Creative Gun Control Proposal

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by bluecuracao

I have never been able to get the first part. While individual protection against crime is perfectly understandable, the thinking that guns will protect anyone from so-called U.S. government tyranny is looney.

On the contrary, those who would make a power grab bleed just like anyone else. Those trained in insurgency operations know how to take down the US government which is why our special operations forces are the first ones to be downsized after every conflict in which they are used.

Just talking a separate government entity, like SWAT or the FBI--if they need to take an armed someone or a group of armed someones out, they have the means and it will/has happen(ed).

If that were true, law enforcement wouldn't be so anxious to disarm civilians. They have also failed.

As for our government being able to gather itself together and become one mass thing that violently terrorizes its citizens...if that were to somehow happen, mere guns aren't going to save anybody.

A red herring, what ifs usually are, governments are typically divided and mere guns in the hands of certain individuals have made history. While you are certainly entitled to your own opinions, you are not entitled to your own facts. May I ask what credentials in unconventional warfare you have? You sound kind of loony.

[Shawnee123]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

Oh, except for you. I wouldn't let you near a goddamn pea shooter. You're nutso. but we love you!

Smarticus Pants!

I'm glad you love me, but you obviously don't really know me. All bark, very little bite...that's me in a tortoise shell.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Rhianne

You are seriously comparing a series of unconnected traffic 'incidents' with a case of mass murder?

At what point are actions by a completely irresponsible adult considered only an accident? Murder of 30 kids every week is less bad than 20 murdered in one room? Killing 30 kids weekly is not mass murder? Why a difference because so many are only emotional about 20 deaths?

In each case, adults were irresponsible. That is criminal. Since 30 deaths occur every week, it is only an accident? Unworthy of emotion distress? Those 30 weekly deaths were the easiest to avert. And yet so many want to be emotional only about a rarer event.

Calling them 'incidents' emotionally downplays reality. Is it manslaughter or criminally negligent homcide? Called an accident when emotions replace adult reasoning.

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

Semantics, but if you like. Privilege.

We have a Bill of Rights, not a bill of privileges. That may seem like semantics to upside down thinkers; but, I assure you that's not the case in our legalese.

Originally Posted by ZenGum

Don't agree, many of the spree shooters are such loners that they don't have this option, and if they did get a girlfriend, they'd be less likely to go a-shootin'.

I was being facetious, guns will always be available from outside sources as readily as drugs. Your agreement/disagreement is not required.

Originally Posted by ZenGum

Slippery slope argument. Invalid. Next...

It's the crux of what our Constitutional protections are about. [Schwarzenegger] YOU'RE INVALID! [/Schwarzenegger]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

Yeah, I'm just pissing in the wind, aren't I?

Yeah, you being upside down means it's just coming back in your face; but, for all I know you may like golden showers!

[ZenGum]

Look, if this issue was easy, it'd be called Your Mom*, right?

Seriously, limiting guns to women and men over 30 or otherwise worthy would leave enough guns to defend your civil rights.

And I think this limit would make it harder - not impossible, of course - to get or keep guns if you're not supposed to have them. Of course, serious well connected criminals will have guns no matter what the law says. It's the fringe nutters, the show off teens, who this will restrict.

If you were worried about slippery slopes and your civil rights, you're far too late for that with all the secret surveillance and warrantless tapping going on and such

*apologies to Sexobon's actual mum.

[Adak]

Aside from violating the equal rights provisions of the Constitution, and being yet another (pretty funny though!) knee jerk suggestion -- it's just fine!

[ZenGum]

It took 21 posts for someone to mention equal rights.

Luckily, Sexobon has already answered that. Gun ownership wouldn't be a right (anymore), just a widely held privilege. Nothing about equal privileges. No issue.

Dang, that was easy. Next!

Half-seriously, young males pay more for car insurance because they're more likely to have expensive crashes. If you can make it harder for them to get insurance, why can't you make it harder for them to get guns?

[sexobon]

It can be done with car insurance because owning and driving cars is a privilege, not a right. It can't be done the same way with guns because it is a right and to "make it harder for them" constitutes infringement. This doesn't mean it can't be done, just that it requires a change to the Constitution and there's a process for doing that. Those who want to circumvent the process are simply un-American.

BTW, what is it with you repeating the phrase "make it harder for them" when referring to "young males"? Freud? Freud? Anyone? Anyone?

[ZenGum]

Come on, we know that at least half the thrill of gun ownership is phallic extension fantasy.

Maybe we could do a program where men can trade their guns in for padded underpants.

[Stormieweather]

Oh...well, I'd say the difference between the SUV deaths and Sandy Hook is that the SUV drivers didn't get in their cars and go looking for a crowd of kids to back over. Repeatedly.

I just love apples and oranges.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Stormieweather

Oh...well, I'd say the difference between the SUV deaths and Sandy Hook is that the SUV drivers didn't get in their cars and go looking for a crowd of kids to back over. Repeatedly.

If an SUV backs up multiple times every day only assuming no kid is behind, well, that IS looking to run over a kid.

A responsible SUV driver must have someone stand behind watching. *Assuming* a kid is not there is akin to pointing a gun at someone because you just *know* the gun is not loaded. How many kids have been killed by unloaded guns? More or less than kids killed by SUVs?

We must never point an unloaded gun at someone because it kills so often. But we routinely backup SUVs by only *assuming* the SUV "is not loaded".

Emotion says Newtown is a much worse event. Numbers and facts (devoid of emotion) define an SUV driver's attitude as a greater threat. Because SUV drivers back up only *assuming* nobody is there. And therefore kill 30 kids per week. Only 20 kids died in Newtown.

Fundamental. Do you think emotionally and see Newtown as worse? Or think logically, view the numbers, and see SUVs as a greater threat?

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

Come on, we know that at least half the thrill of gun ownership is phallic extension fantasy.

Maybe we could do a program where men can trade their guns in for padded underpants.

First we'll have to conduct a government funded study in which half the male gun owners are given live ammunition (control group) and the other half are given blanks. We'll see whether or not those shooting blanks experience a decrease in virility, relative to control, to support or refute your hypothesis.

[ZenGum]

yeah, I was trying to work a shooting blanks reference in. Pardon me while I go polish my ramrod.

Back to the semi-serious ... you don't let four year olds have guns, because they can't be trusted not to misuse them.
Nor five year olds.
Nor six year olds ... (I hope) ...
There is a minimum age*.


I'm just suggesting you increase the minimum age further. Say, 30.


* too lazy to check, but I recall seeing 12 as a minimum age for buying a shotgun in some states.

[ZenGum]

Originally Posted by sexobon

Those who want to circumvent the process are simply un-American.

For the record, I'm not un-American.

I'm un-Australian.


I'm anti-American.


Except most of youse guys in the cellar, some how you're pretty cool.
And I still like y'all better than Russia or China.

[bluecuracao]

Originally Posted by sexobon

On the contrary, those who would make a power grab bleed just like anyone else. Those trained in insurgency operations know how to take down the US government which is why our special operations forces are the first ones to be downsized after every conflict in which they are used.


If that were true, law enforcement wouldn't be so anxious to disarm civilians. They have also failed.


A red herring, what ifs usually are, governments are typically divided and mere guns in the hands of certain individuals have made history. While you are certainly entitled to your own opinions, you are not entitled to your own facts. May I ask what credentials in unconventional warfare you have? You sound kind of loony.

Best of luck to you, my friend. Please just stay far, far away from anyone else with your arsenal and your paranoia.