In response to:

Do Gun Control Laws Control Guns?

Doggoneit Wrote: Jan 22, 2013 1:57 PM
Mass killings are chilling to everyone so it is understandable there would be a move to limit guns, the size, the mags, automacy.... On the other hand, over-reaction works both ways and I think the NRA/gun supporters go overboard for thier wants tool. A compromise is needed to see how a first step would work (like a five-year tria) and if it should be modified later. As cars have gotten safer speed limits have gone up, so change could happen after the trial. I don't see anything wrong starting now, but letting gun owners keep (pick a number 2,3) some of what they have and ban the automatic weapons sale. Leaves the 2nd amend alone, but starts a trial period. Obama will be out in four so maybe the new prez has a different idea.
Jay Wye Wrote: Jan 22, 2013 6:57 PM
Dog,
no "automatic" weapons are sold to ordinary citizens,you have to jump through ATF's strict regulatory process to be able to lawfully possess automatic weapons.(machine guns)
registration,$200 tax stamp,fingerprinting,background check,signoff by local LEO chief,and your state must allow it. Oh,and yearly inspections by ATF.
Emberato Wrote: Jan 22, 2013 3:25 PM
We had the 1994 ban, which did nothing; and then rightfully ended...

By the way, we still have cars for sale to anybody that can go three times the legal speed limit...
CVN65 Wrote: Jan 22, 2013 2:54 PM
Here's my compromise: For the next five years there would be no restrictions on the guns that law-abiding citizens can buy, own or carry. No CCW permits required and no states or cities can enact limits. Gun sellers can still do background checks. At the end of the five years we compare the relevant statistics and see if we are more or less safe that way. Then we can begin to discuss the need for gun control laws. Very similar to your compromise except that we move towards and not away from liberty.
Jay Wye Wrote: Jan 22, 2013 7:03 PM
that's already happened in Vermont,and more recently in Arizona,Alaska,and Wyoming.

Vermont has had no permit necessary for either open or concealed carry for many decades.No problems there.
John5103 Wrote: Jan 22, 2013 2:30 PM
You're ignoring the fact that existing gun laws already violate the 2nd Amendment, and certainly any new restrictions would do so even more. Oh, I forgot, you gun-controllers don't understand that the words of the 2nd Amendment mean exactly what they say. You actually think that the existence of our present UNCONSTITUTIONAL gun laws means that the 2nd Amendment doesn't really mean what it says.
Bigdogoffthechain11 Wrote: Jan 22, 2013 2:16 PM
"automacy"?

Since when is defending the Constitution "going overboard"?

You are an A$$.
Bigdogoffthechain11 Wrote: Jan 22, 2013 2:17 PM
no compromise and no surrender

from my cold, dead hands, ahole
ericynot Wrote: Jan 22, 2013 2:22 PM
dog,

"from my cold, dead hands". You'll be there soon enough, as will we all, guns or no guns. Lighten up.
Bigdogoffthechain11 Wrote: Jan 22, 2013 2:25 PM
Do not again attempt to tell me what to do.

F off and die, ahole.

Got it?
ericynot Wrote: Jan 22, 2013 2:50 PM
Bigdogoffthechain11 Wrote: Jan 22, 2013 4:06 PM
too bad your intellect can't match your stupidity.

Jerk.
oneeye Wrote: Jan 22, 2013 2:12 PM
What's good about compromise?
When you're talking about compromise of a basic liberty you're advocating movement toward tyrany.
The Second Amendment does not "give" us the right to bear arms to defend ourselves from criminals and tyrants, it constrains the government from taking away that God given right.
Any compromise with evil gives you more evil.
Anonymous12656 Wrote: Jan 22, 2013 2:07 PM
Well, Doggoneit, we've already had the "trial period". 10 years of the Clinton "assault weapon" ban yielded absolutely NO IMPACT ON CRIME, either positive or negative. More proof that "gun control" doesn't work (as if several decades of it wasn't enough).

Wanna stop crime? SHOOT the firckin' CRIMINALS!
AmyDB Wrote: Jan 22, 2013 2:03 PM
We've been here already Doggoneit.
There was an Assault Weapons Ban from 94 to 2004.
Columbine happened during that time if you'll recall. Automatic weapons are for all intents & purposes banned _NOW_. To get a full auto or selective fire weapon now you have to have a specific license, pass an exhaustive background check & have the proper permits for the specific weapon you want.

What the progressive parrots are calling "assault weapons" aren't.
They are semi auto only action sporting weapons.
Jay Wye Wrote: Jan 22, 2013 6:59 PM
Amy,no "license" is needed to possess a machine gun; it's a TAX STAMP.
(that's how they get around the unconstitutionality of licensing a RIGHT)

be accurate.
spartacus3344 Wrote: Jan 22, 2013 2:00 PM
I think you're the one Dr. Sowell was talking about when he mentioned the people that don't know a thing about guns or their use.

None of what you said makes a lick of sense.

You do realize you're blaming the actions of a lunatic on an inanimate object, right? Any idea how irrational that is?
The gun control controversy is only the latest of many issues to be debated almost solely in terms of fixed preconceptions, with little or no examination of hard facts.

Media discussions of gun control are dominated by two factors: the National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment. But the over-riding factual question is whether gun control laws actually reduce gun crimes in general or murder rates in particular.

If, as gun control advocates claim, gun control laws really do control guns and save lives, there is nothing to prevent repealing the Second Amendment, any more than there was anything to prevent repealing the...