Should guns be banned in the United States? Your thought.
- Thread starter Pete
- Start date
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
I can answer that Larry, as I was around before and after guns in Australia were banned. After the ban only the honest law abiding citizens handed their guns in.
This of course gave criminals a lot of confidence and armed hold ups increased and gun related crime increased. About now the anti gun person will leap in and say hang on gun deaths have decreased. And that is true honest people who want to suicide no longer had a gun, so they found other ways of doing themselves in.
Today I am worried about the Increase in home invasions and the inability I have to protect myself and my wife. I am also worried that the tension between Muslims and the rest of the community is increasing and once again I am unable to protect myself against some prick who may want to behead me.
Other than an increase in confidence that the home owner will not be carrying I see absolutely no change in criminal behaviour since guns were banned.
The simple answer as I see it is guns don't kill people, its people who kill other people, so the obvious solution is just ban people, problem solvered
On a serious note, my farther had an old shot gun he kept in the wardrobe in his bedroom and then I had it for years also kept in the wardrobe in my bedroom, and apart from the odd bunny hunt it never got used, but it was always a good feeling knowing it was there, was also handy as a club.
john
On a serious note, my farther had an old shot gun he kept in the wardrobe in his bedroom and then I had it for years also kept in the wardrobe in my bedroom, and apart from the odd bunny hunt it never got used, but it was always a good feeling knowing it was there, was also handy as a club.
john
I said that was the aim? But its heading back to the Gun being the law now! like you ex policeman Doug said to the gangs its a sign of respect that's what must be eliminated!
Allan
Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0> <TBODY> <TR> <TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Larry L.
Al-Queda and ISIS by their own declarations, drug cartels, drug addicts, home invasion yo-yos, career criminals, muggers, street gangs and other assorted vermin for starters.
We have had the same problem but it is the easy availability of firearms that's the problem. Do not think that because we cannot own firearms they are not available to criminals. There were many weapons that were brought back from conflicts that found their way to criminals. We are starting to get metal detectors at school to screen for knives, gun and other weapons. Recently a young girl was kill by her young boyfriend by his showing off with a gun he was holding that had been used in another shooting.
There is nothing as useless as a locked-up gun in an emergency...unless it's an unloaded locked-up gun.
But a loaded weapon can be used against you?
Molleur already addressed that - and his take on it was dead on.
As above! Unless its shoot first and asked question later? I am not clever enough to know what my reactions would be to an intruder. You already have cases where innocent people get killed because of the access and availability of firearms. If you have to sleep with a loaded gun near you Society is the problem and your government is not doing their job!!!!
Do not think I have empathy about protecting your families. They are precious to you. But when you send them to school why should it need armed guards? We have had Dunblane where gun laws were tightened. But no law will ever stop the criminal getting weapons. But its the deranged perfectly law abiding young individuals that seem to slip under the radar that can get there firearms by applying for then or as in one case getting the weapons from their mother. Its still down to access and thats what needs to be tightened. Although we do not have capital punishment I think a mandatory 30 years sentence for supplying weapons in the first place needs to be implemented with no parole. But like I said you may have too many guns circulating to come back to our position even if you wanted to.
Oh, they have been...unconstitutionally, BTW ('no law infringing', remember?)...but, they have been. So now, for the most part, only criminals own 'em. 'Ain't' THAT a comforting thought.
Criminals have always been able to get firearms. Its the type of criminal that worries me the Psychopath!!!
Oh, if only that were true. But, it isn't.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Man...lemme see if I can wade thru all this! lol! You need to put your 'edited-in' comments in red (or some other color) so that the reader can easily tell what you've written as opposed to what the OP wrote. It's difficult for a dyslexic (me) to sort one from the other w/o that being done.
'Here 'goes:
Me: Al-Queda and ISIS by their own declarations, drug cartels, drug addicts, home invasion yo-yos, career criminals, muggers, street gangs and other assorted vermin for starters.
You: We have had the same problem but it is the easy availability of firearms that's the problem. Do not think that because we cannot own firearms they are not available to criminals. (I've never thought that. I've always said criminals will always find a way to get guns no matter WHAT "the law" says...and that OUTLAWING GUNS for law-abiding people will not prevent crooks from getting 'em.) There were many weapons that were brought back from conflicts that found their way to criminals. We are starting to get metal detectors at school to screen for knives, gun and other weapons. Recently a young girl was kill by her young boyfriend by his showing off with a gun he was holding that had been used in another shooting. (Uh huh. You're proving my point. Schools over here are, by LAW, "gun-free" zones!!! Law-abiding people cannot and DO not 'carry' therein. [Well, that's not quite 100% true. Those with concealed carry permits CAN - and are allowed by law to - 'carry' in schools in some states in certain circumstances.] And where is it that loons L-O-V-E to go to carry out their mass shootings? GUN-FREE ZONES...where they know the odds are that they won't be confronted by someone else with a gun. "Gun-free zones" are abominations that keep NOBODY "safe". They're P.C. as h---, but, like 99% of ALL things "p.c." - they deny reality.)
You: "But a loaded weapon can be used against you?"
'Not sure what you're getting at here. I believe the point you're trying to make is that a crook might take a vic's loaded gun away from him in a defense situation and use it against the 'vic'? Is that a possibility? Sure. Are the odds of that happening high? Nope. To believe that you'd have to assume all crooks are fearless, MACHO, super aggressive TOUGH GUYS who will ALL be able to getcha one way or another. They AREN'T. (And you'd probably also have to believe that all law enforcement officers should be unarmed, too, for the same reason.)
You: "As above! (Not sure what you're referencing there.) Unless its shoot first and asked question later? I am not clever enough to know what my reactions would be to an intruder. You already have cases where innocent people get killed because of the access and availability of firearms. (Just like innocent people get killed by access to cars, planes, boats, chain saws, booze, drugs and a host of other things.) If you have to sleep with a loaded gun near you Society is the problem and your government is not doing their job!!!! (There you go right there. Society (society=PEOPLE) is the problem - not guns or their availability. PEOPLE are the problem.)"
You: "But when you send them (kids) to school why should it need armed guards?" (I believe I've already 'splained' that above!)
You: "But no law will ever stop the criminal getting weapons. (Egg-zackly. So what is accomplished by restricting LAW-ABIDING PEOPLE'S right to own 'em???) But its the deranged perfectly law abiding young individuals that seem to slip under the radar that can get there firearms by applying for then or as in one case getting the weapons from their mother. Its still down to access and thats what needs to be tightened. (Is there a way of knowing beforehand just who these kids are? No, there isn't. So, should we therefore slap a TRAINLOAD of the strictest gun laws/rules/regs we can come up with on E-V-E-R-Y-B-O-D-Y in the country..or ban this-or-that-weapon/weapons because a loon or two might pop up somewhere and somehow find a way to get his hands on a gun? NO!!! [I believe we've already established the fact that a crook - OR LOON - will always, always, ALWAYS find a way to get a gun no matter HOW MANY laws are passed.])
I need a 'toddy'...
:chug:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0> <TBODY> <TR> <TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Larry L.
Al-Queda and ISIS by their own declarations, drug cartels, drug addicts, home invasion yo-yos, career criminals, muggers, street gangs and other assorted vermin for starters.
We have had the same problem but it is the easy availability of firearms that's the problem. Do not think that because we cannot own firearms they are not available to criminals. There were many weapons that were brought back from conflicts that found their way to criminals. We are starting to get metal detectors at school to screen for knives, gun and other weapons. Recently a young girl was kill by her young boyfriend by his showing off with a gun he was holding that had been used in another shooting.
There is nothing as useless as a locked-up gun in an emergency...unless it's an unloaded locked-up gun.
But a loaded weapon can be used against you?
Molleur already addressed that - and his take on it was dead on.
As above! Unless its shoot first and asked question later? I am not clever enough to know what my reactions would be to an intruder. You already have cases where innocent people get killed because of the access and availability of firearms. If you have to sleep with a loaded gun near you Society is the problem and your government is not doing their job!!!!
Do not think I have empathy about protecting your families. They are precious to you. But when you send them to school why should it need armed guards? We have had Dunblane where gun laws were tightened. But no law will ever stop the criminal getting weapons. But its the deranged perfectly law abiding young individuals that seem to slip under the radar that can get there firearms by applying for then or as in one case getting the weapons from their mother. Its still down to access and thats what needs to be tightened. Although we do not have capital punishment I think a mandatory 30 years sentence for supplying weapons in the first place needs to be implemented with no parole. But like I said you may have too many guns circulating to come back to our position even if you wanted to.
Oh, they have been...unconstitutionally, BTW ('no law infringing', remember?)...but, they have been. So now, for the most part, only criminals own 'em. 'Ain't' THAT a comforting thought.
Criminals have always been able to get firearms. Its the type of criminal that worries me the Psychopath!!!
Oh, if only that were true. But, it isn't.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Man...lemme see if I can wade thru all this! lol! You need to put your 'edited-in' comments in red (or some other color) so that the reader can easily tell what you've written as opposed to what the OP wrote. It's difficult for a dyslexic (me) to sort one from the other w/o that being done.
'Here 'goes:
Me: Al-Queda and ISIS by their own declarations, drug cartels, drug addicts, home invasion yo-yos, career criminals, muggers, street gangs and other assorted vermin for starters.
You: We have had the same problem but it is the easy availability of firearms that's the problem. Do not think that because we cannot own firearms they are not available to criminals. (I've never thought that. I've always said criminals will always find a way to get guns no matter WHAT "the law" says...and that OUTLAWING GUNS for law-abiding people will not prevent crooks from getting 'em.) There were many weapons that were brought back from conflicts that found their way to criminals. We are starting to get metal detectors at school to screen for knives, gun and other weapons. Recently a young girl was kill by her young boyfriend by his showing off with a gun he was holding that had been used in another shooting. (Uh huh. You're proving my point
You: "But a loaded weapon can be used against you?"
'Not sure what you're getting at here. I believe the point you're trying to make is that a crook might take a vic's loaded gun away from him in a defense situation and use it against the 'vic'? Is that a possibility? Sure. Are the odds of that happening high? Nope. To believe that you'd have to assume all crooks are fearless, MACHO, super aggressive TOUGH GUYS who will ALL be able to getcha one way or another. They AREN'T. (And you'd probably also have to believe that all law enforcement officers should be unarmed, too, for the same reason.)
You: "As above! (Not sure what you're referencing there.) Unless its shoot first and asked question later? I am not clever enough to know what my reactions would be to an intruder. You already have cases where innocent people get killed because of the access and availability of firearms. (Just like innocent people get killed by access to cars, planes, boats, chain saws, booze, drugs and a host of other things.) If you have to sleep with a loaded gun near you Society is the problem and your government is not doing their job!!!! (There you go right there. Society (society=PEOPLE) is the problem - not guns or their availability. PEOPLE are the problem.)"
You: "But when you send them (kids) to school why should it need armed guards?" (I believe I've already 'splained' that above!)
You: "But no law will ever stop the criminal getting weapons. (Egg-zackly. So what is accomplished by restricting LAW-ABIDING PEOPLE'S right to own 'em???) But its the deranged perfectly law abiding young individuals that seem to slip under the radar that can get there firearms by applying for then or as in one case getting the weapons from their mother. Its still down to access and thats what needs to be tightened. (Is there a way of knowing beforehand just who these kids are? No, there isn't. So, should we therefore slap a TRAINLOAD of the strictest gun laws/rules/regs we can come up with on E-V-E-R-Y-B-O-D-Y in the country..or ban this-or-that-weapon/weapons because a loon or two might pop up somewhere and somehow find a way to get his hands on a gun? NO!!! [I believe we've already established the fact that a crook - OR LOON - will always, always, ALWAYS find a way to get a gun no matter HOW MANY laws are passed.])
I need a 'toddy'...
:chug:
Last edited:
I think they should ban guns because it will make the ones that I have worth more!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Maybe. But, what diff does it make if the 'gubmunt' says you can't sell 'em to anybody w/o going to prison?
"Why I have no use/respect for government"...Chapter One.
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
Without any anesthetic.
...while staked out over a nest of fire ants...then do the draw-and-quarter "execution" thing via 4 "Terex Titans".
(If the NSA 'be' a-readin' this, we probably 'be gunna' make wunna their 'short lists' here darned shortly. ['Might wanna scan the sky for black 'hella-chopters'...] :lipsrsealed
Here we go!
The U.N. Resolution 2117 lists 21 points dealing with firearms control, but perhaps of most interest is point number 11. It: "CALLS FOR MEMBER STATES TO SUPPORT WEAPONS COLLECTION and DISARMAMENT of all UN countries"
By a 53-46 vote - The U.S. Senate voted against the U.N. resolution. HOORAY
This is that brief, glorious moment in history
when everyone stands around...reloading
Now, Which 46 Senators Voted to Destroy Us? Well, let their names become known ! See below .. If you vote in one of the states listed with these 46 "legislators" vote against them.
In a 53-46 vote, the Senate narrowly passed a measure that will stop the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. The Statement of Purpose from the Senate Bill reads: "To uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty." The U.N. Small Arms Treaty, which has been championed by the Obama Administration, would have effectively placed a global ban on the import and export of small firearms. The ban would have affected all private gun owners in the U.S. and had language that would have implemented an international gun registry, now get this, on allprivate guns and ammo.
Astonishingly, 46 out of our 100 United States Senators were willing to give away our Constitutional rights to a foreign power.
Here are the 46 senators who voted to give your rights to the U.N.
Baldwin (D-WI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bennett (D-CO)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA) � Surprise!! Bye bye time!
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Coons (D-DE)
Cowan (D-MA)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hirono (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kaine (D-VA)
Kaine (D-VA)
King (I-ME)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murphy (D-CT)
Murray (D-WA) � Surprise!!!
Nelson (D-FL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schatz (D-HI)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Warner (D-VA)
Warren (D-MA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)
What? No Republicans????
Folks: This needs to go viral. These Senators voted to let the UN take OUR guns. They need to lose their next election. We have been betrayed.
46 Senators Voted to Give your 2nd Amendment Constitutional Rights to the U.N.
The U.N. Resolution 2117 lists 21 points dealing with firearms control, but perhaps of most interest is point number 11. It: "CALLS FOR MEMBER STATES TO SUPPORT WEAPONS COLLECTION and DISARMAMENT of all UN countries"
By a 53-46 vote - The U.S. Senate voted against the U.N. resolution. HOORAY
This is that brief, glorious moment in history
when everyone stands around...reloading
Now, Which 46 Senators Voted to Destroy Us? Well, let their names become known ! See below .. If you vote in one of the states listed with these 46 "legislators" vote against them.
In a 53-46 vote, the Senate narrowly passed a measure that will stop the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. The Statement of Purpose from the Senate Bill reads: "To uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty." The U.N. Small Arms Treaty, which has been championed by the Obama Administration, would have effectively placed a global ban on the import and export of small firearms. The ban would have affected all private gun owners in the U.S. and had language that would have implemented an international gun registry, now get this, on allprivate guns and ammo.
Astonishingly, 46 out of our 100 United States Senators were willing to give away our Constitutional rights to a foreign power.
Here are the 46 senators who voted to give your rights to the U.N.
Baldwin (D-WI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bennett (D-CO)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA) � Surprise!! Bye bye time!
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Coons (D-DE)
Cowan (D-MA)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hirono (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kaine (D-VA)
Kaine (D-VA)
King (I-ME)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murphy (D-CT)
Murray (D-WA) � Surprise!!!
Nelson (D-FL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schatz (D-HI)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Warner (D-VA)
Warren (D-MA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)
What? No Republicans????
Folks: This needs to go viral. These Senators voted to let the UN take OUR guns. They need to lose their next election. We have been betrayed.
46 Senators Voted to Give your 2nd Amendment Constitutional Rights to the U.N.
Ian Anderson
Lifetime Supporter
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
Damn. You guys will beleive anything.
The Arms Trade Treaty has nothing to do with restricting the legal sale or ownership of guns within the United States. The aim of the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty is to combat the illicit international trade of arms by "tightening regulation of, and setting international standards for, the import, export and transfer of conventional weapons" in order to "close gaps in existing regional and national arms export control systems that allow weapons to pass onto the illicit market":
The Arms Trade Treaty obligates member states to monitor arms exports and ensure that weapons don't cross existing arms embargoes or end up being used for human-rights abuses, including terrorism. Member states, with the assistance of the U.N., will put into place enforceable, standardized arms import and export regulations (much like those that already exist in the U.S.) and be expected to track the destination of exports to ensure they don't end up in the wrong hands. Ideally, that means limiting the inflow of deadly weapons into places like Syria.
The text of the proposed treaty specifically "reaffirms the sovereign right and responsibility of any State to regulate and control transfers of conventional arms that take place exclusively within its territory, pursuant to its own legal or constitutional systems," so even if such a treaty came to pass, U.S. rights and laws regarding the sale and ownership of small arms would still apply within the United States.
The Obama administration has stated that mandatory conditions for U.S. approval of such an arms trade treaty include the following:
The Second Amendment to the Constitution must be upheld.
There will be no restrictions on civilian possession or trade of firearms otherwise permitted by law or protected by the U.S. Constitution.
There will be no dilution or diminishing of sovereign control over issues involving the private acquisition, ownership, or possession of firearms, which must remain matters of domestic law.
As the Wall Street Journal reported, the U.S. 'voted in favor [of the treaty only] after the Obama Administration secured its key "red line" that the treaty would have no impact on the Second Amendment. The final draft specifies "non-intervention in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction" of signatories.'
No such treaty could "bypass the normal legislative process in Congress," as all treaties to which the U.S. is a signatory must first be approved by a two-thirds vote of the U.S. Senate before they are considered to be ratified and binding.
The President of the United States cannot enact a "complete ban on all weapons for US citizens through the signing of international treaties with foreign nations." The right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed in the Constitution of the United States, and in the 1957 case Reid v. Covert, the U.S. Supreme Court established that the Constitution supersedes international treaties ratified by the U.S. Senate.
Read more at snopes.com: U.N. Arms Trade Treaty
The Arms Trade Treaty has nothing to do with restricting the legal sale or ownership of guns within the United States. The aim of the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty is to combat the illicit international trade of arms by "tightening regulation of, and setting international standards for, the import, export and transfer of conventional weapons" in order to "close gaps in existing regional and national arms export control systems that allow weapons to pass onto the illicit market":
The Arms Trade Treaty obligates member states to monitor arms exports and ensure that weapons don't cross existing arms embargoes or end up being used for human-rights abuses, including terrorism. Member states, with the assistance of the U.N., will put into place enforceable, standardized arms import and export regulations (much like those that already exist in the U.S.) and be expected to track the destination of exports to ensure they don't end up in the wrong hands. Ideally, that means limiting the inflow of deadly weapons into places like Syria.
The text of the proposed treaty specifically "reaffirms the sovereign right and responsibility of any State to regulate and control transfers of conventional arms that take place exclusively within its territory, pursuant to its own legal or constitutional systems," so even if such a treaty came to pass, U.S. rights and laws regarding the sale and ownership of small arms would still apply within the United States.
The Obama administration has stated that mandatory conditions for U.S. approval of such an arms trade treaty include the following:
The Second Amendment to the Constitution must be upheld.
There will be no restrictions on civilian possession or trade of firearms otherwise permitted by law or protected by the U.S. Constitution.
There will be no dilution or diminishing of sovereign control over issues involving the private acquisition, ownership, or possession of firearms, which must remain matters of domestic law.
As the Wall Street Journal reported, the U.S. 'voted in favor [of the treaty only] after the Obama Administration secured its key "red line" that the treaty would have no impact on the Second Amendment. The final draft specifies "non-intervention in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction" of signatories.'
No such treaty could "bypass the normal legislative process in Congress," as all treaties to which the U.S. is a signatory must first be approved by a two-thirds vote of the U.S. Senate before they are considered to be ratified and binding.
The President of the United States cannot enact a "complete ban on all weapons for US citizens through the signing of international treaties with foreign nations." The right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed in the Constitution of the United States, and in the 1957 case Reid v. Covert, the U.S. Supreme Court established that the Constitution supersedes international treaties ratified by the U.S. Senate.
Read more at snopes.com: U.N. Arms Trade Treaty
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
This has nothing to do with anany firearm regulation in ths US
Forget it, Jack. We both know where all this is gunna lead...
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
To you being a dupe who will believe anything on the internet that matches up with your world view? Yeah, it's already there actually
