George Soros: The Lord of the Democrats?

Tyler: I still think the right to own a gun must be protected. Not calling for its abolishment. Glad to hear your friend is still alive (curious: what kind of establishment?).

BK: thanks for the link, going through it now.

Dave: My mistake, going through BK's link. As for Soros, MLambert had some interesting counter-points. I'm still gonna get you hammered to get it out of you!

--Dan

 

Thank you Horsefly.

 

Bobafett: "OH - I have one other question for all of the pro-gun extremists who defend their rights to own guns..."
----------------------------
Those darn extremist Framers and that pesky Bill of Rights...!

 

Sorry, but that's just not true. NYC is actually extremely low on this list across the board in crime. Dallas, for example, has triple the murder rate of NYC per capita. NYC is just a nice scapegoat for folks on both sides of any argument.

As for George, my opinions are based on personal experience and are probably not changeable in casual discussion on a web board, so best to agree to disagree. It's Mark, by the way...

 

bobafett, you are wrong. It is not just controling guns. More than one gun control advocate on more than one occasion has stated that their out right goal is total confiscation. Also about holding the gun companies responsible-when you run down some poor soul with your new 360 should ferrari be held responsible? I dont think so. Guns are merely man made tools that can do as much good in the right hands as bad in the wrong hands. When they are misused, hold the criminal responsible. How come when ever a gun is used in a crime or when a child is accidently shot the news just loves to jump all over it, but did you ever just once read in the paper about some guy saving his family from an armed burg. or some women saving herself from being raped because she had a gun. The news just loves to ignore the times an inocent life has been saved because an armed inocent was able to defend themselves from the scum that is allowed to roam the streets due to things like for ex. in the state of NY the avg. time served for murder is about 7 years.

 

Just your ideas, not you. Maybe you need to read it a 3rd time.

 

What is the source of that statistic? Murder in NY state carries a mandatory minimum of 15 years and a maximum of life. NY is notoriously tough with sentencing.

I agree that it's ludicrous to hold gun companies responsible for gun violence. The only exception would be if it could be proven that gun companies were somehow contributing to creating an environment where circumventing gun laws became easier. I don't think that's the case.

 

"It just seems to me that no matter how many gun laws you make the criminals will still get the guns. They are criminals, they don't care about thwarting the laws."

Gun control, mixed with the right penal system does lower crime. You can ignore that fact all you want, but it doesn't make it any less true. Our penal system sucks and always will, and that is a whole other discussion.


"More than one gun control advocate on more than one occasion has stated that their out right goal is total confiscation."

I haven't seen anyone on this group say that, but yes there are extremeists out that that feel that way. There's also more than one gun owning fanatic that thinks you should be able to own any weapon that you desire (even nuclear arms).

Some simple standardized gun control is good. All weapons registered, safety courses, 72 hour wait periods and no casual ownership of automatic weapons is simple and good. Many laws that vary from county to county don't really help anyone.

 

"(curious: what kind of establishment?)."

Dan, his store was high end collectibles(stamps, coins, antiquities, etc.) He is retired now.

 

In response to the idea of gun manufacturers having some financial accountability: until they DO make it harder to get the guns (or rather, they don't make it so much easier), I hold that they deserve some of the punishent.

--Dan

 

"in this specific incident, we, as a society, have determined that we want background checks."

WE, AS A SOCIETY, didn't decide any such thing. The Brady Bill, the assault rifle ban, and its background check baloney was rammed down the citizens's throats by the politicians in Washington. WHEN DID THE AMERICAN CITIZENS EVER GET A CHANCE TO VOTE YES, OR NO, ON THE BRADY BILL???

WE NEVER HAD THAT CHANCE AT ALL. Sarah Brady and Billy Boy cried the standard gun control sob story and ram rodded the Brady Bill through congress. I remember reading that one of Arkansas's senators said at the time that "even though he knew most of the Arkansas citizens were against the assault rifle ban and the Brady Bill, he still could not in good conscience NOT vote for it." We're all in deep trouble when our elected officials ADMIT that they REFUSE to vote the way that their citizens want them to vote. All the average citizen can do is call his congressman and hope his opinion won't get stashed away in a pile of papers to be ignored.

They way the anti-gun whiners scream and moan, you would think that the Second Amendment FORCES them to own a gun. Their enthusiasm and zeal for attacking a Constitutional Amendment ranks them right up there with other treasonous criminals who should be flown out of the country free of charge and dropped out of a plane with a parachute over downtown London since they seem to LOVE England so much.

 

I notice you all mention England when talking about banning guns, why not refer to Singapore or Japan, where gun ownership is also illegal? I'm not for banning private ownership, but these comparisons are always used as a convenience and it gets to be tiring to listen to over and over.

 

Which culture is most comparable to that of the US? I don't think it's Singapore or Japan.