KB Posted January 10, 2013 Report Share Posted January 10, 2013 Why not change the discussion from banning guns and the right to own guns to specifically banning large clip magazines and assault weapons? Two totally different topics there. And Strongbow, your "If I want a friggin tank I'll have a friggin tank"...is the very attitude the rest of the world has a problem with, you are in the USA 'The land of the free' you make it sound more like a battlefield. Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hogester79 Posted January 10, 2013 Report Share Posted January 10, 2013 JoeyB - I promise I am not trying to be condescending or implying my country is better than yours and if it was coming across that way then I apologize. My question is this - How do you stop what has been happening? KB - this was also what I was trying to imply - if an attitude is "this is the way that it has always been and therefore tough" doesn't necessarily mean it can't be analysed and because its being analysed doesn't mean it has to change. Is it the wrong thing for a nation to look at itself and say this system isn't perfect so what can we do to change it? How do we protect the people that can't protect themselves? This to me is the biggest issue. If this was happening here in Australia, I would certainly hope that we could look at ways to make changes and not always revert back a specific law/ rule/ amendment as the reason that why we don't have to change. Suggest changes, vote on them. If they get voted down so be it. For example Australia is based on a constitution as opposed to a number of Amendments, and these can be changed with majority vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeyB Posted January 10, 2013 Report Share Posted January 10, 2013 Why not change the discussion from banning guns and the right to own guns to specifically banning large clip magazines and assault weapons? As posted earlier in this thread, that is the discussion in congress right now. We had a 10 year ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines enacted under President Clinton. It was allowed to expire under President Bush. There is opposition from the conservatives in congress, but due to the precedence set, it is expected to become law again after a bit of politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeyB Posted January 10, 2013 Report Share Posted January 10, 2013 My question is this - How do you stop what has been happening? We will never stop it. We can drastically reduce the gun violence, and that is what we are doing. It will not happen overnight, nor in a month. Knee-jerk reactions make knee-jerk laws. It will take time and most importantly, Thought. KB - this was also what I was trying to imply - if an attitude is "this is the way that it has always been and therefore tough" doesn't necessarily mean it can't be analysed and because its being analysed doesn't mean it has to change. Is it the wrong thing for a nation to look at itself and say this system isn't perfect so what can we do to change it? How do we protect the people that can't protect themselves? This to me is the biggest issue. If this was happening here in Australia, I would certainly hope that we could look at ways to make changes and not always revert back a specific law/ rule/ amendment as the reason that why we don't have to change. Suggest changes, vote on them. If they get voted down so be it. For example Australia is based on a constitution as opposed to a number of Amendments, and these can be changed with majority vote. The United States of America certainly has a Constitution, yours is based on ours, and Amendments. We say our Constitution is a 'living, breathing document of government' because we can amend it as we see need to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KB Posted January 10, 2013 Report Share Posted January 10, 2013 you see Joey this is the kind of thing that bothers me..... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/08/white-house-petition-dianne-feinstein_n_2431980.html?utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cjjoyce1 Posted January 10, 2013 Report Share Posted January 10, 2013 (edited) Is it the wrong thing for a nation to look at itself and say this system isn't perfect so what can we do to change it? How do we protect the people that can't protect themselves? This to me is the biggest issue. If this was happening here in Australia, I would certainly hope that we could look at ways to make changes and not always revert back a specific law/ rule/ amendment as the reason that why we don't have to change. Umm. . .isn't this the very reason why you guys rejected the proposal to replace the Queen and Governor General with a Parliamentary appointed president? Because it went against the articles of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act? Edited January 10, 2013 by cjjoyce1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KB Posted January 10, 2013 Report Share Posted January 10, 2013 no Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KB Posted January 10, 2013 Report Share Posted January 10, 2013 Ok sorry I will expand, us republicans (yes I was one) lost the referendum There was a lot of misleading info put out and the public was conned....sound familiar? Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cjjoyce1 Posted January 10, 2013 Report Share Posted January 10, 2013 Another interesting read http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/12/28/assault-weapon-is-just-a-pr-stunt-meant-to-fool-the-gullible/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cjjoyce1 Posted January 10, 2013 Report Share Posted January 10, 2013 (edited) Ok sorry I will expand, us republicans (yes I was one) lost the referendum There was a lot of misleading info put out and the public was conned....sound familiar? Ken Yes sir, it sure does. Oh..wait. Edited January 10, 2013 by cjjoyce1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeyB Posted January 10, 2013 Report Share Posted January 10, 2013 you see Joey this is the kind of thing that bothers me..... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/08/white-house-petition-dianne-feinstein_n_2431980.html?utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false Why? It doesn't bother me or Feinstein. The petition, which claims that Feinstein's recent push for a renewed assault weapons ban makes her guilty of "treason to the Constitution," has received attention in right-wing blog circles. It has been pushed on InfoWars, a site run by prominent conspiracy-theorist Alex Jones, who recently drew attention for firing off an explosive rant on CNN host Piers Morgan's program on Monday night. Jones himself had helped coordinate a highly successful White House petition to deport Morgan over his outspoken support for gun control measures, which earned a preliminary response from the administration on Monday. Extremist conservative talk show hosts are fueling the opposition to do silly things like this. Most Americans find it rather funny - except when we see a nut like Jones in his rant knowing he has guns. Keep in mind that the U.S. practices our freedom of speech more now than ever before, and we surely [censored] of a monarch or two in the past with it. But just because someone says something doesn't mean it is the law, or that it will change anything. Look at all the rhetoric about our President's birth certificate and right to be president. We do have freedom here, and that includes the freedom to be just as stupid as anyone cares to be. Opposition is part of the process. With 315 million people we do have almost as many opinions and points of view. The last poll I saw yesterday showed that 67% of those polled favor restricting assault weapons and high capacity magazines. Feinstein has support in Congress, is a real politician, and will get the bill to the floor when it's ready. That's what to pay attention to. The House of Representatives is Republican led, conservatives. They've taken quite a beating of late for having gone so far to the right. A floor vote would tell the public how each voted. If your congressman votes against when your district is 67% for, then he has a problem keeping his job. The floor vote, the politics of holding the representative responsible to his constituents and public opinion is the event to watch. The rest is is for radio ratings, TV ratings, web site hits, blog hits, and to bother people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KB Posted January 10, 2013 Report Share Posted January 10, 2013 I would go on and read the comments after that article too. Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeyB Posted January 10, 2013 Report Share Posted January 10, 2013 That's not where the law will be made or lost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KB Posted January 10, 2013 Report Share Posted January 10, 2013 The reason it bothers me Joey is that it demonstrates that there are gun lobbyist who will not only try anything to stop rational debate but also any attempt to legislate or as in this case re-legislate assault weapons. The petition actually says that "Senator Dianne Feinstein is actively working to destroy the 2nd amendment" when in fact all she would be doing is to reinstate an expired assault weapons ban. Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hogester79 Posted January 10, 2013 Report Share Posted January 10, 2013 I've got a small problem with the other article that was posted. Does John Lott really think that mentally ill people go to Movie Theaters and Schools because they perceive the risk to be less or because there will be lots of people about and therefore maximum damage? If they are mentally ill then doesn't that imply they aren't thinking that clearly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanuq Posted January 10, 2013 Report Share Posted January 10, 2013 I'm still waiting for someone to tell me if Gun Law #20,001 will be the magic law that finally makes the bad guys clean up their act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeyB Posted January 10, 2013 Report Share Posted January 10, 2013 The reason it bothers me Joey is that it demonstrates that there are gun lobbyist who will not only try anything to stop rational debate but also any attempt to legislate or as in this case re-legislate assault weapons. The petition actually says that "Senator Dianne Feinstein is actively working to destroy the 2nd amendment" when in fact all she would be doing is to reinstate an expired assault weapons ban. Ken Here is a quote from a movie that I believe illustrates what the United States of America is all about: “America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours.” In my country you can say what you want, but so can your opponent. This is not only the way it is, it is what we demand. In the recent election the President's opponent said so many things that simply were not true. The People had to decide who they believed and who they did not believe. This is what we are about. In court it is the Law for a defense attorney to defend his client to the best of his ability, even if he believes or knows his client is guilty. If he doesn't, if the attorney misses one thing, the attorney answers charges, his client gets a retrial or freed. As I've said, the things said and done to President Obama about his name, his birth, his heritage, his school transcripts, all of it, are past being disgusting. Most Americans view it as stupid. But it's not illegal. The People determine that it's just a bunch of dummies. I'd guess most Americans don't know how our Nation works either, and share your concerns. But for more than 236 years our way works. It doesn't work fast, it doesn't work perfect, but it does work the way we choose for it to work. It even works when Americans don't know it is working. It is the nature of what our Founders envisioned and built. Feinstein and her supporters will be challenged, as you linked to. That is a good thing. It means that she will have to be certain of what she brings to congress for it to survive all the coming attacks. Then, if passed it goes to the Senate for the same scrutiny. If it passes there and if the President signs it into Law it still won't be done just yet. Someone like Jones can and will challenge it in court, and all the way to the Supreme Court. They will rule one way or the other, and we will live under their decision until someone else challenges it and gets it through all the courts again to the Supreme Court. There is no limit to the challenges. Will all that take place? Who knows, but it can. I think Feinstein's group will bring a good bill in banning assault weapons and large capacity magazines, it will pass through quickly and be signed by the President. The People are for it. I am for it. The Politicians will take the 'easy way' passing something that was a law previously. I do not think it will solve the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KB Posted January 10, 2013 Report Share Posted January 10, 2013 I don't see a law like that as boiling down to statistics, I see it as a step in the right direction. What I would really like to see is the 'For' guys forgetting surveys and stats etc etc and stating why they believe that any weapon should be allowed in the family home. I don't keep a gun in my house, none of my friends do either but if I was honestly concerned for my families safety not in my wildest dreams can I envisualise where I would need more than a simple hand gun. Nanuq showed before why he needs a shot gun...damn right I would have one too if I lived in Alaska, in Australia most farmers have small bore rifles or shot guns for foxes and wild dogs etc but of course that is not a concern in the suburbs. This is the part I don't understand. Ken 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeyB Posted January 10, 2013 Report Share Posted January 10, 2013 What I would really like to see is the 'For' guys forgetting surveys and stats etc etc and stating why they believe that any weapon should be allowed in the family home. The only reason need be stated is the 2nd Amendment. We hold our Freedom, our Liberty and our Rights as sacred. We believe that every soldier who died in service of this country paid the ultimate price for our Rights, and every soldier who served as having defended our Rights. We refuse to give up any of our Rights because history teaches the 'slippery slope'. And the fact is that in having that view we now have more rights than ever before in our history. WE, the People of the United States of America will not give up our Rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KB Posted January 10, 2013 Report Share Posted January 10, 2013 No Joey wrong answer you said before it is hoped...quote...." Feinstein's group will bring a good bill in banning assault weapons and large capacity magazines" but now you say all weapons should be allowed because it is 'Our right' They are conflicting stances. As a man who has been a long term professional solider do you not feel that some weapons are just not for civilian use? Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KB Posted January 10, 2013 Report Share Posted January 10, 2013 For instance..... Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeyB Posted January 10, 2013 Report Share Posted January 10, 2013 No Joey wrong answer you said before it is hoped...quote...." Feinstein's group will bring a good bill in banning assault weapons and large capacity magazines" but now you say all weapons should be allowed because it is 'Our right' They are conflicting stances. As a man who has been a long term professional solider do you not feel that some weapons are just not for civilian use? Ken What I would really like to see is the 'For' guys forgetting surveys and stats etc etc and stating why they believe that any weapon should be allowed in the family home. You said "any". That's what I addressed. Not "all". I stated several pages ago that I do not believe that assault weapons and large capacity magazines are needed by civilians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KB Posted January 10, 2013 Report Share Posted January 10, 2013 But that's my point, many of the people using the very same arguments..stats, surveys and the 2nd...do believe it should be 'all' Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeyB Posted January 10, 2013 Report Share Posted January 10, 2013 Yep, at least 33%, and likely just under half the Nation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KB Posted January 10, 2013 Report Share Posted January 10, 2013 And that is sad. A nation that is looked upon as the world leader and the epitome of freedom but cannot find common ground in the face of such a tragic incidence like Sandy Hook. Ken...over and out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts