Think about this...
 

And spoons make people fat.

Gun Free America?

Step 1: Elect.
For a gun-free America, the first thing you’ll need is two-thirds of Congress. So elect a minimum of 67 Senators and 290 Representatives who are on your side.

Step 2: Propose.
Then, have them vote to propose an amendment to the Constitution which repeals Second Amendment gun rights for all Americans.

Step 3: Ratify.
Then convince the legislators of 38 states to ratify that change.
At this point, the Second Amendment is history, but you’ve done nothing to decrease gun violence. All you’ve done is remove the barrier for Congress to act.

Step 4: Legislate.
You need to enact “common sense” reform. You can try what Australia did… ban all guns? That’s not at all they did, but whatever. Go big or go home, right?
It will have to be passed by Congress and signed by the president.
Great! The law is passed and guns are now illegal. The only thing left to do is…

Step 5: Enforce.
Guns won’t just disappear because you passed a law. You need to confiscate some 350 million guns scattered among 330 Million Americans.
Sure, you can try a buy-back, like Australia, but like Australia that will still leave behind anywhere from 60 percent to 80 percent of privately owned firearms.
The rest you have to take.

You’ll need all the King’s horses and all the King’s men… the police, the FBI, the ATF, the NSA, and/or the National Guard—all known for their nuanced approach to potentially dangerous situations—to go door-to-door, through 3.8 million square miles of this country and take guns, by force, from thousands, if not millions, of well-armed individuals.
Many of whom would rather start a civil war than acquiesce.

So inevitably gun violence, which is currently at a historic low, will skyrocket.

...which proves that doing nothing is so much better.

:noevil:

.

... as they appear during the course of other events. You don't actually have to seek them out.

Can one spoonful of food make someone obese?

Well done !

Then it won't be a "gun free" America.

Maybe the last spoonful.
Or maybe it's like AA - it's the first spoon that makes you obese.

Sorry, not contributing the the debate here (I did like your point.)

OK, I'll bite ...
1) What a fucking stupid argument.
2) Which gun advocates want some dickhead shooting an unknown target in the middle of the night without having any idea what/who it is? I'll wait.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Any answer other than NONE means YOU have no fucking clue what you are talking about.

a throwback sez...
 

https://homemadeguns.wordpress.com/

Folks in America can do whatever the hell they like and can about guns, including takin' 'em away (by force), and those who want 'em will find a way.

As I said a long time back, in another thread: Pandora's armory opened its doors wide ages ago and those doors won't ever be shut again.

But, no worries: keep workin' the culture...with consistent effort, eventually 'gun' will be a dirty word, guns will inspire revulsion in any- and every-one, and only throwbacks will want them (and throwbacks will be segregated in 'preserves' away from all the decent folk...or, they'll be dead).

Huzzah! Huzzah! Utopia is just around the corner!

It wouldn't be, either way, so skip it.

What? How dare you not cheer for one pole or the other. What are you some kind of compromiser, middlegrounder, that's un-American. :lol2:

Replace step 5 with "Treat guns like we treat ivory."

Ivory? Do you mean old guns are OK, but no new ones? That won't satisfy either pole.

Steps 1 through 4 is what it takes to change the legal standing, but that puts us in the middle. I don't see that happening, at least in my lifetime, but who knows. However at that point both poles are unhappy. Make that one is unhappy and the other furious.

It would take step 5 to satisfy the Gun-Free pole, but isn't going to happen.

To paraphrase classicman's post, I think you'd be hard pressed to find a "Gun-Free" advocate who would support going house to house confiscating guns.

As a matter of fact I've run into a couple, unfortunately I wasn't driving.
But that's what would have to happen to happen to have a "gun free" America, and I don't think the zealots who rant and rave on the net or in the papers have thought about. Possibly some of the lesser rabid have, but I'm pretty certain most of the people who hear them and nod, saying that sounds like a good solution, haven't either. As long as the vocal core of that pole preach unattainable goals, the other pole will preach outrageous bullshit also, assuring nothing gets done.

The extremists have always been the problem, so it's incumbent on the moderates to speak up.

Imperative, even. :thumb:

The Last Leg's take on gun control in America:

Never forget what the NRA is. It is a lobbyist organization for the gun industry. Its only purpose is it promote sales. It is wildly successful having achieved what most lobbyists do not do. It got the customers to pay for its expenses. Normally the industry gets pays those costs. NRA's purpose - to promote gun sales. That fundamental purposes has not changed.

I should probably point out that Hill's 'rant' is a regular part of the show and always ends with the exhortation to 'stop being a dick'. He isn't just randomly having a pop at America.

Not quite.... from one version of the NRA history

Of course, the raison d'etre of the 2nd Amendment has
now been Scaliatized to expunge "A well regulated militia ...".

.

The NRA did a good job of promoting safety training for youth, through supervised target shooting, to get them used to handling a gun safely, and safe hunting practices. They handled the transfer of surplus weapons from the government to the boy scouts, and promoted sport shooting as a hobby.

When the urban/suburban population outgrew the rural, there also grew a segment that had no history of hunting or handling guns, who only saw them as weapons of war or criminal activity, and were generally scared of the gun's existence. From this segment came a vocal movement, mothers-against-anything-fun, along with the Friends-of-Ned-Flanders-against-murdering-cute-bunnies-&-Bambi, promoting any and all restrictions they could. More importantly they rallied the people who were ignorant of guns, other than the TV/movies depictions.

The NRA said, whoa, WTF, you're fucking with our recreation, lifestyle, and protection. That's an understandable reaction. Where they went wrong was retreating to a hilltop and building a fort, instead of infiltrating and educating their opposition. The fer me or agin me stand, seldom ends well. This case is no exception. They've created a polarization where you love guns or you're a commie, socialist, hippie, left wing, and probably a demoncrat. While the other pole thinks if you own a gun, it must be on an alter to Satan in a secret room where you eat cooked babies. I'm pretty sure most people, gun owner or not, don't fit either description.

"A well regulated militia...", when it was written, was civilians with their own guns and the skills to use them effectively, if the country needed to gather them quickly into a preplanned fighting force. It helped to have people who wouldn't shoot their eye out, or yours, when you're drafting solders to build up our military, which is the same as calling in the militia.

Whether that plan is appropriate for this day and age of professional solders, can be debated with reasonable points on both sides. But the fact remains, "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." is in there. So I don't see a way to outlaw them without changing the 2nd amendment. That said, the Supremes have made a couple of really bad rulings in the past,(I'm looking at you Kelo vs The City of New London:mad2:), and may again.

The Supreme Court already ruled on this with the DC ban on guns and basically removed the militia bit of the amendment. The words are still there, but the court said they no longer apply.
Check out the wikipedia entry on the case.

Thanks.
I just occurred to me, if being part of the "militia" was a prerequisite, that would exclude women. We know that's a no-no. http://cellar.org/2012/nono.gif

That same ruling says that states can regulate guns, but can't ban them. So they can require waiting period or background checks, for example, but no outright bans.

Reasonable restrictions. I remember when PA passed hidden carry permits I went to the first issuing session and the room was crowded with probably three dozen chairs, all taken. They announced the first step would be fingerprinting, and half got up and walked out. It's their game, their rules, if you don't like it don't play. I felt the CC permit was worth it, but obviously many don't.

To clarify; the advantage of having a concealed carry permit is if I want to take a handgun to a friend's house, in order to take it in the car(legally), it must be unloaded, in the trunk, in a locked container, with the bullets in a separate container. Plus you still need a reason for having it in the car. There's a dozen acceptable reasons, but 'just because' isn't one of them.

With a CC permit, unload it and throw it in the glove compartment, or on the floor. Personally I don't use the CC permit to carry a gun all the time, it's just a convenience when I want to take one somewhere and happen to get stopped. Otherwise I'd have to drive slow. ;)

That comparison is not valid, and makes no sense what-so-ever.

Common sense, huh. Common sense wuz never common.

You forgot to type #BAZINGA :D

Maybe not standing by itself, but Happy Monkey's reply reshapes it into...

The first spoon can't make you fat
BUT
The first bullet can make you dead

.

I just watch the clip you posted Dana. Adam makes some good points there.

Of course, so does Cenk, but I doubt anyone here knows that cuz I have reason to believe that no one here actually watched the video I posted.

Not so,Z. I did, and I'm sure xoB did too... at least judging from his long, but opposing, reply.

Don't give up...

I had seen it elsewhere.

Just for the record: There is no freaking way Ned Flanders is pro gun control.

Not I, that was Monster.

Ooops, sorry about that.

My mind and fingers are going outside on their own more and more.

Oh really - and doing what exactly? ;p

Ok. Then, tell me your thoughts regarding the 2 shootings Cenk reported on.

Happens all the time, because there's no cure for stupid. None.
But this guy is clinging to the pole I've explained here and other threads, doing as much harm as the NRA, to the cause of rational discussion.

Ok. But what do you think about these two stories specifically?

Also, what "pole" are you talking about?

They are very much like others that can be cited, such as the well-trained State Patrol Officer
whose loaded gun was left on the table and found by his daughter and....

Or whose wife/husband/S.O/child/neighbor was shot by mistake.
Or whose wife/husband/S.O/child was intimidated by an abusive spouse.

I'm not belittling those events. ... just saying they are all too common,
and yet are preventable, are not planned or intended,
are not limited to one population or ethnic group or non-educated
or non-trained or non-familiar with guns, or on and on all around this country.

Some don't particularly care that those "events" are happening to others.
Some feel secretly pleased because such "events" support their belief system.
Some are more concerned about the $ spent in E.R.'s on treating them.

And despite the deaths and injuries and intimidations via guns,
some have drunk the NRA Koolaid about needing guns to prevent the government
from taking their guns, life, $, ... maybe their subscription to NRA magazines ... or ??? whatever.

As one Dweller likes to point out, I'm older than most Dwellers,...almost older than dirt...
and I don't believe things are going to change much in my lifetime.
But I do believe they are going to change soon despite the NRA,
as more and more people become less and less tolerant of such "accidents".

.

Ok, that is what I wanted to see. Now, I have proof that you watched the video. :thankyou:

Wait - you doubted his word on that and were testing him?


Is today Mind-Fuck day and nobody told me?

I got a couple more for y'all:

Yep, and I just realized I was wrong to do so, cuz that's not the messenger's job.

What about them, they unfortunately are not rare. If they were we'd just write them off to freak accidents, acts of god, or whatever.

That tells me you haven't read what I posted in this thread, or the thread I linked.
Therefore I have to assume your agenda is to skim replies, looking hosannas from people to agree with you. http://cellar.org/2015/shades.gif

You ASS-U-ME wrong. I read every post in this thread in detail. And I got the gist of what you meant thru your use of the word "pole" (kinda like Democrats vs. Republicans). I just wonder why you're so fond of that word.

The poles are as far apart as you can get on earth.

:)