So I'm facebook friends with a liberal reporter, don't ask why because I'm not getting into it. Getting back to the point. She posted a Guardian UK gun control article. First of all, why the **** do they care...and why should we care what they think. Initially because I've been sucked into some of her post before, I was just going to post my opinion and then leave it at that. Well that didn't happen. I think many of you will find her argument appalling. This happened over a several hour period, while I was at work, so my grammar is off at times. Additionally I got very angered at times, but tried to keep it in check during the conversation. Enjoy
Oh, I don't claim to be a great debater and I'm sure I made some mistakes just as she did but her simple belief is what's really appalling. However, about halfway though, just inspite of her I bought 10 more 30 rd ar mags
-----
Unnamed Person- Perhaps we need to begin with a "discussion" rather proceeding to a "debate" for a start. As the most recent incident in Arizona compounds the need for rational consideration of a possible moderation of gun laws state and nationwide, memories of other needless tragedies: JFK, MLK,Jr., RFK, attempts on Reagan, Ford, GHW Bush etc. all point to our need to listen to one another and discuss how best to proceed.
-----
Me
Each state has the ability to restrict weapon type & magazine capacity. Federal law already prohibits mentally ill & felons from owning firearms.
We have LOTS of gun control already, they're just not enforced properly. Why should we enact new laws when enforcement already fails to do it's job with what's before it?
That's my opinion, and it's not changing. So I'm not going to continue to read this thread.
-----
Unnamed Person 2- I'm tired of losing that debate. Truly, I am.
-----
Reporter ‎@Me: If it's a question of enforcement (an argument I've heard before), then that's a substantive part of the debate. What's keep it from happening? And is it best left to the states--as easy as it is to cross state lines and obtain weapons? It seems to me it's time to vigorously revisit this issue.
-----
Unnamed Person 3-
As one who grew up in a hunting family, I'm obviously very supportive of not deteriorating the 2nd Amendment. However, I see no point in semi-automatic weapons for non-military or law enforcement purposes, or folks in the general public having military-type weapons. I fully support the Brady Bill, and would consider legislation that calls for further background checks and permits, as long as it doesn't become red-tape laden and cause long delays in ordinary citizens being able to purchase guns in a timely manner.
Secondly, as a former journalist, I covered the issue of concealed weapons permits, and the evidence proves that 99% of permit holders are law-abiding and responsible people and the incidents of gun violence or deaths in this category of people is virtually non-existent. In fact, the 1% that have their license revoked is due to a felony or criminal charge that isn't related to use of a gun. For example, a man who's charged with domestic violence can lose his permit, even though the gun wasn't involved. The reality is that most gun violence is committed by criminals and those with mental illness, like schizophrenia.
I bring this up to say that any new laws/or the amendment of existing laws should be done to deal with the actual problems and people who commit most gun crimes, and to not further punish the majority of Americans who are responsible and safe with guns.
-----
Unnamed Person 4 - ‎@Me, "That's my opinion, and it's not changing. So I'm not going to continue to read this thread." Weren't you the one protesting that liberals all want everyone to be like them? And here you are, declaring that you'll not pay attention to what others have to say because you've made up (and apparently closed and shut off) your mind.
-----
Unnamed Person 5 - Do criminals give a hoot about gun legislation? Do they care anything about any legislation? Just a thought.
-----
Reporter By that logic--should we have any laws at all--because criminals won't follow them?
-----
Me-
‎@Person 4-, I couldn't believe what I read in my email, you suckered me back in. By formulating my very informed opinion and not wavering in such I am not forcing anyone to be like me. CHOICE ... something this country was founded on.
Carla... fights for the CHOICE to have an abortion if she prefers to do so.
Many fight for the CHOICE of religion.
Many fight for the CHOICE to speak up against one political party or politician without being imprisoned or punished.
Millions have died before you by CHOICE, to DEFEND your freedom of CHOICE!
I fight for the CHOICE to defend myself, friends and family against criminals, a potential tyrant government and any other imminent threat. Which may never happen in my lifetime, but I CHOOSE to be prepared and not be a victim like millions in this world have. Millions of people in this world have been murdered by the government sworn to protect them, including people in this country. Have we forgotten to what this country did to the Japanese during WWII?
Luckily for me the 2nd amendment, re-strengthened by the Supreme Court in 2009, protects the RIGHT of individuals to bear arms. Luckily for me it doesn't specify the purpose for which I must own a firearm. It does not restrict that I must only own firearms for hunting or home protection. It protects the right of individuals to own firearms like the rest of the constitution protects this conversation.
If you want me to hand over my firearm you better be willing to hand over your freedom of speech.
-----
Reporter ‎@Me: I don't have the right to unfettered free speech. For example, I can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater without legal repercussions. My right to free speech also doesn't mean I am free from being criticized. It doesn't mean I can commit libel, either. All of our rights, including the right to bear arms, ought to be the same.
-----
Me-
You're arguing criticism & defamation...nice straw.
I can't walk down the street without a loaded rifle with out the expectation of being stopped by police, legal or not. I can't fire any weapon within city limits unless in legal self defen...se. I can't drive a vehicle with a loaded firearm unless I have a concealed weapons permit, which requires a full background check, waiting period, safety class and other restrictions...which are above and beyond the requirements to purchase the firearm.
There is already lots of restrictions on firearms, just like your claimed freedom of speech restrictions.
-----
Reporter
‎@Me: As you likely know, in fact in some states you can walk down the street with a loaded weapon without the expectation of being stopped by police. Arizona is one such state. In fact, the regulation of firearms varies widely state ...by state.
The question on the table is whether or not greater federal regulations should be considered.
-----
Me-
Untrue;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJVpCMyMKWU
Their have been many lawsuits against cities & counties because of police harassment on this issue.
...Ok, lets make it simple. No further federal regulations should be considered because that infringes my 2nd amendment. "...the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
-----
Reporter
True, actually. Citizens in Arizona can in fact can legally carry a loaded weapon in public: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarep...29/20100729arizona-concealed-weapons-law.html
Your link actually backs up what I'm... saying: firearms regulations vary widely from state to state. It's not a "simple" issue, and virtually plugging our ears and pretending otherwise does an injustice to it.
Shutting down any debate whatsoever on this--whether it leads to more (or less) regulation for firearms, or whether it leads to a serious discussion of how we deal with the mentally ill...or how we're going to pay for larger public safety issues, is a vital conversation. Just because it happens to roll through the venue of a discussion on firearms, its irresponsible to close it off.
-----
Me-
You've completely decided to ignore my point that just because it's legal doesn't mean I won't be criticized for it, like you tried to argue about free speech. I already stated that each state has the ability to regulate firearms. Although ...if legal or not (Chicago) is a different matter.
It's already illegal for mentally ill to own or possess firearms. No more needed debate. If the state FAILS to identify them as such, that has no business in a firearms debate.
-----
Reporter
The issue of mental health is only PART of the debate, and if the state if failing to recognize, then it's absolutely part of the discussion. Just because you personally don't like it, doesn't mean it isn't fully appropriate and necessary.
Second, it's clear in the case of Arizona that are more armed populace isn't necessarily a safer populace. As has been widely noted, a citizen with a loaded weapon was there, on site, ready to fire--and almost shot an innocent bystander who managed to pull the gun away from Loughner:
http://www.slate.com/id/2280794/
Where do we draw the line? We don't allow citizens to own tanks, missiles and nuclear weapons. Why do we allow weapons such as the kind used by Loughner?
-----
Oh, I don't claim to be a great debater and I'm sure I made some mistakes just as she did but her simple belief is what's really appalling. However, about halfway though, just inspite of her I bought 10 more 30 rd ar mags
-----
Unnamed Person- Perhaps we need to begin with a "discussion" rather proceeding to a "debate" for a start. As the most recent incident in Arizona compounds the need for rational consideration of a possible moderation of gun laws state and nationwide, memories of other needless tragedies: JFK, MLK,Jr., RFK, attempts on Reagan, Ford, GHW Bush etc. all point to our need to listen to one another and discuss how best to proceed.
-----
Me
Each state has the ability to restrict weapon type & magazine capacity. Federal law already prohibits mentally ill & felons from owning firearms.
We have LOTS of gun control already, they're just not enforced properly. Why should we enact new laws when enforcement already fails to do it's job with what's before it?
That's my opinion, and it's not changing. So I'm not going to continue to read this thread.
-----
Unnamed Person 2- I'm tired of losing that debate. Truly, I am.
-----
Reporter ‎@Me: If it's a question of enforcement (an argument I've heard before), then that's a substantive part of the debate. What's keep it from happening? And is it best left to the states--as easy as it is to cross state lines and obtain weapons? It seems to me it's time to vigorously revisit this issue.
-----
Unnamed Person 3-
As one who grew up in a hunting family, I'm obviously very supportive of not deteriorating the 2nd Amendment. However, I see no point in semi-automatic weapons for non-military or law enforcement purposes, or folks in the general public having military-type weapons. I fully support the Brady Bill, and would consider legislation that calls for further background checks and permits, as long as it doesn't become red-tape laden and cause long delays in ordinary citizens being able to purchase guns in a timely manner.
Secondly, as a former journalist, I covered the issue of concealed weapons permits, and the evidence proves that 99% of permit holders are law-abiding and responsible people and the incidents of gun violence or deaths in this category of people is virtually non-existent. In fact, the 1% that have their license revoked is due to a felony or criminal charge that isn't related to use of a gun. For example, a man who's charged with domestic violence can lose his permit, even though the gun wasn't involved. The reality is that most gun violence is committed by criminals and those with mental illness, like schizophrenia.
I bring this up to say that any new laws/or the amendment of existing laws should be done to deal with the actual problems and people who commit most gun crimes, and to not further punish the majority of Americans who are responsible and safe with guns.
-----
Unnamed Person 4 - ‎@Me, "That's my opinion, and it's not changing. So I'm not going to continue to read this thread." Weren't you the one protesting that liberals all want everyone to be like them? And here you are, declaring that you'll not pay attention to what others have to say because you've made up (and apparently closed and shut off) your mind.
-----
Unnamed Person 5 - Do criminals give a hoot about gun legislation? Do they care anything about any legislation? Just a thought.
-----
Reporter By that logic--should we have any laws at all--because criminals won't follow them?
-----
Me-
‎@Person 4-, I couldn't believe what I read in my email, you suckered me back in. By formulating my very informed opinion and not wavering in such I am not forcing anyone to be like me. CHOICE ... something this country was founded on.
Carla... fights for the CHOICE to have an abortion if she prefers to do so.
Many fight for the CHOICE of religion.
Many fight for the CHOICE to speak up against one political party or politician without being imprisoned or punished.
Millions have died before you by CHOICE, to DEFEND your freedom of CHOICE!
I fight for the CHOICE to defend myself, friends and family against criminals, a potential tyrant government and any other imminent threat. Which may never happen in my lifetime, but I CHOOSE to be prepared and not be a victim like millions in this world have. Millions of people in this world have been murdered by the government sworn to protect them, including people in this country. Have we forgotten to what this country did to the Japanese during WWII?
Luckily for me the 2nd amendment, re-strengthened by the Supreme Court in 2009, protects the RIGHT of individuals to bear arms. Luckily for me it doesn't specify the purpose for which I must own a firearm. It does not restrict that I must only own firearms for hunting or home protection. It protects the right of individuals to own firearms like the rest of the constitution protects this conversation.
If you want me to hand over my firearm you better be willing to hand over your freedom of speech.
-----
Reporter ‎@Me: I don't have the right to unfettered free speech. For example, I can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater without legal repercussions. My right to free speech also doesn't mean I am free from being criticized. It doesn't mean I can commit libel, either. All of our rights, including the right to bear arms, ought to be the same.
-----
Me-
You're arguing criticism & defamation...nice straw.
I can't walk down the street without a loaded rifle with out the expectation of being stopped by police, legal or not. I can't fire any weapon within city limits unless in legal self defen...se. I can't drive a vehicle with a loaded firearm unless I have a concealed weapons permit, which requires a full background check, waiting period, safety class and other restrictions...which are above and beyond the requirements to purchase the firearm.
There is already lots of restrictions on firearms, just like your claimed freedom of speech restrictions.
-----
Reporter
‎@Me: As you likely know, in fact in some states you can walk down the street with a loaded weapon without the expectation of being stopped by police. Arizona is one such state. In fact, the regulation of firearms varies widely state ...by state.
The question on the table is whether or not greater federal regulations should be considered.
-----
Me-
Untrue;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJVpCMyMKWU
Their have been many lawsuits against cities & counties because of police harassment on this issue.
...Ok, lets make it simple. No further federal regulations should be considered because that infringes my 2nd amendment. "...the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
-----
Reporter
True, actually. Citizens in Arizona can in fact can legally carry a loaded weapon in public: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarep...29/20100729arizona-concealed-weapons-law.html
Your link actually backs up what I'm... saying: firearms regulations vary widely from state to state. It's not a "simple" issue, and virtually plugging our ears and pretending otherwise does an injustice to it.
Shutting down any debate whatsoever on this--whether it leads to more (or less) regulation for firearms, or whether it leads to a serious discussion of how we deal with the mentally ill...or how we're going to pay for larger public safety issues, is a vital conversation. Just because it happens to roll through the venue of a discussion on firearms, its irresponsible to close it off.
-----
Me-
You've completely decided to ignore my point that just because it's legal doesn't mean I won't be criticized for it, like you tried to argue about free speech. I already stated that each state has the ability to regulate firearms. Although ...if legal or not (Chicago) is a different matter.
It's already illegal for mentally ill to own or possess firearms. No more needed debate. If the state FAILS to identify them as such, that has no business in a firearms debate.
-----
Reporter
The issue of mental health is only PART of the debate, and if the state if failing to recognize, then it's absolutely part of the discussion. Just because you personally don't like it, doesn't mean it isn't fully appropriate and necessary.
Second, it's clear in the case of Arizona that are more armed populace isn't necessarily a safer populace. As has been widely noted, a citizen with a loaded weapon was there, on site, ready to fire--and almost shot an innocent bystander who managed to pull the gun away from Loughner:
http://www.slate.com/id/2280794/
Where do we draw the line? We don't allow citizens to own tanks, missiles and nuclear weapons. Why do we allow weapons such as the kind used by Loughner?
-----
