2008)

Infused1 said:


> Other rights could be taken from us later down the road......"Free speech". They are on the Fairness Doctrine again, lets see where that one goes.



Fairness doctrine doesn't take away freedom of speech, it just ensures that both sides get equal representation.


----------



## noodles (Jun 26, 2008)

Metal Ken said:


> Fairness doctrine doesn't take away freedom of speech, it just ensures that both sides get equal representation.





If anything, free speech is being trampled on now, because the left isn't getting the chance to speak.


----------



## D-EJ915 (Jun 26, 2008)

noodles said:


> If anything, free speech is being trampled on now, because the left isn't getting the chance to speak.


the left of what? taking away guns won't make anyone safer, instead of pleasing idiots who don't know any better they should focus on better education where it would actually make a difference


----------



## noodles (Jun 26, 2008)

D-EJ915 said:


> the left of what? taking away guns won't make anyone safer, instead of pleasing idiots who don't know any better they should focus on better education where it would actually make a difference



Try to keep up, Jeff, we were talking about free speech and not guns on that one.


----------



## Infused1 (Jun 26, 2008)

noodles said:


> If anything, free speech is being trampled on now, because the left isn't getting the chance to speak.



Ok, so should we do a fairness doctrine on the Television news and Newspapers? 80 percent of them are all far left leaning, most reporters are democrats or vote that way and it comes through in their reporting.
Sorry, telling a private company they have to play equal amounts of something is trampling on their rights to choose as a company and also falls into the free speech category, the left doesnt do well with ratings when it comes to radio, the right does, so because the left doesnt do as well thats unfair and we need legislation for that? Come on guys, your picking issues that suit your views and taking the choice from the people who should be able to do as they want. If the left is doing something better and the right comes to do something like this, I will be all over it and throwing an utter fit. Its not about fairness, its about freedom to choose and the government has no place taking that choice away. I dont care if someone has different views than me, I will always come to the defense of their rights if my side does it, and quite simply Ive done it a few times. Both parties are guilty of it but this will ultimately fall into Free Speech. You guys should hear me when I hear windbag Oreilly on his views of taking rights from people, it pisses me off majorly because we should all be able to say, listen and watch what we want, and those companies should be able to put anything they want on those programs and our government has no place dictating that.



noodles said:


> I think this picture says it all...


Whats wrong with that? Because its a gun its bad? What if there was a car on that?? Rights are rights man, people keep trying to skew things they dont like just because they feel its the right thing to do when it really isnt. If they came after our cars because they kill more people than any gun, would you support banning cars? We are a Republic people, it was set up that way so the majority could not trample minority rights, our democracy lies in our elections. Many laws on the books today are completely unconstitutional yet for some reason people allow it and thats a complete shame. Im not going to try and change your views man, you seem pretty cool and your views are completely opposite from mine with this stuff, but if someone was trying to take rights that were important to you, I would sure as hell back you up even if I didnt agree with you. Thats what freedom is, thats why we have such a cool and diverse group of people in this country, we arent zombies. If only more people would understand that, I think all sides would get along much better than in todays realm and we could move onto more important things.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Jun 26, 2008)

noodles said:


> ...and back to the 7000+ murders a year in DC, just like the 70s.



Please. They tried that same BS rhetorical tactic here in Ohio when we passed a Concealed Carry law.

Guess what? Law abiding citizens don't go around shooting people randomly. Gun crime is DOWN since the law has been passed. 

The Constitution gives us the right to bear ARMS - it doesn't specify what those arms should be. That allows for, like most legal matters, sensible interpretation. I don't think anyone would argue for allowing someone a tactical fucking nuke, Dave.  But that doesn't limit it to just a rifle, either. In this modern world, if someone wants the means to protect and defend them self, especially if they are outside of their house, then obviously a handgun is necessary. That doesn't mean we're going to allow someone to use the Ultimo 5000 Laser Beam of Mass Death, but it does mean since the Constitution guarantees our right to defend ourselves, then sensible, logical interpretation of that protection should stand.


Besides, do you really trust the police to "protect" you and your family? I don't. I watched a guy kick in my front door in broad daylight. It took the police over 40 minutes to get to my house, when my parents were home in less than 3. (They were at the same Wendy's as the cop who eventually showed up.) What if that guy had been intent on doing me harm?


----------



## philkilla (Jun 26, 2008)

They aren't taking my guns.


----------



## Metal Ken (Jun 26, 2008)

Infused1 said:


> Ok, so should we do a fairness doctrine on the Television news and Newspapers? 80 percent of them are all far left leaning, most reporters are democrats or vote that way and it comes through in their reporting.



Funny, cause all those political roundtables on CNN with both republicans and democrats arguing with each other... i totally hear that on the radio. Nah, what i hear on the radio is far right leaning people like rush and michael savage complaining about everything, and in the case of michael savage, screaming at callers who don't agree with him or hanging up on them.


----------



## Infused1 (Jun 26, 2008)

Metal Ken said:


> Fairness doctrine doesn't take away freedom of speech, it just ensures that both sides get equal representation.



It sure does take away free speech in a way, and it takes away freedom of choice, it would ultimately silence many radio hosts on the air today in certain communities and thats just disgusting. This isnt fair, it is people crying unfair because they dont have a market. It would be like buying a BMW or a Volkswagon, both great cars, but most wouldnt be able to afford the BMW, so BMW cries foul and wants the sales to be fair, so volkswagon can only sell so much when BMW only sold so much. Same thing, different context.


----------



## Metal Ken (Jun 26, 2008)

Infused1 said:


> It sure does take away free speech in a way, and it takes away freedom of choice, it would ultimately silence many radio hosts on the air today in certain communities and thats just disgusting. This isnt fair, it is people crying unfair because they dont have a market. It would be like buying a BMW or a Volkswagon, both great cars, but most wouldnt be able to afford the BMW, so BMW cries foul and wants the sales to be fair, so volkswagon can only sell so much when BMW only sold so much. Same thing, different context.



Freedom of choice =/= Freedom of speech. I'd rather hear two sides debating something than a 16 hour chain of neoconservative soapboxing.


----------



## Infused1 (Jun 26, 2008)

Metal Ken said:


> Freedom of choice =/= Freedom of speech. I'd rather hear two sides debating something than a 16 hour chain of neoconservative soapboxing.



I would rather hear good debate also, but Im not going to tell someone or a company that they must because Id like to hear that. The markets determine what the do and do not play on the air.
Air America was supposed to be the answer to that and they went belly up because they did not have an audience (edit) big enough audience for revenue. I dont listen to radio talk shows too much, I usually listen to John and Ken at 3 when Im getting my kids but only for a few minutes to get a laugh from them, but if it was only left radio, I wouldnt want this used against them, its just wrong. Hell I used to listen to Howard Stern sometimes until he went to satellite radio. I also dont think freedom of choice is less important than freedom of speech, I think they are both equally important and combined in some ways.


----------



## Metal Ken (Jun 26, 2008)

Infused1 said:


> I would rather hear good debate also, but Im not going to tell someone or a company that they must because Id like to hear that. The markets determine what the do and do not play on the air.
> Air America was supposed to be the answer to that and they went belly up because they did not have an audience (edit) big enough audience for revenue. I dont listen to radio talk shows too much, I usually listen to John and Ken at 3 when Im getting my kids but only for a few minutes to get a laugh from them, but if it was only left radio, I wouldnt want this used against them, its just wrong. Hell I used to listen to Howard Stern sometimes until he went to satellite radio.



Well, Air America never even came to anywhere close to where i listen. I've driven all over Florida, and I've NEVER heard a non-conservative talk radio program that wasn't on at 9 am Saturday once a week. Besides, the fairness doctrine only applies to controversial issues/politics. Its not like if you play a slayer song you have to follow it by a Petra song or anything.

Also, "Although similar laws had been called unconstitutional when applied to the press, the Court cited a Senate report (S. Rep. No. 562, 86th Cong., 1st Sess., 8-9 [1884]) stating that radio stations could be regulated in this way due to the limited spectrum of the public airwaves." ~ Wikipedia


----------



## Infused1 (Jun 26, 2008)

Metal Ken said:


> Well, Air America never even came to anywhere close to where i listen. I've driven all over Florida, and I've NEVER heard a non-conservative talk radio program that wasn't on at 9 am Saturday once a week. Besides, the fairness doctrine only applies to controversial issues/politics. Its not like if you play a slayer song you have to follow it by a Petra song or anything.
> 
> Also, "Although similar laws had been called unconstitutional when applied to the press, the Court cited a Senate report (S. Rep. No. 562, 86th Cong., 1st Sess., 8-9 [1884]) stating that radio stations could be regulated in this way due to the limited spectrum of the public airwaves." ~ Wikipedia



Your in Florida!! Man Id love to be there, you guys have great gun laws. Also, I still dont believe the government should dictate privately owned companies, if it was run by the government, than I wouldnt have an issue. They are trying to dictate what is on the station and the regulations set forth were to combat illicit behavior on the airwaves and that is one thing, to regulate the programming would be a police state and we are already close enough to that and its just not right. Our government is not supposed to be doing this type of thing. Our Founding Fathers are probably rolling in circles in their graves.


----------



## auxioluck (Jun 26, 2008)

noodles said:


> I think this picture says it all...



Fixed. 

No, but really, most people that are registered gun owners are law abiding citizens. I don't go outside and wave my gun around to prove how badass I am, I use them for either hunting or home security. Criminals will find a way to get guns even if gun control is put into effect. Then the criminals have the upper hand on unarmed civilians. I personally don't want to die because some asshole wants my TV and shoots me while I'm empty-handed. 

I remember the story of a woman I met at a gun show who was living by herself, and her house got broken into, and she grabbed her shotgun, UNLOADED mind you, went to the hallway and cocked it, and the burglar(s) ran out the door. She could have been killed, beaten, raped, you name it. What saved her?


----------



## Metal Ken (Jun 26, 2008)

Infused1 said:


> Your in Florida!! Man Id love to be there, you guys have great gun laws. Also, I still dont believe the government should dictate privately owned companies, if it was run by the government, than I wouldnt have an issue. They are trying to dictate what is on the station and the regulations set forth were to combat illicit behavior on the airwaves and that is one thing, to regulate the programming would be a police state and we are already close enough to that and its just not right. Our government is not supposed to be doing this type of thing. Our Founding Fathers are probably rolling in circles in their graves.



Despite my left leanings, i've been wanting to get some guns & do the shooting range thing forever. 

As far as the radio thing goes -- Most all radio stations in florida are owned by one company- Clearchannel. If they're going to monopolize, is it okay for them to do that? I've often thought about that whole radio regulation thing, cause for one, it'd be cool to have it gone entirely, but then the advertising you get would be more outrageous than it already is. Most radio commercials are, if not about local business, bullshit get-rich-quick/get-out-of-debt-quick, or things that advertise themselves as Bullshit "Proven systems" (Anything selling itself as a "Proven system" is a crock). then on the other side, controlling it too much becomes a state-media outlet. I think the fairness doctrine isnt so much saying "You can have this and that program", as much as its saying "When you present this controversial issue, dont 1-side it and actually discuss the fucker". I think censorship is a horrible idea, but by the same token i think this is a separate issue.


----------



## Jongpil Yun (Jun 26, 2008)

1) Is a well regulated militia actually necessary for national security any more? In my opinion the second amendment should be changed because the primary qualifying statement is no longer true, and the language is far too vague.
2) Ignoring all the bullshit and emotive anecdotes, is legal gun ownership correlated with higher or lower crime? Seatbelts kill people sometimes -- it's about weighing overall risk.
3) Would it even be feasible to outlaw guns?


----------



## Infused1 (Jun 26, 2008)

Metal Ken said:


> Despite my left leanings, i've been wanting to get some guns & do the shooting range thing forever.
> 
> As far as the radio thing goes -- Most all radio stations in florida are owned by one company- Clearchannel. If they're going to monopolize, is it okay for them to do that? I've often thought about that whole radio regulation thing, cause for one, it'd be cool to have it gone entirely, but then the advertising you get would be more outrageous than it already is. Most radio commercials are, if not about local business, bullshit get-rich-quick/get-out-of-debt-quick, or things that advertise themselves as Bullshit "Proven systems" (Anything selling itself as a "Proven system" is a crock). then on the other side, controlling it too much becomes a state-media outlet. I think the fairness doctrine isnt so much saying "You can have this and that program", as much as its saying "When you present this controversial issue, dont 1-side it and actually discuss the fucker". I think censorship is a horrible idea, but by the same token i think this is a separate issue.


 Well Get your butt to the range man!! Its fun, its kind of like playing guitar, just not as fun as playing guitar. The radio stations arent all owned by Clear Channel, but they have Clear Channel programming, which is in very high demand because lets face it, most people who listen to radio are not left leaning. Most people I know that are left in California (and I know more than I can count throughout the state) dont really even know about issues, arent interested in it, they just dont pay attention, play video games, watch TV not news mind you, just tv and have very little interest in stuff like that. I watch FOX, MSNBC, CNN, CSPAN everyday, along with the History Channel and the Discovery channel, so I have a broad spectrum and get to see all sides, and then I go look into the legislation thats on the floor to find out what crap they are trying to stick to us next! I really think the Fairness Doctrine is a political ploy from the Dems and hopefully it wont go anywhere. I feel the same about a lot of Republican legislation also.


----------



## Jongpil Yun (Jun 26, 2008)

Infused1 said:


> Most people I know that are left in California (and I know more than I can count throughout the state) dont really even know about issues, arent interested in it, they just dont pay attention, play video games, watch TV not news mind you, just tv and have very little interest in stuff like that. I watch FOX, MSNBC, CNN, CSPAN everyday, along with the History Channel and the Discovery channel, so I have a broad spectrum and get to see all sides, and then I go look into the legislation thats on the floor to find out what crap they are trying to stick to us next! I really think the Fairness Doctrine is a political ploy from the Dems and hopefully it wont go anywhere. I feel the same about a lot of Republican legislation also.



Most people in California are basically liberal anyways, so the ignorant there tend to be Dems because it's basically the default position.

Go to Indiana or Idaho and the situation is reversed.

By the way, FOX news is just terrible. Period. I mean really fucking terrible.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Jun 26, 2008)

Jongpil Yun said:


> 1) Is a well regulated militia actually necessary for national security any more? In my opinion the second amendment should be changed because the primary qualifying statement is no longer true, and the language is far too vague.
> 2) Ignoring all the bullshit and emotive anecdotes, is legal gun ownership correlated with higher or lower crime? Seatbelts kill people sometimes -- it's about weighing overall risk.
> 3) Would it even be feasible to outlaw guns?



1) Agreed.

2) There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.  That said, generally, LEGAL gun ownership corresponds with lower gun violence, statistically speaking. After all, the Bloods shooting each other in my neighborhood aren't exactly PTA members.

3) In the United States? Not as long as there is a 2nd Amendment.


----------



## Infused1 (Jun 26, 2008)

Jongpil Yun said:


> Most people in California are basically liberal anyways, so the ignorant there tend to be Dems because it's basically the default position.
> 
> Go to Indiana or Idaho and the situation is reversed.
> 
> By the way, FOX news is just terrible. Period. I mean really fucking terrible.



If it is so terrible, why is it number 1?
I like FOX news, but I watch it during the day mainly when its mainly about news and not about politics. I watch Dumbag Oreilly for 10-15 minutes once a week, because I like Dennis Miller, he cracks me up. I think Oreilly is a windbag and I cant hang listening to the guy, Im conservative, but that guy really gets on my nerves. I really cant stomach the FOX news after 5. You know, I dont think I really like any of the later day programming from any of the stations I think they are all windbags, Olberman, Mathews Oreilly, but I just change the channel. Thats when the night program starts. I bounce through all the stations during the day getting different pieces of news from around the world and the country. I watch CSPAN to find out what the idiots are doing in the house and senate, but its very hard watching them all on the floor whining! Ive really turned into an independent the last few years, I really cant hang with the government being so involved in our lives or the political pundits that dont get it, and I mean I dont think most of them get it.


----------



## Matt Crooks (Jun 26, 2008)

Jongpil Yun said:


> 1) Is a well regulated militia actually necessary for national security any more? In my opinion the second amendment should be changed because the primary qualifying statement is no longer true, and the language is far too vague.



The second amendment was put in partially to allow the citizens to protect themselves from the government. That reason I say is still valid.



Jongpil Yun said:


> 2) Ignoring all the bullshit and emotive anecdotes, is legal gun ownership correlated with higher or lower crime? Seatbelts kill people sometimes -- it's about weighing overall risk.



You can find arguments to support both sides of this argument.



Jongpil Yun said:


> 3) Would it even be feasible to outlaw guns?



Yes, a constitutional amendment could outlaw guns. Good luck with that one.


----------



## Jongpil Yun (Jun 26, 2008)

Infused1 said:


> If it is so terrible, why is it number 1?



Because it's relatively slick and tells the 50% of Americans who are creationists what they want to hear?


----------



## Infused1 (Jun 26, 2008)

Jongpil Yun said:


> Because it's relatively slick and tells the 50% of Americans who are creationists what they want to hear?


I dont see or hear that during the day, have you watched the programs during the day time? They are going through daily events around the country and world..Like the other networks MSNBC and CNN, although I prefer bouncing from MSNBC and FOX and dont wathc CNN too much. The FOX night time shows, maybe but I dont pay a lot of attention to FOX once Oreilly starts, Oreilly, Hannity and Colmes and Greta's shows are boring to me. I dont need pundits telling me what I should think or believe, I watch whats really going on through CSPAN and legislation when it come to politics.


----------



## Jongpil Yun (Jun 26, 2008)

Three words:

Terrorist fist pump.


----------



## Infused1 (Jun 26, 2008)

Jongpil Yun said:


> Three words:
> 
> Terrorist fist pump.



I see you watch Dan Abrams, another Politcal idiot pundit. I dont pay attention to that kind of crap, all of them do it, Abrams included. I have watched all of their shows before, so I can tell you that they all lean left, and if thats what you enjoy, you are welcome to it. What Im saying is I bounce through all of the media outlets to get news, the internet does wonders in that arena. That comment was out there though. They have all said some pretty outrageous stuff on the air especially Abrams, Oreilly, Mathews and Olberman. All idiot political pundits to me. I am of the belief that you learn and watch all points of discussion, not just one to be better informed, so I do check in with all of them.

But the phrase was Terrorist Fist Jab which I cant get why it was said, who knows how that came about. I hope she didnt right those lines, makes her look like an idiot. I dont watch that show by the way.


----------



## Metal Ken (Jun 26, 2008)

Infused1 said:


> Well Get your butt to the range man!! Its fun, its kind of like playing guitar, just not as fun as playing guitar. The radio stations arent all owned by Clear Channel, but they have Clear Channel programming, which is in very high demand because lets face it, most people who listen to radio are not left leaning. Most people I know that are left in California (and I know more than I can count throughout the state) dont really even know about issues, arent interested in it, they just dont pay attention, play video games, watch TV not news mind you, just tv and have very little interest in stuff like that. I watch FOX, MSNBC, CNN, CSPAN everyday, along with the History Channel and the Discovery channel, so I have a broad spectrum and get to see all sides, and then I go look into the legislation thats on the floor to find out what crap they are trying to stick to us next! I really think the Fairness Doctrine is a political ploy from the Dems and hopefully it wont go anywhere. I feel the same about a lot of Republican legislation also.




I plan to at some point. 

It sounds like the "Left leaners" you're talking about are just people who're uneducated. Like JPY said, move to Middle america, and you'll find that people flip sides. 

As far as why FOX is so bad, look at this:


----------



## Jongpil Yun (Jun 26, 2008)

Pretty much all of LiberalViewer's videos are about stupid bullshit on FOX.


----------



## JBroll (Jun 26, 2008)

The Dark Wolf said:


> Please. They tried that same BS rhetorical tactic here in Ohio when we passed a Concealed Carry law.
> 
> Guess what? Law abiding citizens don't go around shooting people randomly. Gun crime is DOWN since the law has been passed.
> 
> ...



Dammit, I repped you too recently to mark this one up. Oh well...

Jeff


----------



## JBroll (Jun 26, 2008)

Jongpil Yun said:


> 1) Is a well regulated militia actually necessary for national security any more? In my opinion the second amendment should be changed because the primary qualifying statement is no longer true, and the language is far too vague.



I'd say that the difference between a citizen and a subject is that subjects don't need to be feared. Maybe Mike's Military Supply isn't going to make as much of a difference for our defense from threats *outside* the nation, considering the US military's status, but for protecting ourselves from each other (and, should the government follow its current track a bit longer, a police-state-in-progress) it still seems fairly strong and valid.

Jeff


----------



## Lucky Seven (Jun 26, 2008)

JBroll said:


> Dammit, I repped you too recently to mark this one up. Oh well...
> 
> Jeff



I'll do it for you.


----------



## ElDuderino (Jun 27, 2008)

auxioluck said:


> Fixed.
> 
> No, but really, most people that are registered gun owners are law abiding citizens. I don't go outside and wave my gun around to prove how badass I am, I use them for either hunting or home security. Criminals will find a way to get guns even if gun control is put into effect. Then the criminals have the upper hand on unarmed civilians. I personally don't want to die because some asshole wants my TV and shoots me while I'm empty-handed.
> 
> I remember the story of a woman I met at a gun show who was living by herself, and her house got broken into, and she grabbed her shotgun, UNLOADED mind you, went to the hallway and cocked it, and the burglar(s) ran out the door. She could have been killed, beaten, raped, you name it. What saved her?



I guess I am on the other side of the aisle of most of you. The fact that in 2002 almost 30,000 Americans died from firearm injuries - nearly double the number of people who died of AIDS, stands out to me. All told, including the other 90,000 individuals who are injured, gun violence costs the U.S. $100 billion annually. Simply because one is a law-abiding citizen doesn't mean they are fit to own a gun. While a story about a lone woman can end up the way you described, it could also end up much worse. For example, if an armed thief is attempting to rob this woman and the thief gets a gun pulled on him, I would believe he is much more likely to shoot the woman than if she was unarmed. I think we need much more rigorous licensing and registration procedures for guns in America.


----------



## D-EJ915 (Jun 27, 2008)

see the wonderful thing is, we have precedent for what happens. In the UK they banned guns, and now everyone is stabbed to death instead of being shot, imagine that. In bowling for columbine he was like "why does canada have more guns per capita but way low gun killings" they don't have people who are retarded enough to murder like the US does, that's it. The weapon doesn't matter with these people.


----------



## JBroll (Jun 27, 2008)

ElDuderino said:


> I guess I am on the other side of the aisle of most of you. The fact that in 2002 almost 30,000 Americans died from firearm injuries - nearly double the number of people who died of AIDS, stands out to me. All told, including the other 90,000 individuals who are injured, gun violence costs the U.S. $100 billion annually. Simply because one is a law-abiding citizen doesn't mean they are fit to own a gun. While a story about a lone woman can end up the way you described, it could also end up much worse. For example, if an armed thief is attempting to rob this woman and the thief gets a gun pulled on him, I would believe he is much more likely to shoot the woman than if she was unarmed. I think we need much more rigorous licensing and registration procedures for guns in America.



You, as a liberal, are on pretty good turf. 

We all see that 30,000 (not really relevant unless you think the fact that people can kill themselves with guns to be bad for the general population, but we'll run with that) died from firearm injuries, but while you blame the guns I blame fucked up people. Fucked up people kill people. Fucked up people also won't give a damn about your licensing and registration procedures, just as they don't now. Do you really think that would work?

I don't. The Journal of the American Medical Association, which is by no stretch pro-gun, said in 2000 that the Brady waiting periods and registration bullshit showed no reduction in suicide or homicide rates. Clinton's DoJ, also by no stretch pro-gun, estimated in 1997 that guns were used 1.5 million times for personal defense. Then you have the issue that these same people are already going around paper trails as well as they can, so you're really not accomplishing much until you can make the black market disappear... good luck.

So, anyway... 30,000 dead because of guns, right? Well, that's interesting, because the FBI estimates that closer to 18,000 were actually murdered in 2006 (Homicide Rate (per 100,000), 1950â&#8364;&#8220;2006 &mdash; Infoplease.com) by the latest statistics and gun accidents account for a thousand or two if we're generous, so that's a bit funny that more people were killed by a gun crime or accident than by crimes and accidents unless you're trying to count suicides in as threats to everyone's safety (a whole different issue, not for here)... so now let's roll with 19,000. This document (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/guic.pdf) is a bit old, but more recent sources (that I'm just too lazy to find) confirm the trend in question - only about two-thirds of murders are committed with firearms. So now we're down to two-thirds of 18000 and the same 1000 we had before - 13000. Still 13000 higher than it should be, but there's something wrong when the quoted number is twice as high as it should be, no?

But we can go back to the crime rate in 1997, when we had that lovely 1.5 million prevented violent crime estimate. We're looking at about 18,000 murders, and when you remember that a third of these had no guns involved we have 12,000 gun murders. We can look at other statistics and find that about 1% of violent crimes are murders. I'm no criminal justice nerd, but I can pretty safely wager that the 1.5 million prevented crimes included very few traffic and noise ordinance violations, so I'll go way the fuck out on a limb and guess that about 80% of the crimes prevented were violent crimes (although I suspect the number to be much higher) for the sake of argument. So 80% of 1.5 million is 1.2 million, and 1% of 1.2 million is... 12,000. So it looks like as far as murders were concerned it doesn't seem like we lost any more than we gained... but remember those other 1,188,000 violent crimes we just left out of here? "That's right, ladies and gentlemen - not only did your guns cause no more murders than they prevented, they helped to stop over a million other crimes ABSOLUTELY FREE!" And if you're concerned about the odd guesses and such... I'm taking really conservative (in the sense of 'not helping my case much', not in the sense of 'not helping poor people much') estimates - for example, getting the 1.5 million figure from Clinton's DoJ and not going for the 2-2.5 million that other, less liberal sources use.

Finally, who the fuck else will protect you? The police response time, when there is one, can be from a few minutes to an hour. That, and there were cases (Warren v. District of Columbia being a well-known one) that concluded that the police only had to protect the citizenry as a whole, not necessarily individual citizens - putting aside how completely bonkers that is, and how repulsive it is that a court told three people who endured 14 to 18 hours of aggravated sexual offenses that they weren't entitled to police protection, you may not have the backup plan you think you have. And even if you do, count on it taking a while.

I don't like murder (well, much, at least), but it's hard for me to think that crippling my defenses while putting people who wish to do me harm at no disadvantage whatsoever is a very good idea.

Jeff


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Jun 27, 2008)

JBroll said:


> Finally, who the fuck else will protect you? The police response time, when there is one, can be from a few minutes to an hour. That, and there were cases (Warren v. District of Columbia being a well-known one) that concluded that the police only had to protect the citizenry as a whole, not necessarily individual citizens - putting aside how completely bonkers that is, and how repulsive it is that a court told three people who endured 14 to 18 hours of aggravated sexual offenses that they weren't entitled to police protection, you may not have the backup plan you think you have. And even if you do, count on it taking a while.



Great case, and one I always think about when I consider that situation with my door. A-greed. 





JBroll said:


> I don't like murder (well, much, at least), but it's hard for me to think that crippling my defenses while putting people who wish to do me harm at no disadvantage whatsoever is a very good idea.



Well said. The second half of my argument in a nutshell.


----------



## Naren (Jun 27, 2008)

Back in high school and college, I did a lot of papers on gun control, so I'm somewhat of an expert.

And I approve of JBroll's awesome post.


----------



## JBroll (Jun 27, 2008)

The Dark Wolf said:


> Great case, and one I always think about when I consider that situation with my door. A-greed.



Sometimes, oddly enough, one guy who has a response time of fuckyou seems more 'real' than several cases of the police just not showing up and the courts siding with them... creepy, but whatever works, I guess. It's odd how rarely those cases pop up.



Naren said:


> And I approve of JBroll's awesome post.



I approve of Naren's approval. Now get back to winning, damnit.

Jeff


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Jun 27, 2008)

JBroll said:


> Sometimes, oddly enough, one guy who has a response time of fuckyou seems more 'real' than several cases of the police just not showing up and the courts siding with them... creepy, but whatever works, I guess. It's odd how rarely those cases pop up.



Yeah. And remember, in my situation it was -

1. Mom and dad at Wendy's, which was 2-3 minutes away.
2. Cop was at same Wendy's, eating his meal.
3. Call came over cop's radio, in the Wendy's. Said our address, and nature of crime.
4. Parents rushed the fuck home. Got there in around 3 minutes, give or take, after my 911 call.
5. Same cop at Wendy's shows up approx. 40 minutes later.


My call to 911? "Help! There are guys kicking in my door!"

I guess that's not urgent enough.


----------



## DavyH (Jun 27, 2008)

Iain Banks' opinion through a character in one of his books is that only criminals should be allowed guns. After all, they use them responsibly in the commission of crimes (not in this country though!) and frequently against other criminals.

On the other hand, it's "always the quiet ones" who go on shooting sprees in the workplace, at schools and colleges and in shopping malls (except in Japan where stabbing sprees are far more popular).

Very few deaths by gunshot in Switzerland where, if I recall correctly, virtually every household still has an automatic rifle since these are not recalled when a national serviceman finishes his stint. There do appear to be far fewer loonies in Switzerland than elsewhere though, which is surprising in a country where the kids must be bouncing off the walls on chocolate overdoses all the time and everything else smells of cheese and woodshavings.

Is there a point to this mindless raving? Oh yeah, don't sell handguns to anyone without a criminal record. Sell SLRs and the like to people without criminal records. If you (as a non-criminal automatic rifle bearer) see someone with a handgun, blow the fucker away before he gets within handgun range.

Those with criminal records need not respond.


----------



## JBroll (Jun 27, 2008)

I got a speeding ticket a couple of years ago, does that mean it's JBroll vs. The World time? I need to get a fucking theme song, I'm sure...

Jeff


----------



## eaeolian (Jun 27, 2008)

I will only add one comment to this thread: Some of you need to read up on what "Freedom of Speech" actually means, from a Constitutional standpoint.


----------



## noodles (Jun 27, 2008)

Infused1 said:


> If it is so terrible, why is it number 1?



Because most people are stupid sheep that watch whatever you put in front of them. Fox News is the most biased, slanted, hack news television in existance ever. This is the show that repeatedly called Barrack Obama a Muslim, even after everyone else dropped that ridiculously untrue ploy at painting him negatively. They made sure to constantly use his middle name, Hussain, in an effort to tie him to that religion. They had someone on who flipped his name and Saddam Hussain's, and made a joke about wanting both of them dead. That's just one of the many preposterous lies and wildly biased stances they take.

That's why I get my real news from PBS, and that's why Republicans have endeavored to cut all funding to the station.

The only people who argue against the fairness doctrine are neoconservatives, because they don't want the other viewpoint getting equal time. If there platform is so right, then why are they afraid to debate it? There is a difference between free speech and oppressing the opposing view. This country was founded on the principals of open and fair debate. That is the true spirit behind free speech and the first amendment. Most people cannot get on television or radio, so those mediums have the responsibility to present viewers and listeners with fair and balanced reporting, from both sides of the aisle, so people can make up their own mind.

I cannot believe that you are taking the side of the current crop of neoconservatives. These people would not have been able to ruin our country of Regan didn't eliminate the fairness doctrine. The media would have crucified Bush for even suggesting that we go into Iraq. The media used to be highly critical of our government. In the early years of our infant country, they called John Adams a fat, bald, toothless, imbecilic tyrant! Bring back THAT free speech.


----------



## noodles (Jun 27, 2008)

ElDuderino said:


> I guess I am on the other side of the aisle of most of you. The fact that in 2002 almost 30,000 Americans died from firearm injuries - nearly double the number of people who died of AIDS, stands out to me. All told, including the other 90,000 individuals who are injured, gun violence costs the U.S. $100 billion annually. Simply because one is a law-abiding citizen doesn't mean they are fit to own a gun. While a story about a lone woman can end up the way you described, it could also end up much worse. For example, if an armed thief is attempting to rob this woman and the thief gets a gun pulled on him, I would believe he is much more likely to shoot the woman than if she was unarmed. I think we need much more rigorous licensing and registration procedures for guns in America.





My argument against handguns is this: they are easily concealed, and in many states, any moron can get a concealed carry permit. The lunatic who shot up Virginia Tech got his gun _legally_. Handguns are assassin's weapons, designed to be not seen until the last moment.

I have no problem with someone owning a rifle or a shotgun. *I own a shotgun*. I won't own a hangun, though, because I see no reason that anyone other than law enforcement needs to go around strapped. If owning a handgun in DC was illegal, then a police officer could take down any moron waving around a handgun, safely knowing that that is the guy causing the problems, rather than some dumb John fucking Wayne who thinks he knows how to defuse the situation because he played some Halo 3.

If someone breaks into my house, I'm going to take his damn head off. If I'm out in public, the last thing I'm going to think about is firing on someone. I couldn't live with myself if I accidentally shot and killed the wrong person, and my wallet or car ain't worth the risk.


----------



## ElDuderino (Jun 27, 2008)

JBroll said:


> Fucked up people also won't give a damn about your licensing and registration procedures, just as they don't now. Do you really think that would work?



I agree that fucked up people are also the problem, but I do think more rigorous licensing and registration would work. There are so many loopholes in the laws today it's unbelievable. Congress allowing the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act to expire opened the door for thousands of people on domestic violence restraining orders to purchase and possess firearms. And allowing people to possess assault weapons just seems absolutely crazy to me. They are designed to do one thing - kill people. The Brady Bill also does nothing to stop private sales of firearms, which account for 40% of all firearm sales. Private sellers do not need to ask for identification, complete background checks, or fill out any paperwork.
I also think we also need to limit the number of guns a person can buy. A person who buys 20 guns in one transaction isn't using them for hunting, he's going to sell them to other people. Handguns sold in multiple sales accounted for 20% of all handguns sold and traced to crimes in 2000.
Also, I find it extremely hard to believe that the Brady Bill had no reduction on homicides and suicides. Statistics show that the Brady Bill has stopped about 1.3 million felons from acquiring handguns from licensed dealers. I would imagine that prevented at least a couple of homicides.


----------



## noodles (Jun 27, 2008)

ElDuderino said:


> Also, I find it extremely hard to believe that the Brady Bill had no reduction on homicides and suicides.



That's because the NRA touts that statistic without ever making mention of the population increase. I'd like to see the handgun violence per capita numbers.


----------



## Drew (Jun 27, 2008)

Infused1 said:


> It sure does take away free speech in a way, and it takes away freedom of choice, it would ultimately silence many radio hosts on the air today in certain communities and thats just disgusting. This isnt fair, it is people crying unfair because they dont have a market. It would be like buying a BMW or a Volkswagon, both great cars, but most wouldnt be able to afford the BMW, so BMW cries foul and wants the sales to be fair, so volkswagon can only sell so much when BMW only sold so much. Same thing, different context.



Sorry, gotta call bullshit here. 

The Fairness Doctrine was justified, correctly I would argue, on the rationale that radio waves are public property and thus media transmitted over them isn't a commodity but rather a public service. It's a finite resource, with federal oversight of liscensing and content. Different stations will have different content, but they are all purchasing liscenses from the same body, and there are only so many liscenses to go around.

The car market, meanwhile, is a commodity market. Cars are not a finite resource, cars are not public property, and all cars aren't produced by the same group and distributed by different companies who purchase liscenses to do so. There are not a limited number of cars being doled out at the discretion of a government board, but rather as many cars as are required are produced to meet demand. 

In the later situation, freedom of choice is very important. Since you can produce as many cars as you need, to meet demand, it makes sense to produce specialized cars to meet specialized demands so that each individual's demand is met as closely as possible. 

In the former situation, this is not true. Since there are a finite number of possible bandwidths to broadcast on and the bandwidths (and in turn the content) are in the public domain, then freedom of choice is less important than ensuring the information being broadcast is done so fairly and with as little bias as possible, since neutral content is in the best interest of an aggregate population. 

Look at it like this. Imagine a showerhead, where there's a whole bunch of little pinholes through which information can come through. Imagine there are as many pinholes as there are people - will there be any problem getting what everyone wants to come through exactly as they want it, given an infinite number of holes? Not at all. Thus, encourage freedom of choice. 

However, say there's only a hundred. Or only fifty. Or only ten. Or only one. Can you pass somthing through it tailored exactly to every single person in the country at the same time? No, it's impossible. So what do you do? Dn't try to do it at the same time; give everyone a shot at expressing their opinion, but make them take turns and ensure everyone has an opportunity to get their say. 

"freedom of choice" applies to a commodity market; "fairness" applies to a public service.


----------



## Infused1 (Jun 27, 2008)

I guess we will all agree to disagree. My main point was this, and its not bullshit.

I dont want my rights taken away just as much as I dont want your rights taken away and both sides do it and its got to stop. This country is not a democracy, it is a Republic run by democratic elections, which is the closest system to being a free country there is. If you guys dont know this yet, go read about our government some more and the way it works. The constitution is there to protect the minority as well as the majority and we are chipping it away like no tomorrow. I dont want anyone to lose their rights to either side, that was my point. I am a free thinker and feel good debate is healthy, but when people dont like someones view and they say stuff like "BULLSHIT" because they see it different or call me a NEO-CON (which by the way, I am very irritated with the right as much as with the left) it proves my point. Your only happy when you hear what you want to hear and it goes for both sides of the isle. Freedom is Freedom and no matter how badly you dislike someone freedom, the more you take away, the faster yours will be taken at a later date and thats a fact.


----------



## Jongpil Yun (Jun 27, 2008)

Dude, I'd like to see you defend your position that the free market is the best way to settle dissemination of educational information. It sure as fuck doesn't look like it's working now. Given a free market, we've seen that people will choose what they like, what agrees with them, and what is most entertaining, rather than the most fair and accurate reporting -- you said it yourself, "Your only happy when you hear what you want to hear and it goes for both sides of the isle."

I'd also like to see you address all the shit about FOX News. You can't pin that stuff on O'Reilly or Hannity.


----------



## Metal Ken (Jun 27, 2008)

Infused1 said:


> I guess we will all agree to disagree. My main point was this, and its not bullshit.
> 
> I dont want my rights taken away just as much as I dont want your rights taken away and both sides do it and its got to stop. This country is not a democracy, it is a Republic run by democratic elections, which is the closest system to being a free country there is. If you guys dont know this yet, go read about our government some more and the way it works. The constitution is there to protect the minority as well as the majority and we are chipping it away like no tomorrow. I dont want anyone to lose their rights to either side, that was my point. I am a free thinker and feel good debate is healthy, but when people dont like someones view and they say stuff like "BULLSHIT" because they see it different or call me a NEO-CON (which by the way, I am very irritated with the right as much as with the left) it proves my point. Your only happy when you hear what you want to hear and it goes for both sides of the isle. Freedom is Freedom and no matter how badly you dislike someone freedom, the more you take away, the faster yours will be taken at a later date and thats a fact.



I'm not quite sure how restoring a doctrine that has been in place since the founding of radio would be eliminating rights? 

The people chipping away at the constitution is the current administration. Never has anyone done so much and gotten away with it like the current president. Wiretapping, retroactive protection for companies doing said wiretaps, patriot act, suspension of Habeus corpus, going to war with no declaration, petition congress for billions upon billions of dollars for this 'war', committing torture, then denying its torture when this same government executed Japanese soldiers for water boarding Americans... it goes on. etc. Getting a little bit of radio balance would be a nice change.


----------



## Jongpil Yun (Jun 27, 2008)

Metal Ken said:


> Wiretapping, retroactive protection for companies doing said wiretaps, patriot act, suspension of Habeus corpus, going to war with no declaration, petition congress for billions upon billions of dollars for this 'war', committing torture, then denying its torture when this same government executed Japanese soldiers for water boarding Americans... it goes on. etc. Getting a little bit of radio balance would be a nice change.



You're forgetting the most hilarious thing. Bush has pardoned himself. _In advance._


----------



## JBroll (Jun 27, 2008)

"Forgive me, Father, for I will sin."
"Erm... no. It doesn't work that way."
"I'm the presuhdent - the Decider. I decide what works which way."
"No, you don't. God does."
"No, I'm the Decider. God speaks through me."
"Then why do you need forgiveness?"
"..."

Jeff


----------



## Jongpil Yun (Jun 27, 2008)

JBroll said:


> "Forgive me, Father, for I will sin."
> "Erm... no. It doesn't work that way."
> "I'm the presuhdent - the Decider. I decide what works which way."
> "No, you don't. God does."
> ...



"When I was a kid I used to pray to God for a bike. Then I realised God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike, and prayed to God for forgiveness."


----------



## Infused1 (Jun 28, 2008)

Jongpil Yun said:


> Dude, I'd like to see you defend your position that the free market is the best way to settle dissemination of educational information. It sure as fuck doesn't look like it's working now. Given a free market, we've seen that people will choose what they like, what agrees with them, and what is most entertaining, rather than the most fair and accurate reporting -- you said it yourself, "Your only happy when you hear what you want to hear and it goes for both sides of the isle."
> 
> I'd also like to see you address all the shit about FOX News. You can't pin that stuff on O'Reilly or Hannity.




I never said I didnt see stuff, but I didnt see some of those links before, but to say FOX is the only network that does it, is a falsehood and if you are getting what I told you, I dont watch FOX more than the other stations, I think I watch an even amount of time through all of them and I listen to stuff I dont like to hear. Ive watched Olberman, Abrams, Mathews plenty of times, and watch the MSNBC morning show at 2AM my time. I work until 2-4 in the morning and catch the MSNBC show first. So Im not one who only watches or listens to so RIGHT WING crap all day, I couldnt hang with it. I like seeing both sides period. And forgive me on this, since when has entertainment like talk radio become an education system?? Oh and one more thing, I found out about the DC gun ban decision on CNN!



Metal Ken said:


> I'm not quite sure how restoring a doctrine that has been in place since the founding of radio would be eliminating rights?
> 
> The people chipping away at the constitution is the current administration. Never has anyone done so much and gotten away with it like the current president. Wiretapping, retroactive protection for companies doing said wiretaps, patriot act, suspension of Habeus corpus, going to war with no declaration, petition congress for billions upon billions of dollars for this 'war', committing torture, then denying its torture when this same government executed Japanese soldiers for water boarding Americans... it goes on. etc. Getting a little bit of radio balance would be a nice change.



Like I said, both parties doing it and the democrats and republicans are both guilty of it. I did not like a lot of the stuff in the Patriot Act, but both parties agreed to it. I still think a lot of the laws in every day society are breaking our constitutional rights that arent a big issue to most people. I agree I prefer balanced debates, but telling someone they have to put someone on that could kill their ratings when the company is private is just wrong. I dont care which side it is who is doing better!


----------



## Jongpil Yun (Jun 28, 2008)

Infused1 said:


> I never said I didnt see stuff, but I didnt see some of those links before, but to say FOX is the only network that does it, is a falsehood



FOX just does it more and worse than anyone else. If you've _ever_ seen O'Reilly there's a good chance you've seen him bitching about Media Matters, so you SHOULD have checked it out. Media Matters is more than fair anyways, and as for O'Reilly, even the stopped watch is right twice a day as you can see here: Media Matters - O&#39;Reilly: "I don&#39;t want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama unless there&#39;s evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels"



> So Im not one who only watches or listens to so RIGHT WING crap all day, I couldnt hang with it. I like seeing both sides period.



Seeing a right-wing jackass and a left-wing ranter for half an hour each does not equal an hour of balanced and accurate reporting.



> And forgive me on this, since when has entertainment like talk radio become an education system??



Since a huge number of Americans cite it as a major source of news and a primary influence on their opinions on politics and religion.



> I agree I prefer balanced debates, but telling someone they have to put someone on that could kill their ratings when the company is private is just wrong. I dont care which side it is who is doing better!



Read Drew's most recent post again.


----------



## Infused1 (Jun 28, 2008)

Ok man, thats enough. I was really trying to talk about the constitutional issues and not my preference in what networks I watch. I watch them all and read legislation, watch the house and the senate a couple times a week and thats enough of that. I obviously didnt explain myself enough, I only have so much time for a discussion forum and the 7string board gets that! Im just glad that 1 constitutional right  is being upheld for a city that needed it, now on to the other constitutional fights!


----------



## Drew (Jun 28, 2008)

Infused1 said:


> I guess we will all agree to disagree. My main point was this, and its not bullshit.
> 
> I dont want my rights taken away just as much as I dont want your rights taken away and both sides do it and its got to stop. This country is not a democracy, it is a Republic run by democratic elections, which is the closest system to being a free country there is. If you guys dont know this yet, go read about our government some more and the way it works. The constitution is there to protect the minority as well as the majority and we are chipping it away like no tomorrow. I dont want anyone to lose their rights to either side, that was my point. I am a free thinker and feel good debate is healthy, but when people dont like someones view and they say stuff like "BULLSHIT" because they see it different or call me a NEO-CON (which by the way, I am very irritated with the right as much as with the left) it proves my point. Your only happy when you hear what you want to hear and it goes for both sides of the isle. Freedom is Freedom and no matter how badly you dislike someone freedom, the more you take away, the faster yours will be taken at a later date and thats a fact.



 

I think your analogy is "bullshit," that freedom of choice is a reason to repeal the Fairness Doctrine, for the reasons I outlined; namely, that freedom of choice is a quality of the commodity market, and that the commodification of news media (arguably a direct byproduct of the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine) is one of the worst things thats happened to news coverage specifically and American political awareness generally in the last fifty years.

You proved nothing - if anything, I'd say that the sentence immediately after your claim of proof, that "you hear only what you want to hear and it goes for both sides of the aisle," is the strongest reason I could put forth that we desperately need the Fairness Doctrine brought back into law; to force both sides to intelligently confront disagreement, for the betterment of this country.


----------



## Infused1 (Jun 28, 2008)

Drew said:


> I think your analogy is "bullshit," that freedom of choice is a reason to repeal the Fairness Doctrine, for the reasons I outlined; namely, that freedom of choice is a quality of the commodity market, and that the commodification of news media (arguably a direct byproduct of the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine) is one of the worst things thats happened to news coverage specifically and American political awareness generally in the last fifty years.
> 
> You proved nothing - if anything, I'd say that the sentence immediately after your claim of proof, that "you hear only what you want to hear and it goes for both sides of the aisle," is the strongest reason I could put forth that we desperately need the Fairness Doctrine brought back into law; to force both sides to intelligently confront disagreement, for the betterment of this country.



Because I feel the government should not be regulating a entertainment talk radio show like that, my line of thinking is bullshit? I see it different than you man, I would like honest debate, I would like to see both sides just get off their asses and go head to head, but Im not going to force someones private company to do it for them, thats my take on it. There are other ways of going about getting shows on air, like showing a huge demand for it to the stations that dont carry it. There are other ways of getting there without the government forcing it. I guess my biggest problem is the government forcing things that they shouldnt. I live in California, our politics are very different from the rest of the country, take a few states. Its horrible what our congress does here, and I see our same California reps doing it in the Federal section also. The cry for rights and freedom and turn around and take other freedoms they dont like. hypocrite's, unconstitutional. They are trying to ban Mylar balloons here right now! Frickin balloons. I guarantee there will be a huge fight over the Fairness Doctrine, and your going to be surprised who comes out against it. It wont be just right wing nut jobs either. So lets discuss this again when it gets back to the floor and see where it goes from there? Is that cool with you?


----------



## JBroll (Jun 29, 2008)

Look... they're not regulating the talk show, they're regulating what space talk shows can take on a limited resource (radio frequencies) that belongs to the public. You seem to be missing something here. The problem is resources, not the evil government arbitrarily taking rights away.

Drew... he's from California *AND* he watches FOX. Don't use big words like commodification...

Jeff


----------



## Drew (Jun 29, 2008)

JBroll said:


> Look... they're not regulating the talk show, they're regulating what space talk shows can take on a limited resource (radio frequencies) that belongs to the public. You seem to be missing something here. The problem is resources, not the evil government arbitrarily taking rights away.
> 
> Drew... he's from California *AND* he watches FOX. Don't use big words like commodification...
> 
> Jeff



What Jeff said.  Thanks for summarizing the point I was trying to make in less than 16 paragraphs.


----------



## Infused1 (Jun 29, 2008)

JBroll said:


> Look... they're not regulating the talk show, they're regulating what space talk shows can take on a limited resource (radio frequencies) that belongs to the public. You seem to be missing something here. The problem is resources, not the evil government arbitrarily taking rights away.
> 
> Drew... he's from California *AND* he watches FOX. Don't use big words like commodification...
> 
> Jeff



What the fuck man? I watch FOX and Im from California, so I must be some sort of idiot to you? I watch tons of news stations. Get over it dude, I probably know more about our government and legislation than most people across the country so dont start making personal attacks because I view things differently than you.



Drew said:


> What Jeff said.  Thanks for summarizing the point I was trying to make in less than 16 paragraphs.



Drew, I never said I didnt understand the pipeline or your way of thinking, but I still think it is wrong to regulate like that especially since Radio is mainly private now.


----------



## JBroll (Jun 29, 2008)

Infused1 said:


> What the fuck man? I watch FOX and Im from California, so I must be some sort of idiot to you? I watch tons of news stations. Get over it dude, I probably know more about our government and legislation than most people across the country so dont start making personal attacks because I view things differently than you.



I'm joking, that's all. Drew has an American Lit degree - who the fuck seriously says 'commoditize'? And most people don't understand our government, so that isn't saying much.



Infused1 said:


> I still think it is wrong to regulate like that especially since Radio is mainly private now.



Again... I don't like government regulation of much of anything, but if you're going to have regulations on things one big target should be resources that are limited in nature and of value to everyone. The issue isn't whether the radio is public or private, the issue is that we can only have a limited number of radio stations before radios just aren't useful and, as far as radio is concerned, having no frequency to broadcast at makes it literally impossible to have a show.

Jeff


----------



## Infused1 (Jun 29, 2008)

JBroll said:


> I'm joking, that's all. Drew has an American Lit degree - who the fuck seriously says 'commoditize'? And most people don't understand our government, so that isn't saying much.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ok man, I thought you were trying to say I was an idiot because Im in California, but then again, a lot of Californians are idiots and from what I gather, not a lot of other states like Californians too much. I dont pay too much attention to grammar on boards unless I dont understand what they were trying to say. 

Most people not understanding our government is what bugs the crap out of me. Also, a lot of people fight about legislation and never even read the legislation they are fighting over. I read it, as boring as it is. I wont get into a discussion about legislation unless I have actually read it, I never take someone's word for it. Legislation is tricky business and they've made an art out of it. California is one of the worst with legislation, they pile so much crap and try to hide things in the wording. We get things passed now and no one even knows what it actually is until it goes into law. Then most people are fairly pissed on both sides. I got more interested in actually reading through all of it because of this. I of course dont have time for every thing, Im paying attention here and Federally.


----------



## noodles (Jun 30, 2008)

Infused1 said:


> Drew, I never said I didnt understand the pipeline or your way of thinking, but I still think it is wrong to regulate like that especially since Radio is mainly private now.



Yeah, and I suggest you go find out how private it is by broadcasting without a license from the FCC.

If anything, the lack of the Fairness Doctrine is oppressing first amendment rights, because, as Jeff and Drew said, it is a limited resource. A limited _public_ resource that is being monopolized by _private_ corporations that are pushing their own view in order to sway elections.

People not understanding our government bugs the crap out of you? Me, too. That's why I want to bring back the Fairness Doctrine, so the average person can get the opportunity to hear both sides of the story. I can't see how anyone thinks it is a good idea to let right wing political pundits dominate the airwaves, unless they actually agree with that viewpoint. So, I'm forced to believe that you think Rush is right.


----------



## Drew (Jun 30, 2008)

My problem with the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine is it makes it WAY too easy to just hear one side of the story. Consider yourself a conservative? Just listen Rush Limbough for all of your news coverage, learn about terrorist fist jabs, how Kerry wasn't a war hero, and how liberals are baby killers, and wonder what the fuck is wrong with the 49% of the population who voted AGAINST Bush. Liberal? Sadly there aren't many options. All we really have is NPR, which as it's government funded is pretty much paid to be unbiased.


----------



## noodles (Jun 30, 2008)

Drew said:


> Liberal? Sadly there aren't many options. All we really have is NPR, which as it's government funded is pretty much paid to be unbiased.



We wouldn't have NPR if the GOP had their way. Hastert tried to axe that three times, and it kept coming up against a Democratic filibuster in the Senate.


----------



## Infused1 (Jun 30, 2008)

I understand your arguments, I understand the concept of your arguments but I still disagree to more government regulation on this stuff, or at least regulation of this kind. This kind of regulation could have further reaching consequences. It will only be a matter of time before it happens to the NEWS networks on TV and that is a LEFT majority as it is. It gets a little overboard in my opinion. Im a conservative, but Im far from the Right Wing Nut Jobs out there. Im against a lot of things you guys are also against, just for different reasons than yours.

Noodles, I dont listen to RUSH, the only time I listen to talk radio is typically when I pick my kids up from school and I get to hear John and Ken hold California politicians accountable for insane practices, both sides alike. So that argument doesnt apply to me. I dont like listening to political pundits too often, because neither side seems to get it. This is how I feel, everyone should be able to view things freely in this country and I will not put up with either side taking from the other, thats hypocritical and I wont lower myself to standards like that even if I cannot agree at all with the others.


----------



## Drew (Jun 30, 2008)

Infused1 said:


> It will only be a matter of time before it happens to the NEWS networks on TV and that is a LEFT majority as it is.



Wait a second, which of the major news networks has a prominent left leaning? Fox is off the charts to the right, so by comparison they all look a little lefty, but I can't think of a single major news station pushing an agenda of legalizing same sex marraige, increasing the minimum wage, nationalizing health care, ending the Iraq war, or repealing the Bush tax cuts. I mean, you get the occasional left wing speaker (Olbermann comes to mind) but you also get right wingers too. 

I don't know about you, but I can't recall the last time I turned on CNN and saw the hosts having a long one-sided conversation on why Americans shouldn't be allowed to own handgund and why we should have a constitutional ammendment legalizing same-sex marraige in all 50 states.


----------



## Metal Ken (Jun 30, 2008)

Drew said:


> Sadly there aren't many options. All we really have is NPR, which as it's government funded is pretty much paid to be unbiased.


Which is funny cause most of the neocon pundits accuse NPR to be on par with newsweek and the Washington post as some kind of liberal mecca, liberopolis, if you will.


----------



## JBroll (Jul 1, 2008)

Infused1 said:


> It will only be a matter of time before it happens to the NEWS networks on TV and that is a LEFT majority as it is.



Which is precisely why Bush has gotten roasted over every mistake he's made, right? Bullshit. That's a wonderful claim for FOX and right-leaning radio to make, but there's no validity to it - they'd call me a bloody liberal for not fellating Bush at every opportunity... and you literally cannot get more conservative (well, fiscally conservative, not neocon) than me. National news may have a tremendous bias towards stupid, with far too much coverage of idiocy and triviality and very little actual substance, but stupidity is far from being a solely liberal occurrence.

Jeff


----------



## Drew (Jul 1, 2008)

JBroll said:


> ...but stupidity is far from being a solely liberal occurrence.



Aw, gee, thanks, Jeff.


----------



## Infused1 (Jul 1, 2008)

JBroll said:


> but stupidity is far from being a solely liberal occurrence.
> 
> Jeff


Definitely Agreed!


----------



## chaztrip (Jul 4, 2008)

A lot of smart folks on here so I wont dare try to infuse you with my knowledge  But the other day a few friends or co workers of mine were going off about them being Law abiding citizens and they have the right to carry a gun. So I say to one of them.. you are law abiding? and he says hell ya I am... and I say so you drive the speed limit and you dont roll through stop signs and you dont download mp3's? He says to me... Nah thats different..... He says that he is not a Gang Banger or thief ect ect....... I just walked away..

So my question is when people say law abiding, are they talking about only certain ones that they need to adhere to?  Or all laws??

Thanks


----------



## Jachop (Jul 4, 2008)

Fuck guns. Self-defence yes, but why would you trade that for much higher rates of suicide, high gun circulation (meaning a higher rate of criminal activity in some groups) and the fact that you'll surely arm a whole lot of stupid and irresponsable people. I'll never like american politics, and the fact that you allow everyone to carry their own murder-weapons isn't exactly helping.


----------



## JBroll (Jul 4, 2008)

Erm, did you read that entire post I had about it actually being helpful for crime reduction? The problem isn't guns, it's fucked up Americans, and anyone who tries to get rid of crime by banning guns is just going to fail miserably and miss the point entirely. Banning guns to stop crime is like banning fucking to reduce new AIDS infections.

Jeff


----------



## Infused1 (Jul 4, 2008)

JBroll said:


> Erm, did you read that entire post I had about it actually being helpful for crime reduction? The problem isn't guns, it's fucked up Americans, and anyone who tries to get rid of crime by banning guns is just going to fail miserably and miss the point entirely. Banning guns to stop crime is like banning fucking to reduce new AIDS infections.
> 
> Jeff


----------



## Metal Ken (Jul 4, 2008)

Jachop said:


> Fuck guns. Self-defence yes, but why would you trade that for much higher rates of suicide, high gun circulation (meaning a higher rate of criminal activity in some groups) and the fact that you'll surely arm a whole lot of stupid and irresponsable people. I'll never like american politics, and the fact that you allow everyone to carry their own murder-weapons isn't exactly helping.



Man, fuck cars. Everyone's getting in car accidents. I mean, why use something that could get you killed when you just walk? Look at all the accidents in america, with the high car circulation rate.


----------



## JBroll (Jul 4, 2008)

I think a big problem with Europeans trying to talk about American politics is that it's too much of a different environment over here. America isn't Europe. Period. I know it's a novel concept to some, but occasionally the European way doesn't work over here, and sometimes American problems are not European problems.

Jeff


----------



## Jachop (Jul 5, 2008)

JBroll said:


> Erm, did you read that entire post I had about it actually being helpful for crime reduction? The problem isn't guns, it's fucked up Americans, and anyone who tries to get rid of crime by banning guns is just going to fail miserably and miss the point entirely. Banning guns to stop crime is like banning fucking to reduce new AIDS infections.




Ah, but doesn't it stimulate crime and the activity of small-time crooks just as much? What point? Well, if everyone had aids that might've been a just comparison. Guns are weapons. Weapons are used for killing. Penises and vaginas isn't (in most cases ).



JBroll said:


> I think a big problem with Europeans trying to talk about American politics is that it's too much of a different environment over here. America isn't Europe. Period. I know it's a novel concept to some, but occasionally the European way doesn't work over here, and sometimes American problems are not European problems.



Look, yes, of course that's true. Every country is different. And I'm not trying to be an asshole moralising and yapping away on how America is a depraved country or whatever. But I guess that was kind of what I was doing.  

So, you're saying that gun control in America would generate more crimes? I'm just wondering how that's possible. Do you have any numbers or studies from reliable sources?

And Ken, like I told JBroll, is that really a sound comparison? I mean, I'm sure most of you have a blast using a 9mm to shoot tin-cans and rats in the backyard, but couldn't you use a bb-gun instead?


----------



## Zepp88 (Jul 5, 2008)

Didn't they ban guns in Washington D.C. with disasterous results? I dont' have a link to a good article talking about that ATM.

EDIT:



From Wikipedia said:


> Washington, D.C., has enacted a number of strict gun-restriction laws. The Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 prohibited residents from owning handguns, excluding handguns registered prior to February 5, 1977. Other local laws prohibit carrying guns (concealed or not), and all guns and ammunition must be registered.[10]
> 
> Critics, citing numerous statistics, have questioned the efficiency of these restrictions. The combination in Washington of strict gun-restriction laws and high levels of gun violence is sometimes used to criticize gun-restriction laws in general as ineffective. However, a significant portion of firearms used in crime are either obtained on the second-hand market or in neighboring states.[11][12] Results from the ATF's Youth Crime Gun Interdiction Initiative indicate that the percentage of imported guns involved in crimes is tied to the stringency of local firearm laws.[11] Nonetheless, Washington D.C.'s strict gun restriction laws and its reputation as the former murder capital of the U.S., has caused it to be frequently cited in debates over gun control.[13] On March 9, 2007, the debate was made moot, at least temporarily, as the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the District's gun laws as violative of the 2nd Amendment in Parker v. District of Columbia.[14]. The appeal for the full court to rehear en banc the case was denied. The District appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, and the court agreed to hear the case. Oral argument was heard on March 18, 2008. On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court determined that the ban violates the Second Amendment right to gun ownership.[15] However, the ruling does not prohibit all forms of gun control; laws requiring firearm registration remain in place as does the city's assault weapon ban.[16]
> 
> ...


----------



## Naren (Jul 5, 2008)

Jachop said:


> Ah, but doesn't it stimulate crime and the activity of small-time crooks just as much? What point? Well, if everyone had aids that might've been a just comparison. Guns are weapons. Weapons are used for killing. Penises and vaginas isn't (in most cases ).
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I hope you're just joking and not really that ignorant about the way things are in the US. As a side note, in many states, the possession of 9mm weapons is illegal.

I've done a lot of research on gun control and, yes, research has shown that gun control in American would generate more crimes. It has actually been shown that the "Make My Day" law vastly decreased crimes because criminals were afraid that the person they attacked might have a gun and be able to kill them.

The problem with gun control is that it puts the guns in the hands of the criminals and takes guns out of the hands of the law-abiding citizens. I forget the exact statistic, but something like 90% of crimes involving guns were performed with unregistered guns obtained through illegal means (the black market, etc.). 

In some smaller countries, it may be easier to control the black market distribution of guns, but the US is a HUGE country, an area of 9,826,630 km². How big is Sweden? 449,964 km². That makes the US almost 22 times bigger than Sweden in terms of area. And Sweden is actually a rather big country for Europe with a lot of other countries having areas of only around 30,000 km².

If I wanted to get a gun illegally in the US, I could do so very easily. Let me stress "ILLEGALLY." Just like I could get marijuana, cocaine, heroin, LSD, and other drugs without much trouble, I could also illegally obtain a gun. Law-abiding citizens, however, only get a gun for self-protection through legal avenues, while the huge majority of criminals illegally obtain guns. Why? Because if they have a previous criminal record, they will not be allowed to own a gun. 

I completely agree with JBroll's complaint about Europeans assuming that the US is exactly like Europe and you could use European methods to solve the US's problems.

In case you didn't know about the "Make My Day" law:

Castle Doctrine in the US - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Zepp88 (Jul 5, 2008)

While I am for very strict gun control as far as what guns you can own, and stringent background checks for potential owners, it seems that these issues are more a social matter than a gun-control matter.


----------



## JBroll (Jul 5, 2008)

Jachop said:


> Ah, but doesn't it stimulate crime and the activity of small-time crooks just as much? What point? Well, if everyone had aids that might've been a just comparison. Guns are weapons. Weapons are used for killing. Penises and vaginas isn't (in most cases ).



Erm, no, it doesn't. You're getting that mixed up with our ridiculous drug war...



Jachop said:


> So, you're saying that gun control in America would generate more crimes? I'm just wondering how that's possible. Do you have any numbers or studies from reliable sources?



I'm not saying it would, I'm saying it does. 

Jeff


----------



## JBroll (Jul 6, 2008)

chaztrip said:


> A lot of smart folks on here so I wont dare try to infuse you with my knowledge  But the other day a few friends or co workers of mine were going off about them being Law abiding citizens and they have the right to carry a gun. So I say to one of them.. you are law abiding? and he says hell ya I am... and I say so you drive the speed limit and you dont roll through stop signs and you dont download mp3's? He says to me... Nah thats different..... He says that he is not a Gang Banger or thief ect ect....... I just walked away..
> 
> So my question is when people say law abiding, are they talking about only certain ones that they need to adhere to?  Or all laws??
> 
> Thanks



Missed this one, sorry.

Some people are douchebags. I don't like that phrase very much, but the point is to separate those who actively wish to harm others from those who would be harmed by them. I don't download music or run stop signs and red lights, although I'll freely admit to being a 15-over kind of driver when I need to get to work, but I have no interest in harming anyone at all and would be arming myself for protection, not to enable a livelihood at the expense of others.

Jeff


----------



## ElDuderino (Jul 6, 2008)

JBroll said:


> I'm not saying it would, I'm saying it does.
> 
> Jeff



There is also quite a bit of research that says the opposite of what you and Naren are saying though. For example, a study published in the May 2008 issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine found that areas with more stringent gun control procedures, such as requiring local background checks in addition to the federal checks, had 27% lower firearm suicide rate and 22% lower firearm homicide rate.


----------



## JBroll (Jul 6, 2008)

See that post above about the million or so prevented crimes... part of the problem is that we're going from talking about a handgun ban to talking about paperwork, so 'gun control' is meaning a lot of different things at once, so perhaps the paperwork procedures should make a different thread than this handgun-ban-centered one. 

Also, the Journal of the AMA came to the conclusion that the Brady Bill didn't have a noticeable impact. 

Finally, I don't give a flying fuck about suicide rates, as I don't think properly-carried-out suicide is a threat to anyone but the one choosing to commit suicide. It's already misleading when fully voluntary suicides are lumped in with homocides to inflate the 'oh noes guns are evil' figures.

Jeff


----------



## ElDuderino (Jul 6, 2008)

JBroll said:


> See that post above about the million or so prevented crimes... part of the problem is that we're going from talking about a handgun ban to talking about paperwork, so 'gun control' is meaning a lot of different things at once, so perhaps the paperwork procedures should make a different thread than this handgun-ban-centered one.
> 
> Also, the Journal of the AMA came to the conclusion that the Brady Bill didn't have a noticeable impact.
> 
> ...



Well you made a false statement to Jachop when you flat out said gun control generates more crime. Requiring more rigorous background checks is a form of gun control - a form which this study showed reduced crime. I already discussed how the Brady Bill is flawed, and the study focused on how local background checks, which the Brady Bill does not require, in addition to federal checks reduced crime. Also, while you may not give a flying fuck about suicide rates, many other people do. Suicide definitely affects more than just the individual who kills himself. More stringent background checks can prevent many mentally ill people from acquiring guns, thus reducing suicides.


----------



## JBroll (Jul 6, 2008)

So much for context, then, when you're in a thread about a gun BAN and the guy your responding to says FUCK GUNS and all that sort of thing... while I'm still skeptical about that study, as I am about most studies (note that while you're using a journal that is by no means anti-gun-control, I played on pro-gun-control turf - using Clinton administration numbers, for example - and still came out with a strong case for gun legality), I'll have to say I'd like a link to that. Further, statistics can say anything if you use them right, so as you might have seen I like to use raw numbers and not other people's conclusions... we'll see what else can be said, but I'll concede that I can be more clear about what 'gun control' I'm talking about - i.e. bans versus paper trails, and so on.

Further, for suicides... I'm not stupid. I know suicide affects a lot of people. But I don't think that I have any business trying to change the rules for everyone because of a few people that might want to off themselves. I'm not going to pass judgment on people who kill themselves, and I don't think the state should either by putting up bars to protect people from themselves.

As for mentally ill... what the fucking fuck do you expect to see happen if the state has to decide who's mentally ill and who isn't? Our country is run by a guy who thinks a supernatural Jewish zombie talks to him in his sleep, statistics on psych cases are twisted every which way for political ends (PTSD, anyone?), and just look at how fucking well we've defined terrorists and dealt with their legal rights... I'd say one would have to be crazy to jump out of an airplane to go fight insurgents on their own turf, but those are the first people the government gives guns to. Our country is dominated by people who think that homosexuality is a curable disease, for fuck's sake. Yeah, nice idea in principle, maybe... but the first people I'd call crazy would be the ones who trusted a government definition of 'sane', especially where tomatos are vegetables and waterboarding isn't torture. Fuck that.

"What's that, Mr. Anderson? You disapprove of the government's suspension of your right to bear arms? Clearly, you're crazy; we can't allow you to have guns." Oh, whoops, there's a loophole, isn't there? Just define 'crazy' to be 'desiring a firearm' and you've fucked everyone. That's a pretty epically-failing scenario.

Jeff


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Jul 6, 2008)

Jeff, you might be the Hannity to my Hippie, but if I could give you one big rep Whopper with cheese for your posts in this thread, I would.

Well said.


----------



## JBroll (Jul 6, 2008)

Hannity's still just mean.

(I like the parts in Al Franken's Lies And The Lying Liars Who Tell Them where he's ripping Hannity the most, honestly... Hannity and Colmes, "Hannitized for your protection", and so on... awful bastard.)

Jeff


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Jul 6, 2008)

No dispute there.

And I thought that was worth a chuckle, too. Surprise, surprise. I read Al Franken.


----------



## JBroll (Jul 6, 2008)

I think if anyone would bring about surprise by reading his stuff, it would be me... but I hate the Republicans as much as the best of Democrats, so I may just be the black sheep among black sheep around here.

(I hope that doesn't make me pink. I detest pink.)

Jeff


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Jul 6, 2008)

My comment was ironic, Jeff. 

And yes, I was mildly surprised to see you quoting Franken.


----------



## JBroll (Jul 6, 2008)

I know, sometimes the sarcasm around here is so thick you can chew it. Fortunately, there's also enough hot air around here to keep it warm, so it probably won't be long before people are living solely off P&CE.

Note to self: never live solely off P&CE.

Jeff


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Jul 6, 2008)

Hot air? Was that an underhanded dig? 

And here I was complimenting you. Silly self.


----------



## JBroll (Jul 6, 2008)

Nah, that was a shot at everyone. Myself included.

Jeff


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Jul 6, 2008)

Well, kudos then.


----------



## Naren (Jul 6, 2008)

I thought that it was clear that my posts about "gun control" were referring to "gun bans" since that's what this thread is specifically about. No one out there is completely against gun control, because that would mean they believe that guns and ammunition should just be sold at super markets and over-the-counter drug stores to 4-year-old kids.

I thought it was clear what myself and JBroll were referring to. Obviously stricter restrictions on who can acquire a gun is going to decrease crimes. I was saying that research has shown that areas that outlaw gun possession (such as the Washington DC example previously cited) have increased crime. 

Just so folks don't go around and misinterpret what I said again...


----------



## JBroll (Jul 7, 2008)

Obviously you have no humor and you take life too seriously. Do you need a hug?

Jeff


----------



## Naren (Jul 7, 2008)

Yes. On all accounts...


----------



## Lucky Seven (Jul 7, 2008)

Naren said:


> Yes. On all accounts...



I'll give you a hug, mother, but it will be the most brutal hug ever.


----------



## Infused1 (Jul 7, 2008)

ElDuderino said:


> Well you made a false statement to Jachop when you flat out said gun control generates more crime. Requiring more rigorous background checks is a form of gun control - a form which this study showed reduced crime. I already discussed how the Brady Bill is flawed, and the study focused on how local background checks, which the Brady Bill does not require, in addition to federal checks reduced crime. Also, while you may not give a flying fuck about suicide rates, many other people do. Suicide definitely affects more than just the individual who kills himself. More stringent background checks can prevent many mentally ill people from acquiring guns, thus reducing suicides.



Im with JBroll on this. Background checks are OK, but the plain and simple fact is that the DC gun ban increased personal property crimes by an alarming rate period and its in the police departments on facts. I dont mind getting a background check, but blatant bans do not stop crime. Most criminals in areas where guns are prohibited or majorly restricted feel more comfortable executing crimes closer to home. DC is a prime example, since it showed more home crimes since the ban. On the suicide, man if someone is going to do it, they are going to do it. If they have a gun and do it, let it be. It doesnt matter if it affects others, if they have suicidal tendencies, they have bigger issues than owning a gun. More stringent background checks only work when that mentally ill person is reported, and the plain simple fact is that they are not 80 percent of the time. So if you need to lay blame, lay it in the current system that cant keep the database updated. Although, it is a scary thought to have our government have us in a database.  to give power to your government like that. Our government cant even balance a budget, stop earmarks etc., or work together in a cordial manner, so why the hell are we going to expect them to keep up to date on this stuff????? I dont mind the background checks like I said, but its not a perfect system. If someone really wants a gun, you can get it cheaper on the black market than you can in a store, so if someones buying it in a store legally, 95 percent of the time, its for good use period and I like those odds better than driving a car.


----------



## Naren (Jul 7, 2008)

And I don't really think the examples of extreme cases of gun control working in European or East Asian countries is applicable since the cultures and environments are so different.



Lucky Seven said:


> I'll give you a hug, mother, but it will be the most brutal hug ever.



FUCK YEAH! 

[action=Naren]whips out a gun.[/action]


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Jul 7, 2008)

The show '30 Days' just did a show on gun control last week.

50% of illegal gun sales come from gun stores that deal in the black market. That's a problem more background checks won't solve. That's a matter for the feds to crack down on, since it involves a tiny minority of profiteers - not gun owners, and obviously not responsible gun owners.

The other 2 main groups that supply illegal firearms? 1) the pre-existing black market (guns already out there), and 2) fucking proxy buyers. Mules. 

Yep. Background checks are really gonna work swell on those 3 groups.


----------

