Gun licenses

[gabosaurus]

You need a license to drive a car. You also needed instruction on how to drive prior to getting a license, which needs to be renewed on a regular.

Please tell me why you shouldn't need a license to own a gun. Notice that I am NOT advocating the elimination of guns. I just think gun owners need a license. It would make for safer ownership.

[aboutime]

You need a license to drive a car. You also needed instruction on how to drive prior to getting a license, which needs to be renewed on a regular.

Please tell me why you shouldn't need a license to own a gun. Notice that I am NOT advocating the elimination of guns. I just think gun owners need a license. It would make for safer ownership.


Gabby. What Planet are you presently living on?

If you bothered, or used your head to investigate.

You might be very surprised to learn. LEGAL GUN OWNERS already do LICENSE their weapons.

It's the ILLEGAL GUN OWNERS who DO NOT LICENSE their weapons.

EARTH CALLING GABBY.....EARTH CALLING GABBY.

Mork thinks you lost it long ago gabby.

[Missileman]

You need a license to drive a car. You also needed instruction on how to drive prior to getting a license, which needs to be renewed on a regular.

Please tell me why you shouldn't need a license to own a gun. Notice that I am NOT advocating the elimination of guns. I just think gun owners need a license. It would make for safer ownership.

What, no knife license?

Now, in all seriousness, explain exactly how a license to own a gun will stop those who intend to use a gun to harm others. Explain exactly how a license will prevent someone from obtaining a gun illegally. Explain exactly how a driver's license prevents someone from driving drunk and killing someone. Piling more regulations onto LAW-ABIDING citizens is not going to solve the violence.

[MtnBiker]

hmmmmm I wonder how many illegal aliens kill people in drunk driving accidents????

[aboutime]

What, no knife license?

Now, in all seriousness, explain exactly how a license to own a gun will stop those who intend to use a gun to harm others? Explain exactly how a license will prevent someone from obtaining a gun illegally. Explain exactly how a driver's license prevents someone from driving drunk and killing someone. Piling more regulations onto LAW-ABIDING citizens is not going to solve the violence.


Missileman. In answering your question...using gabby logic, of course. Having a license for the gun makes it easier for someone to BLAME someone by NAME. Rather than just Wondering...WHO DONE IT?

[Robert A Whit]

You need a license to drive a car. You also needed instruction on how to drive prior to getting a license, which needs to be renewed on a regular.

Please tell me why you shouldn't need a license to own a gun. Notice that I am NOT advocating the elimination of guns. I just think gun owners need a license. It would make for safer ownership.

There is no Federal law that mandates licenses for either.
States that got support to create both types of licenses did so.

Some states decided that due to the constitution, said state or states would not have licenses.

So, if your state has none of those licenses, take it up with them.

Driving a car is not spoken of by the US Constitution but the owning of guns is and clearly the Feds feel it vital to a secure nation that it's citizens own arms.

One more thing. We don't know if that young guy had a license. Suppose he did. Did that make a bit of difference to the outcome?

[taft2012]

You need a license to drive a car. You also needed instruction on how to drive prior to getting a license, which needs to be renewed on a regular.

Please tell me why you shouldn't need a license to own a gun. Notice that I am NOT advocating the elimination of guns. I just think gun owners need a license. It would make for safer ownership.

How about having to have a license to practice free speech?
Having a license to publish writings?
A license to practice religion?
A license to get an abortion?

What other Constitutional rights do you think should require gov't approval and a license prior to the free exercise thereof?

[darin]

By Gab's logic, we can prevent ALL death by requiring a license to die.

Those in favor of these and other licenses simply demand less freedom and more government control. They are fascists at heart.

[logroller]

hmmmmm I wonder how many illegal aliens kill people in drunk driving accidents????
I not sure of your point. Licensed drivers kill people in drunk driving accidents too. And lest we forget, alcohol has been made illegal before-- crime increased.
but to address gabby's issue, most states which allow concealed carry of firearms do have a permitting process. But of all the murders which happen, how many were permitted to carry? I'd bet the majority acquired weapon through illicit channels. Gun control advocates know this-- see fast and furious.

[logroller]

By Gab's logic, we can prevent ALL death by requiring a license to die.

Those in favor of these and other licenses simply demand less freedom and more government control. They are fascists at heart.
In your experience, were you required to be trained or be qualified on a weapon before you were issued that weapon for use? Do you think that was beneficial?

[Missileman]

In your experience, were you required to be trained or be qualified on a weapon before you were issued that weapon for use? Do you think that was beneficial?

Is being a better shot and intimately familiar with a weapon going to make a murderer more or less effective at killing?

[aboutime]

If states require HUNTING LICENSES to hunt. Isn't that a form of License to use a gun?

Or, have I forgotten? States require hunting licenses should also require Murder Licenses too???

That seems to be the logic, or lack of it, gabby addressed with the License question.
Anyone like to add something more?

[logroller]

Is being a better shot and intimately familiar with a weapon going to make a murderer more or less effective at killing?
That depends on the softness of the target; is the target armed as well? I know a loaded question when I see one MM; not all, and suspect very few, who buy a weapon do so to commit murder. And th second amendment doesn't protect murderers. It protects the right to bear arms. The government should secure that right for us. a lot of people are scared of guns, and fear has a derogatory effect on our rights and their security. b/c of this, i believe Crafting laws to assist the public in their proper use has become necessary and proper IMO.

[Robert A Whit]

That depends on the softness of the target; is the target armed as well? I know a loaded question when I see one MM; not all, and suspect very few, who buy a weapon do so to commit murder. And th second amendment doesn't protect murderers. It protects the right to bear arms. The government should secure that right for us. a lot of people are scared of guns, and fear has a derogatory effect on our rights and their security. b/c of this, i believe Crafting laws to assist the public in their proper use has become necessary and proper IMO.

I think what we are all hoping to aim at is pretty elementary.

How can government, operate in a fashion to end murder?

Ans. It is not possible.

Each tragedy causes some to lose their heads and somehow get the idea that Govt. solves all problems all the time.

It never works.

Some presume I am not willing to try to solve said problem. That however is an error.

Who relates the wanton killing of those chilren we all so grieve over to those that died in Iraq or Afghanistan the past year? A lot more died in Afghanistan and under gut wrenching conditions.

Yet we fight each other and gnashing of teeth is seen over what one nut case did.

Ask me if I get it.

I grieve.

That is the extent of what is possible.

I would love to end the killing or our men in Afghanistan too. But I can't.

Same thing to me.

[Missileman]

That depends on the softness of the target; is the target armed as well? I know a loaded question when I see one MM; not all, and suspect very few, who buy a weapon do so to commit murder. And th second amendment doesn't protect murderers. It protects the right to bear arms. The government should secure that right for us. a lot of people are scared of guns, and fear has a derogatory effect on our rights and their security. b/c of this, i believe Crafting laws to assist the public in their proper use has become necessary and proper IMO.

Are you of the opinion that some of these mass shootings have been accidental because the shooter lacked training? Sorry, but I don't see how a gun safety class is going to lower the incidence of violence.

[Kathianne]

I not sure of your point. Licensed drivers kill people in drunk driving accidents too. And lest we forget, alcohol has been made illegal before-- crime increased.
but to address gabby's issue, most states which allow concealed carry of firearms do have a permitting process. But of all the murders which happen, how many were permitted to carry? I'd bet the majority acquired weapon through illicit channels. Gun control advocates know this-- see fast and furious.

Only Illinois had total ban on conceal carry. The court just knocked it out. Once Illinois writes their law, all 50 states will have some version of it.

[logroller]

Are you of the opinion that some of these mass shootings have been accidental because the shooter lacked training? Sorry, but I don't see how a gun safety class is going to lower the incidence of violence.
I am of the opinion that:

most victims of mass shootings are unarmed.
The reasoning for having an unarmed society is that its dangerous for the general public to be armed.
Having the public trained/educated on proper handling and use of firearms would assuage this belief.


Only Illinois had total ban on conceal carry. The court just knocked it out. Once Illinois writes their law, all 50 states will have some version of it.
Perhaps I should expound on the difference between may issue states and shall issue states. In a shall issue state, you just need to pass a background test; may issue states require you to justify your need.
Ive little issue with background checks. I do have issues with justifying my need though; as it is entirely likely that once i realize i need it, its too late. Just like if you're carrying one around and don't know how to use it, and you do need it, it's too late to learn. That's why We should justify Our ability and demonstrate that prior to carrying a deadly weapon around. Part of that should include basic self defense tactics, avoiding dangerous situations etc. If after people know how to safely defend themselves with a firearm and still want to ban them, I'd be curious to hear their arguments. But too often, public policy is reactive to the general ignorance of the public; being implemented in the furtherance thereof.

[Missileman]

I am of the opinion that:

most victims of mass shootings are unarmed.
The reasoning for having an unarmed society is that its dangerous for the general public to be armed.
Having the public trained/educated on proper handling and use of firearms would assuage this belief.




Suggesting that policy should be driven by faulty reasoning sounds a lot like faulty reasoning.

[gabosaurus]

I was not saying that having gun licenses would prevent misdeeds owning guns. But perhaps the licensing process would weed out a few kooks and sickos who don't need to own guns.
I would settle for the reinstatement of the Brady Laws. Background checks and a 48-hour waiting period would prevent a lot of crimes of passion.

[Missileman]

I was not saying that having gun licenses would prevent misdeeds owning guns. But perhaps the licensing process would weed out a few kooks and sickos who don't need to own guns.
I would settle for the reinstatement of the Brady Laws. Background checks and a 48-hour waiting period would prevent a lot of crimes of passion.

http://crime.about.com/od/gunlawsbystate/p/gunlaws_ct.htm

Read up on CT gun laws, notice that they go WAYYYYYYYY beyond what you would settle for and explain how a new or more regulation might have averted the massacre and what exactly that regulation might be.

[Kathianne]

I was not saying that having gun licenses would prevent misdeeds owning guns. But perhaps the licensing process would weed out a few kooks and sickos who don't need to own guns.
I would settle for the reinstatement of the Brady Laws. Background checks and a 48-hour waiting period would prevent a lot of crimes of passion.

It's only the few 'kooks' that implement what happened Friday morning. The overwhelming majority of gun owners do not.

Those that follow the laws do so because they do. Those that don't, don't.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-shootings-violence-december-14-december-15-20121214,0,912168.story


10 shot, including 4 teens, Friday afternoon and night
By Rosemary Regina Sobol and Peter Nickeas Tribune reporters 7:54 a.m. CST, December 15, 2012




Shootings across the city Friday afternoon and night wounded at least ten people, according to Chicago police, including four teens in three separate South and West side attacks...

[logroller]

Suggesting that policy should be driven by faulty reasoning sounds a lot like faulty reasoning.

Then you shouldnt have much trouble pointing out my false reasoning; perhaps refute it with argument and evidence; instead of merely hinting at it and casting hyperbole and intentional misinterpretations of my position with loaded and accusatory lines. I can argue that way too. So what's your position-- guns galore-- Sell guns out of vending machines? Where you at on this-- get some skin in the game.

[DragonStryk72]

I was not saying that having gun licenses would prevent misdeeds owning guns. But perhaps the licensing process would weed out a few kooks and sickos who don't need to own guns.
I would settle for the reinstatement of the Brady Laws. Background checks and a 48-hour waiting period would prevent a lot of crimes of passion.

nope, not really. you don't NEED a gun to kill people, or even to rob them. A crime of passion can just as easily be accomplished with a knife and enough crazy to overcome sense. Failing that, there's the following: Poison, fire, decapitation, hatchets, machetes, choking, and such.

You want to treat the symptom without addressing the disease here.

Edit: Hell, a decent baseball bat

[Missileman]

Then you shouldnt have much trouble pointing out my false reasoning; perhaps refute it with argument and evidence; instead of merely hinting at it and casting hyperbole and intentional misinterpretations of my position with loaded and accusatory lines. I can argue that way too. So what's your position-- guns galore-- Sell guns out of vending machines? Where you at on this-- get some skin in the game.

Chicago has a law that bans guns yet has one of the highest gun crime rates in the nation. CT has very strict laws about obtaining and possessing a gun yet the massacre occurred. There are tens of millions of firearms that exist in this country that never have nor ever will be used for diabolical purposes. Legislation that restricts law-abiding citizens WILL NOT have any effect on the abuse of firearms. We don't take away everyone's cars because some dickhead drives drunk and kills someone.

BTW, I didn't say false, I said faulty. The reasoning that an armed population is dangerous IS faulty as demonstrated by the tens of millions of firearms owned by tens of millions of people who never harm anyone. Suggesting we cater to those who've applied this faulty reasoning by implementing gun classes, which will do nothing to increase the probability that a law-abiding citizen will remain law-abiding OR decrease the probability that a criminal will abuse a firearm in the commission of a crime can hardly be called a brilliant idea or a sensible solution.

Perhaps it's time to return to cracking down on the criminals instead of the law-abiders.

[Voted4Reagan]

what about a license for a frozen Leg of Lamb?

I can easily kill someone with that as with a gun....

and the evidence is easily disposed of by feeding it to the Dog....

Gabby thinks only guns can be a weapon....

ANYTHING can be a weapon.... You can be killed with anything around your home...not just a gun...

[Gaffer]

A license is just a tax. Taxing mass murderers is not going to stop them. It just brings in more revenue from the law abiding citizens.

[logroller]

Chicago has a law that bans guns yet has one of the highest gun crime rates in the nation. CT has very strict laws about obtaining and possessing a gun yet the massacre occurred. There are tens of millions of firearms that exist in this country that never have nor ever will be used for diabolical purposes. Legislation that restricts law-abiding citizens WILL NOT have any effect on the abuse of firearms. We don't take away everyone's cars because some dickhead drives drunk and kills someone.

BTW, I didn't say false, I said faulty. The reasoning that an armed population is dangerous IS faulty as demonstrated by the tens of millions of firearms owned by tens of millions of people who never harm anyone. Suggesting we cater to those who've applied this faulty reasoning by implementing gun classes, which will do nothing to increase the probability that a law-abiding citizen will remain law-abiding OR decrease the probability that a criminal will abuse a firearm in the commission of a crime can hardly be called a brilliant idea or a sensible solution.

Perhaps it's time to return to cracking down on the criminals instead of the law-abiders.
I agree, it is faulty-- I'm suggesting govt could play a role in correcting it-- as I think they should play a role in encouraging the understanding of lawfully expressing any and all constitutional rights. I just think the law-abiders should be the ones who 'crack down", not the govt.
hey, maybe I've got it all wrong. But there are a growin number of Americans who are scared of firearms, typically irrationally, and I think nationwide firearms education will alleviate those fears. These mass shootings further ingrain this fear, faulty though it may be, and if something isn't done to assuage that, I suspect the gun laws will become more stringent and violence more horrific.

[Robert A Whit]

Only Illinois had total ban on conceal carry. The court just knocked it out. Once Illinois writes their law, all 50 states will have some version of it.

Some of the states have no license to carry firearms. Believe it or not, PA is one such state. I think KY is another.

[Kathianne]

I may be off here, but do all licenses require background checks? I think that is something necessary, otherwise how does a dealer know that the person may be an ex-con or have a history of mental illness. I did see the shooter was denied a rifle from Dick's Sporting Goods, cause he didn't want to go through the 4 day wait period?

[Drummond]

By Gab's logic, we can prevent ALL death by requiring a license to die.

Those in favor of these and other licenses simply demand less freedom and more government control. They are fascists at heart.

This, to me, is very much the point.

The UK has very strict gun laws .. so much so that I don't think the US could legally get anywhere near as draconian with any gun control as we already have, without throwing away your Constitutional rights altogether.

With our gun laws, Government control over the right to own a gun is great .. and, what's the means by which such smothering control is exercised ? Why, by exercising it through the freedom to be licensed to own one.

Such licensing laws are the key to robbing the ordinary citizen of his or her right to self defence. The only alternative is to become fully dependent on the State for your effective protection. I don't know what controls or licensing qualifications already exist for US citizens, but I do know you do NOT need them to be added to !

Couple that dependence with soft laws that can protect the criminal ... and you sign away all control to defend yourselves from threats. So, I say ... learn from the British example ... and make sure you do the opposite. Fight tooth and nail against ANY controls beyond those that exist already - that's my advice.

[darin]

Training with firearms cannot instil wisdom, judgement, and behaviour. The classes offered or required by the state serve tanatamount to a tax. Laws will not fix the problem because the problem is us. Politicians and the govt will NEVER admit the problem is a breakdown of our values; parenting at the root.

[gabosaurus]

Training with firearms cannot instil wisdom, judgement, and behaviour. The classes offered or required by the state serve tanatamount to a tax. Laws will not fix the problem because the problem is us. Politicians and the govt will NEVER admit the problem is a breakdown of our values; parenting at the root.

I do agree that much of the problem is a breakdown of our culture. We force feed our kids with violent movies, TV shows and video games. We teach our kids that they can solve their problems with violence.
Our society sends the wrong message. They learn that killing people is entertaining, but any hint of love or sex is prohibited.

[Drummond]

I do agree that much of the problem is a breakdown of our culture. We force feed our kids with violent movies, TV shows and video games. We teach our kids that they can solve their problems with violence.
Our society sends the wrong message. They learn that killing people is entertaining, but any hint of love or sex is prohibited.

Education is important. Good parenting, to bring up children to have the proper moral grounding, this is important.

But what I read here of yours seems to hint at a wish for strict censorship.

Is this some 'backdoor' attempt to use the recent tragedy to get ever-increased State control in society ? Because, Gabby, so far as I'm concerned, an important part of what makes America such a great country is its love of freedom, how important its citizens still regard individual liberty to be.

What has to be resisted to the utmost is Socialist incursions into this. Socialists will grab at any excuse to convince people to defer to them in their quest for greater centralised controls ... usually by arguing that 'it's good for them, and the best solution to all their ills'.

NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH.

[Robert A Whit]

I am of the opinion that:

most victims of mass shootings are unarmed.
The reasoning for having an unarmed society is that its dangerous for the general public to be armed.
Having the public trained/educated on proper handling and use of firearms would assuage this belief.


Perhaps I should expound on the difference between may issue states and shall issue states. In a shall issue state, you just need to pass a background test; may issue states require you to justify your need.
Ive little issue with background checks. I do have issues with justifying my need though; as it is entirely likely that once i realize i need it, its too late. Just like if you're carrying one around and don't know how to use it, and you do need it, it's too late to learn. That's why We should justify Our ability and demonstrate that prior to carrying a deadly weapon around. Part of that should include basic self defense tactics, avoiding dangerous situations etc. If after people know how to safely defend themselves with a firearm and still want to ban them, I'd be curious to hear their arguments. But too often, public policy is reactive to the general ignorance of the public; being implemented in the furtherance thereof.

I was trained to aim at the enemy rather than to fire at some person in civilian life that was shooting in a public area.

And there is a huge difference. I was trained that I need not worry much about innocents being hit in the area of the enemy. Today I suppose the Army has changed and is more capable of hitting an enemy trying to evade hitting civilians.

But if you are in a school, mall or public place and you shoot to defend yourself, you may well hit innocents and may well kill those innocents.

However we could be trained to do as the police do when they have to fire at some nut case.

Be very careful. And aim to kill. And remember that bullets don't have eyes and can't be responsible for any innocent it kills.

[Robert A Whit]

I do agree that much of the problem is a breakdown of our culture. We force feed our kids with violent movies, TV shows and video games. We teach our kids that they can solve their problems with violence.
Our society sends the wrong message. They learn that killing people is entertaining, but any hint of love or sex is prohibited.

I am baffled.

I am reading posts as if this country daily faces death from, i am told, young men. Wild eyed young men acting in hunting mode.

Actually in my local area, we have people killed pretty much daily. By blacks for the most part.

[MtnBiker]

I not sure of your point. Licensed drivers kill people in drunk driving accidents too.


Well it is the classic liberal reaction to something wrong in our society. Liberals answer is another layer of government, ie gun licenses. States require valid drivers licenses to operate a vechicle on the road. Most states issue drivers licenses only to legal citizens, yet illegal aliens still drive and some of them kill people driving drunk. The requirement of a drivers license didn't help those victims.

[Dilloduck]

How about a license showing that you are sane before you are free to be with the rest of society ?

[logroller]

Training with firearms cannot instil wisdom, judgement, and behaviour. The classes offered or required by the state serve tanatamount to a tax. Laws will not fix the problem because the problem is us. Politicians and the govt will NEVER admit the problem is a breakdown of our values; parenting at the root.
I don't understand your position here. Wisdom, judgement, behavior-- are these things which are purely God given, or is there teaching/training involved?
We have right to free speech, but try communicating in today's society absent the ability to read and write. Or practice religion absent ever going to churn or praying with others. To fully express our rights, we need to be taught. Ideally, parents instill the foundation for this learning, but that isn't the only way. Society as a whole teaches us too-- acculturation is a powerful influence upon all of us and that extends beyond family, increasingly more so in modern America. As mentioned, tv, radio, movies, the Internet and a myriad of social media instill the values you've mentioned, often to our own detriment. Now I'm not against these agencies doing so, tis their freedom, but in regards to Constitutional rights, our government has a duty to secure these liberties. That is an active verb, not merely to allow them, but to promote them.
That some might consider it taxing, well shazam, such is the paradigm of freedom and liberty. That what we do or don't has an impact on you and me. Parents suck sometimes, that has an impact on society; but I'm not about submit to government taking on the parenting role-- so where's the solution?
I'm not trying to control guns, I'm trying to get the People to control themselves. I'm not looking for an excuse or event to persuade others that some great threat exists, I'm looking to persuade others that great opportunities are provided for by our Constitution-- we need to exercise them, by Congressional law if necessary. If th people all tried to exercise their rights-- gave it a go, learned the ins and outs of firearms and personal defense-- instead of just making our minds up based on extreme cultural examples as we have-- we could, as the president calls for, have "a meaningful discussion on gun control." Otherwise, we have a solution (draconian regulation) looking for the next problem (failure of cultural agencies).

[gabosaurus]

Uh oh, gun nuts will be calling for a ban on BBQ forks now...

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/12/woman-apparently-stabbed-to-death-with-barbeque-fork-lapd-says.html

[WiccanLiberal]

Every time I see some discussion about new gun regulations, I am reminded of the town of Kennesaw, GA. Their law says every household has to have one gun and ammunition on premises. Their crime rate dropped to ridiculous low levels after the law. Just wondering if they have the right idea.

[Dilloduck]

Holding an inanimate object responsible for murder is insanity. It's really hard to believe that anyone actually believes banning guns will stop people from killing.

[MtnBiker]

Every time I see some discussion about new gun regulations, I am reminded of the town of Kennesaw, GA. Their law says every household has to have one gun and ammunition on premises. Their crime rate dropped to ridiculous low levels after the law. Just wondering if they have the right idea.


Hmmm, mostly symbolic. How would such a law be enforced?

[logroller]

Well it is the classic liberal reaction to something wrong in our society. Liberals answer is another layer of government, ie gun licenses. States require valid drivers licenses to operate a vechicle on the road. Most states issue drivers licenses only to legal citizens, yet illegal aliens still drive and some of them kill people driving drunk. The requirement of a drivers license didn't help those victims.
Sounds like you're taking an exceptional example and blaming the rule. Drunk driving laws didn't help those victims either. So what's your solution-- no drunk driving laws-- no driver's licenses?
Of course not. But a classic conservative reaction is to blame the libs, but that's not gonna resolve the public discourse on these issues. Bringing up illegals is a blatant straw man, not that others don't do the same; but fallacy is fallacy. The point of licenses is to increase the number of qualified drivers and track their record. States don't require driver's licenses to stop drunk driving; we have other laws for that. Its all part of due process; when you get a license, you are made aware of drunk driving laws, thus you have been advised of the ramifications. Its not as though if you don't have a driver's license you can drive drunk-- you can't drive (on public roads)-- period. That's law, layer upon layers. Such is the basis of republican government, due process, checks and balance etc. I think its generally accepted that its effective. Are there exceptions, sure; but that doesn't negate the millions of licensed drivers who operate a vehicle safely. What I'm saying about these gun laws is, not many (if any) of the victims of these gun crimes are unarmed. Why not? I'm guessing the number of drivers in the US increased exponentially when states began licensing. Did accidents increase also, probably, but that's not the fault of licensing. But do you believe there'd be less accidents if we didn't have licenses? Less drivers? Does requiring a driver's license infringe upon your ability to drive a car in public, or does it legitimize it?

[Dilloduck]

The point of licenses is to increase the number of qualified drivers and track their record.

No, it's not.

[Voted4Reagan]

Hmmm, mostly symbolic. How would such a law be enforced? You are required to own a weapon... and it is enforced... '

My Brother lives one town over.... he knows it to be true.... it is enforced...



“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.”
- Patrick Henry

[logroller]

No, it's not.
Just trying to disagree; or have you some evidence to the contrary? I'm sure there's a law out there which details the intent-- Present it.

[tailfins]

I do agree that much of the problem is a breakdown of our culture. We force feed our kids with violent movies, TV shows and video games. We teach our kids that they can solve their problems with violence.
Our society sends the wrong message. They learn that killing people is entertaining, but any hint of love or sex is prohibited.

I blame feminism and the latchkey kid culture fostered by it.

[logroller]

Sounds like you're taking an exceptional example and blaming the rule. Drunk driving laws didn't help those victims either. So what's your solution-- no drunk driving laws-- no driver's licenses?
Of course not. But a classic conservative reaction is to blame the libs, but that's not gonna resolve the public discourse on these issues. Bringing up illegals is a blatant straw man, not that others don't do the same; but fallacy is fallacy. The point of licenses is to increase the number of qualified drivers and track their record. States don't require driver's licenses to stop drunk driving; we have other laws for that. Its all part of due process; when you get a license, you are made aware of drunk driving laws, thus you have been advised of the ramifications. Its not as though if you don't have a driver's license you can drive drunk-- you can't drive (on public roads)-- period. That's law, layer upon layers. Such is the basis of republican government, due process, checks and balance etc. I think its generally accepted that its effective. Are there exceptions, sure; but that doesn't negate the millions of licensed drivers who operate a vehicle safely. What I'm saying about these gun laws is, not many (if any) of the victims of these gun crimes are unarmed. Why not? I'm guessing the number of drivers in the US increased exponentially when states began licensing. Did accidents increase also, probably, but that's not the fault of licensing. But do you believe there'd be less accidents if we didn't have licenses? Less drivers? Does requiring a driver's license infringe upon your ability to drive a car in public, or does it legitimize it?
Oops

[Voted4Reagan]

I blame feminism and the latchkey kid culture fostered by it.

Maybe Gabby can explain why back in the 1930's/40's and 50's when gun laws were LAX there were less Violent crimes?

Maybe she can explain how as gun laws have gotten stricter the Murder rate has gone UP?

back in 1920's America you could buy a MACHINE GUN in the Sears Catalog....

[aboutime]

Maybe Gabby can explain why back in the 1930's/40's and 50's when gun laws were LAX there were less Violent crimes?

Maybe she can explain how as gun laws have gotten stricter the Murder rate has gone UP?

back in 1920's America you could buy a MACHINE GUN in the Sears Catalog....


V4R. Let's not forget. Present day Chicago. Now being run by Mayor Rahm...has one of the highest Murder by Gun rates in the entire nation.

Oh. And we also shouldn't forget. Al Capone also ran Chicago back then. St. Valentines Day Massacre ring any bells?

Looks like Violet crimes that are increasing across the nation....ALSO just happen to be occurring in DEMOCRAT Run cities, even when those Democrats pass STRICT gun laws to prevent Average citizens from defending themselves...while the Criminal element FLOURISHES with their Drug Trade and Political Power grabs.
Who'da thunk it...other than Obamaland...Chicago brand of Politics???

[DragonStryk72]

I do agree that much of the problem is a breakdown of our culture. We force feed our kids with violent movies, TV shows and video games. We teach our kids that they can solve their problems with violence.
Our society sends the wrong message. They learn that killing people is entertaining, but any hint of love or sex is prohibited.

It isn't that. We used to play guns, cowboys and indians, and shit, how many people taught their kid to use a gun growing before the advent of the TV? Heck, used to be that 8 and 9 year olds would go hunting, too, so they're directly causing violence.

It's the lack of holding children truly responsible for their actions, coupled to the way in which we post the kill counts on these things like a scorecard for the mentally disturbed. Think about it, did we talk about the victims? Do we know any of their names?

We raise children now who are incapable of making it in the world because we have protected them into incompetence. They aren't expected to just take their licks and grow stronger from them. They get used to the idea that they're totally safe, and that there are no real stakes.... until they slam into them like a brick wall.

[Dilloduck]

Just trying to disagree; or have you some evidence to the contrary? I'm sure there's a law out there which details the intent-- Present it.

The purpose of licensing is to regulate who drives. I can buy a car without a license to drive it.

[logroller]

The purpose of licensing is to regulate who drives. I can buy a car without a license to drive it.
regulate
VerbControl or maintain the rate or speed of (a machine or process) so that it operates properly.
Control or supervise (something, esp. a company or business activity) by means of rules and regulations.


Regulate who drives, as in, qualify drivers (ensure they know the rules and regulations) and track violations of said rules and regs.
Interestingly, the first known driver's license was issued at the request of the driver, Karl Benz, who faced complaints from those who disliked the automobile.(Smell, noise etc) So he requested a license to legitimize his operation of the vehicle.

[Marcus Aurelius]

You need a license to drive a car. You also needed instruction on how to drive prior to getting a license, which needs to be renewed on a regular.

Please tell me why you shouldn't need a license to own a gun. Notice that I am NOT advocating the elimination of guns. I just think gun owners need a license. It would make for safer ownership.

The Constitution (2nd amendment). Nothing in there I recall about cars.

While I'm a card carrying NRA member, I don't have a problem with reasonable waiting periods, limitations on how many weapons you can buy in a given period, background checks, etc. I also don't see the need for me to go buy an Uzi or AK-47 for squirrel hunting.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I am baffled.

I am reading posts as if this country daily faces death from, i am told, young men. Wild eyed young men acting in hunting mode.

Actually in my local area, we have people killed pretty much daily. By blacks for the most part.

ssshhhh, not only are you not supposed to dare tell such truth you are not supposed to even think about it.
As another poster stated, the target becomes the gun not the person using it. Just more liberal taking blame away from the person doing the deed to serve an agenda. Comes in handy when one can make the target (guns) be solely responsible and thus get action taken against them. How about considering why this guy was buzzed in and why he was not considered a threat in the first place? As more evidence comes out we see he was unbalanced even before this event. Shouldn't it be more important to realize that we have crazy people walking freely among us because today's society teaches and preaches such massively high levels of tolerance? Toss out solid principles , common sense caution and you get this kind of crap!! I could grab my roofing hammer, drive to Walmart and slay who knows how many people if I were crazy and wanted to do so. Folks, freedom comes with a price, one made higher by foolish laws and regulations of which the lib/dems have been placing upon us at breakneck speed. Now those same morons are using this tragedy to further an anti-gun agenda! Which makes as much sense as doing away with ships because the Titanic sank! The emphasis is now to stir great emotion to further an Unconstitutional cause and its working. Obama and his fake pretense at being upset makes me want to puke.
That lying bastard doesn't give a damn about American citizens! Anybody that thinks he does is a damn FOOOOOOL !!! And I do mean anybody!!!-Tyr

[Drummond]

The simple truth of this matter is that Obama is cynically using this latest tragedy to advance a key aspect of his Socialist agenda.

Socialism is all about the concentration of power at central, Governmental level ... the purpose being to create a dependency culture which sees citizens going cap-in-hand for everything imaginable.

This latest episode is likewise being 'worked' by Obama to disempower people. The more controls are applied to gun ownership and its viability, so the more citizens will have to rely on what the State is pleased to confer to people for their very security.

We've seen this for several decades in the UK. We've some of the most stringent gun control laws on the planet - consequently, few people own them. We are forced to rely on our police for personal protection .. to the extent it's available, and, subject to legal limitations ...

However, CRIMINALS can still get guns. Gun crime still exists.

And, even though our gun laws couldn't be applied in America without first ripping up your Constitutionally protected rights, STILL we see equivalent outrages occur. Here's a link to a relatively recent one ...

http://www.murderuk.com/mass_Derrick_Bird.html

So you see, even IF Obama achieves all he could ever want, the problem he'd profess to want to cure wouldn't be fixed.

Obama's success would only lead to the ordinary, law-abiding citizen being made dependent on the State for even basic security needs. It would achieve nothing more than that. Criminals would still get weapons from an underground trade in them (did Prohibition wipe out alcohol consumption ?).

So ... it's a good way of tipping the balance towards criminals. Courtesy of Socialist control-freakery ....

[aboutime]

The Constitution (2nd amendment). Nothing in there I recall about cars.

While I'm a card carrying NRA member, I don't have a problem with reasonable waiting periods, limitations on how many weapons you can buy in a given period, background checks, etc. I also don't see the need for me to go buy an Uzi or AK-47 for squirrel hunting.


Marcus. Perhaps we should remind gabby about that old, honest statement?

You know? "If you take all of the weapons from the Law abiding, legal owners. Then, the only people with those weapons will be the Criminals who never obey laws, and kill legal citizens....BECAUSE Idiots who made the laws GAVE THEM THAT RIGHT!"

[Robert A Whit]

ssshhhh, not only are you not supposed to dare tell such truth you are not supposed to even think about it.
As another poster stated, the target becomes the gun not the person using it. Just more liberal taking blame away from the person doing the deed to serve an agenda. Comes in handy when one can make the target (guns) be solely responsible and thus get action taken against them. How about considering why this guy was buzzed in and why he was not considered a threat in the first place? As more evidence comes out we see he was unbalanced even before this event. Shouldn't it be more important to realize that we have crazy people walking freely among us because today's society teaches and preaches such massively high levels of tolerance? Toss out solid principles , common sense caution and you get this kind of crap!! I could grab my roofing hammer, drive to Walmart and slay who knows how many people if I were crazy and wanted to do so. Folks, freedom comes with a price, one made higher by foolish laws and regulations of which the lib/dems have been placing upon us at breakneck speed. Now those same morons are using this tragedy to further an anti-gun agenda! Which makes as much sense as doing away with ships because the Titanic sank! The emphasis is now to stir great emotion to further an Unconstitutional cause and its working. Obama and his fake pretense at being upset makes me want to puke.
That lying bastard doesn't give a damn about American citizens! Anybody that thinks he does is a damn FOOOOOOL !!! And I do mean anybody!!!-Tyr

You are right.

Another thing. We have black kids killed almost daily up the highway from me in Oakland, CA. Thank the lord my city has few people killed.

But do you see Obama going to Oakland, CA, the scene of a lot of bloody murders all the damned time to get on his podium and preach to the nation?

He chose a white city to do it at.

Oakland does daily what it takes CT to do over a long period of time.

[tailfins]

You need a license to drive a car. You also needed instruction on how to drive prior to getting a license, which needs to be renewed on a regular.

Please tell me why you shouldn't need a license to own a gun. Notice that I am NOT advocating the elimination of guns. I just think gun owners need a license. It would make for safer ownership.

How many states call driving a PRIVILEGE, not a right? I know of several. Gun ownership is a right. Gun licensing might be a good trade for voter licensing where passing a test is required.

[aboutime]

Has anyone noticed the differences Obama has demonstrated for his good buddy Rahm in Chicago?

Chicago has been working to become the nation's Most Dangerous City with a growing number of GUN RELATED DEATHS, almost every day. But...Obama hasn't said WORD ONE about BLACK CHILDREN, KILLING OTHER BLACK CHILDREN...gangland style...In His Own HOME TOWN?

If he really cared...as he claimed yesterday in CT to be worried about Gun Deaths. Why wouldn't he place the same efforts in Chicago?

Answer: He get's no PHOTO OPS, or reasons to give speeches in a place where he might look like the HYPOCRITE he really is.

[SassyLady]

I do agree that much of the problem is a breakdown of our culture. We force feed our kids with violent movies, TV shows and video games. We teach our kids that they can solve their problems with violence.
Our society sends the wrong message. They learn that killing people is entertaining, but any hint of love or sex is prohibited.

If this is the case, then why aren't liberals pursuing more regulation/legislation to ban violence in our movies and gaming? Seems that would be the first place to start.

[SassyLady]

I blame feminism and the latchkey kid culture fostered by it.

So, you are saying that stay-at-home moms that defer their equality to men are responsible for teaching children to not grow up and become psychopathic killers?

Are you really that out-of-touch with reality?

[Robert A Whit]

Has anyone noticed the differences Obama has demonstrated for his good buddy Rahm in Chicago?

Chicago has been working to become the nation's Most Dangerous City with a growing number of GUN RELATED DEATHS, almost every day. But...Obama hasn't said WORD ONE about BLACK CHILDREN, KILLING OTHER BLACK CHILDREN...gangland style...In His Own HOME TOWN?

If he really cared...as he claimed yesterday in CT to be worried about Gun Deaths. Why wouldn't he place the same efforts in Chicago?

Answer: He get's no PHOTO OPS, or reasons to give speeches in a place where he might look like the HYPOCRITE he really is.

Yes, that is the guy. The narcissist who loves the TV camera.

[Robert A Whit]

So, you are saying that stay-at-home moms that defer their equality to men are responsible for teaching children to not grow up and become psychopathic killers?

Are you really that out-of-touch with reality?

Say, I did not see Tail Fins say yes to any of that? I wonder, when you ask a question, why not wait till you get a reply before assuming?:laugh:

[SassyLady]

Say, I did not see Tail Fins say yes to any of that? I wonder, when you ask a question, why not wait till you get a reply before assuming?:laugh:

:lalala:

[darin]

Say, I did not see Tail Fins say yes to any of that? I wonder, when you ask a question, why not wait till you get a reply before assuming?:laugh:

But Sassy's question is Begged by your comments; she's asking for clarification, if you choose to provide.

[taft2012]

I do agree that much of the problem is a breakdown of our culture. We force feed our kids with violent movies, TV shows and video games. We teach our kids that they can solve their problems with violence.
Our society sends the wrong message. They learn that killing people is entertaining

Dan Quayle and Tipper Gore vindicated


but any hint of love or sex is prohibited.

You're kidding, right? We're teaching kids about lesbianism in kindergarten, demonstrating the application of condoms on bananas, and handing out free condoms in schools. This started about a generation ago, any marked decline in teenage STDs or pregnancies?

[darin]

"The Problem" is not allowing our kids to watch violence. Our problem is teaching our kids they are entitled to get what they want. "If you dream it, you can do it!" is a lie. "You deserve...." is a lie. We coddle our kids - we rush to stop them from being 'normal' because normal is - two boys fight, then become best friends. Normal is, we cry in our cribs because we want something and our parents let us cry-it-out, instead of today's RUSH to stop the crying by giving in to our wants. Violence is absolutely neccessary to stop evil. People today feel angry when things don't go their way. "Everybody gets a trophy" teaches kids they deserve to be winners. "Everybody gets a trophy" teaches us to be angry when our effort falls short. Teaches us to lash out against those who hold the trophies.

Dr. Spock and 'progressives' have brought our society to what it is today - an absolute mess.

[Voted4Reagan]

You need a license to drive a car. You also needed instruction on how to drive prior to getting a license, which needs to be renewed on a regular.

Please tell me why you shouldn't need a license to own a gun. Notice that I am NOT advocating the elimination of guns. I just think gun owners need a license. It would make for safer ownership.

will criminals, murderers and Thieves follow the Gun Laws?

If not, why do you insist on making it harder for law abiding citizens to protect themselves?

Criminals will NOT follow the gun laws...

[tailfins]

So, you are saying that stay-at-home moms that defer their equality to men are responsible for teaching children to not grow up and become psychopathic killers?

Are you really that out-of-touch with reality?

If you don't raise your children, someone like Snoop Dogg will.

[Voted4Reagan]

If you don't raise your children, someone like Snoop Dogg will.

Or Gabosaurus....

I shudder at the thought

[Dilloduck]

will criminals, murderers and Thieves follow the Gun Laws?

If not, why do you insist on making it harder for law abiding citizens to protect themselves?

Criminals will NOT follow the gun laws...

Insane people aren't really known for obedience to the rules either.

[Drummond]

Holding an inanimate object responsible for murder is insanity. It's really hard to believe that anyone actually believes banning guns will stop people from killing.

.... er'm, something's wrong here ... for once, I agree with you on something ! I may never live this down ....

This Is The Twilight Zone ..... :terror::terror::alcoholic:

[aboutime]

.... er'm, something's wrong here ... for once, I agree with you on something ! I may never live this down ....

This Is The Twilight Zone ..... :terror::terror::alcoholic:


Drummond. HOW ODD IS THAT? Must be something wrong. Gonna check my meds, and re-read what Dillo managed to say again.

[Drummond]

Drummond. HOW ODD IS THAT? Must be something wrong. Gonna check my meds, and re-read what Dillo managed to say again.

.. yes. And I'm getting fed up of counting low-flying pink elephants ....

[aboutime]

.. yes. And I'm getting fed up of counting low-flying pink elephants ....


You noticed that too?????? LOL......4158