DB: Palin Kills It in Gun Country

[DRSmith]

Driving a car is not a right and yet cars cause how many deaths a year with all those restrictions?

The problem with this arguement is cars are not designed to harm others

[AsburySkinsFan]

Hmmmmm, let's think about this, why would someone purchase a firearm from a store that is linked to his/her name via the guns dna? :thumbsup:

Without gun regulation why would their name be linked to the gun at all? :thumbsup: If you recall, the very fact that your name is taken at all is part of gun regulation. Without regulation purchasing a gun should be no different than buying a pack of gum.

[DRSmith]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

You have a regulated and well armed militia it is the US army and then you have US law enforcement

[AsburySkinsFan]

You have a regulated and well armed militia it is the US army and then you have US law enforcement

What's funny is that they always forget the "well regulated" part.

[DRSmith]

What's funny is that they always forget the "well regulated" part.

The founders and their regualtion those regulations damaged America

[Popeman38]

You have a regulated and well armed militia it is the US army and then you have US law enforcement

Dude, the militia is not regulated by the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Back in the day when the founding fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment, when the militia was called you reported with your gun. Because they couldn't afford to provide weapons for every citizen, since the militia was every able bodied male between 17 and 50. The National Guard doesn't count. The Army Reserve doesn't count.

[Major Harris]

She's loved by people who don't know any better.

I Love You Sarah Palin!

[Popeman38]

What's funny is that they always forget the "well regulated" part.

What's funny is how people grasp that phrase like it invalidates Joe Smith from owning a gun because he isn't part of a militia. Yet, when he joins a militia the ATF raids their training and arrests them all for trying to "overthrow" the govt by violence. Now, why would the Founding Fathers want Joe Smith to be able to own weapons and train? So he has a means to resist an over creeping Fed Govt. I do not condone violence against our govt, in any way. Civil protests and elections work just fine.

[DRSmith]

Dude, the militia is not regulated by the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Back in the day when the founding fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment, when the militia was called you reported with your gun. Because they couldn't afford to provide weapons for every citizen, since the militia was every able bodied male between 17 and 50. The National Guard doesn't count. The Army Reserve doesn't count.

The US should just get rid of both

Either that or parts of the constitution are like parts of the bible and no longer applicable

[AsburySkinsFan]

What's funny is how people grasp that phrase like it invalidates Joe Smith from owning a gun because he isn't part of a militia. Yet, when he joins a militia the ATF raids their training and arrests them all for trying to "overthrow" the govt by violence. Now, why would the Founding Fathers want Joe Smith to be able to own weapons and train? So he has a means to resist an over creeping Fed Govt. I do not condone violence against our govt, in any way. Civil protests and elections work just fine.

That's a whole lot of writing to avoid the point.

1) Are you part of a well regulated militia? 2) Do you train with a militia? 3) Do you respond to threats against the United States as part of a militia?

BTW the founding fathers didn't want a well regulated militia to "resist an over creeping Fed Govt", they wanted a well regulated militia because they were against the idea of creating a standing army, and the militia was the only way to have any number of fighting men on hand in case of a threat, hence the "being necessary to the security of a free State" they were in defense of the State not built in opposition to it. Man, and I thought Sarah Palin liked revisionist history. Ya'll Tea Partiers all too easily read your own ideology onto the will of the founding fathers, anachronism run amok.

[Madison Redskin]

That's a whole lot of writing to avoid the point.

1) Are you part of a well regulated militia? 2) Do you train with a militia? 3) Do you respond to threats against the United States as part of a militia?

I agree with most of your points ASF. However, in fairness, the reference to "a well regulated militia" is prefatory language and doesn't necessarily restrict the right to own a gun to people who are members of a well-regulated militia ... or so the courts tell me.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I agree with most of your points ASF. However, in fairness, the reference to "a well regulated militia" is prefatory language and doesn't necessarily restrict the right to own a gun to people who are members of a well-regulated militia ... or so the courts tell me.

First of all I was responding directly to Popeman's points which were a rationale for not joining a militia, thus acknowledging the 2nd Amendment's main purpose to establish a well regulated militia.

And yet in that very Amendment, there is the authority to regulate something that the NRA denies.

[Bang]

So, anyway, once again the lie of "they're coming for your guns!" has been floated out, the Princess is once again showing her ass by concocting obvious lies designed to drive fear and hysteria.

Can we finally start calling "bull****" on the constant use of this tired, ancient, never-gonna-happen hack propaganda tactic?

Or do we just want to continue to allow that kind of crap to manipulate us and keep us focused away from more important (and by that I mean "real") issues?

~Bang

[GoSkins561]

Without gun regulation why would their name be linked to the gun at all? :thumbsup: If you recall, the very fact that your name is taken at all is part of gun regulation. Without regulation purchasing a gun should be no different than buying a pack of gum.

These regulations do not prevent people from owning certain types of guns, they do prevent certain criminal types from being linked to a gun that was legally purchased. Back to your point, let me ask you again, if a criminal had the option of purchasing a gun illegally that couldn't be traced or purchasing a gun from Joes that has a finger print, which one do you think he will pick?

[AsburySkinsFan]

Can we finally start calling "bull****" on the constant use of this tired, ancient, never-gonna-happen hack propaganda tactic?

~Bang

I got a cold call from the NRA a couple weeks ago and they were floating the idea that the UN was coming after our guns, usually I just hang up on such absurdity but that day I must have been in a mood, so I took the caller head on. The caller finally decided that enough was enough and I wasn't going to be convinced by the Chicken Little routine.

---------- Post added February-1st-2011 at 10:28 AM ----------

These regulations do not prevent people from owning certain types of guns, they do prevent certain criminal types from being linked to a gun that was legally purchased. Back to your point, let me ask you again, if a criminal had the option of purchasing a gun illegally that couldn't be traced or purchasing a gun from Joes that has a finger print, which one do you think he will pick?

Ok you seem to not be getting it. So here goes, if there are no regulations then the criminals will get guns more easily. Thus Gang Land TV will see a lot bigger guns. If all regulations do is slow the gun flow by restricting access and making illegal guns more expensive then awesome.

[DRSmith]

What's funny is how people grasp that phrase like it invalidates Joe Smith from owning a gun because he isn't part of a militia. Yet, when he joins a militia the ATF raids their training and arrests them all for trying to "overthrow" the govt by violence. Now, why would the Founding Fathers want Joe Smith to be able to own weapons and train? So he has a means to resist an over creeping Fed Govt. I do not condone violence against our govt, in any way. Civil protests and elections work just fine.

Let me guess you thought Koresh was a victim

[Madison Redskin]

Ok you seem to not be getting it. So here goes, if there are no regulations then the criminals will get guns more easily. Thus Gang Land TV will see a lot bigger guns. If all regulations do is slow the gun flow by restricting access and making illegal guns more expensive then awesome.

Exactly. Price is a function of supply and demand. If you reduce the supply by, for example, prohibiting people from owning assault rifles, you will see an increase in the price of assault rifles. Perhaps that explains why people is Somalia can buy a gun for $25.

[Burgold]

You know, you would have thought after Arizona or West Virginia or Columbine or any one of dozens or recent events... gun supporters would have had a Sputnik moment instead of hunkering down and repeating the same stuff they've been repeating for 50 years which has only resulted in worse and worse violence and making us less and less safe.

[Popeman38]

Let me guess you thought Koresh was a victim

Koresh was a victim, when it comes to ATF. He was an animal when it comes to human rights and other laws. There was no reason to storm the compound, and even Janet Reno will admit they botched that situation. I will not defend Koresh on the merits of his child rape or abuse of women. I will defend his right to own a gun until he is arrested and charged with those crimes. There was 0 reason for ATF to be involved in the manner they were.

---------- Post added February-1st-2011 at 11:14 AM ----------

Exactly. Price is a function of supply and demand. If you reduce the supply by, for example, prohibiting people from owning assault rifles, you will see an increase in the price of assault rifles. Perhaps that explains why people is Somalia can buy a gun for $25.

Yeah, that is why under the assault weapon ban resulted in so many fewer assault weapons ending up in the hands of criminals. Oh wait, the data says otherwise.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Yeah, that is why under the assault weapon ban resulted in so many fewer assault weapons ending up in the hands of criminals. Oh wait, the data says otherwise.

So your argument is that gun regulation and assault weapons bans make it easier to get weapons?

*pardon me while I swallow this mouthful of coffee before reading your response as I don't want to make a mess.

[The 12th Commandment]

It's wack, two years later you still have to go to Wal-Mart on Tuesday morning (shipment day) to get certain varieties of ammunition. While you're there you see a line of the same people every week buying the limit that Wal-Mart had to enact to share the love at least a little. The whole "government is going to take your guns away" thing is perpetuated at every opportunity by gun retailers and the politicians they support. Sucks, because .223, one of the rounds I like to shoot that used to be cheap because the military uses them, are still very hard to find and very expensive when you do find them.

It's similar to the way the oil industry plays around with refining capacity (and the effects of world events in general) to jack the price and availability of oil around. Anything bad happens the price shoots up that day, anything good happens and it creeps down very slowly while reasons to jack it back up are searched for like the holy grail.

A good system of back ground checks is supported by most people, even the non-wack gun enthusiasts support them. It is unfortunate that it always seems to turn into an all or nothing proposition. In the end though, if there available baddies are going to get them one way or another. Another one of our prices for freedom. I do find it ironic that the same folks adamantly against any gun related legislation don't seem to have a problem with the patriot act.

[Popeman38]

So your argument is that gun regulation and assault weapons bans make it easier to get weapons?

*pardon me while I swallow this mouthful of coffee before reading your response as I don't want to make a mess.

Studies were done on the assault weapon ban. There was no difference in the use of assault weapons in the commission of crimes than there was before or after the ban.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention studied the "assault weapon" ban and other gun control schemes, and found "insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence."

So we had an assault weapon ban in place from 1994 through 2004, and there wasn't enough evidence to prove whether any of the provisions worked? A decade isn't enough of a sample size? What constitutes an appropriate sample size? A century? If there wasn't enough evidence after 10 years, I think it is safe to say there will never be enough evidence. Supply an demand might work.....................if you banned these weapons globally. Good luck with that.

EDIT: As to the UK firearm ban:

...there are over 2,000 violent crimes recorded per 100,000 population in the UK, making it the most violent place in Europe.

By comparison, America has an estimated rate of 466 violent crimes per 100,000 population.

So, how does enacting a gun ban keep violent crimes down? Keep in mind, all those statistics quoted earlier about gun violence.....

[Madison Redskin]

Koresh was a victim, when it comes to ATF. He was an animal when it comes to human rights and other laws. There was no reason to storm the compound, and even Janet Reno will admit they botched that situation. I will not defend Koresh on the merits of his child rape or abuse of women. I will defend his right to own a gun until he is arrested and charged with those crimes. There was 0 reason for ATF to be involved in the manner they were.

The Branch Davidians were engaged in the illegal manufacture and possession of machine guns and explosives (e.g., grenades). Now, the initial raid went horribly awry and the final raid on the compound was ill-conceived. However, conducting the initial raid was not ridiculous. The Davidians were armed to the teeth; so, storming the compound without notice makes perfect sense. Why do you think police conduct similar raids on drug dealers that are suspected of being well-armed.

Yeah, that is why under the assault weapon ban resulted in so many fewer assault weapons ending up in the hands of criminals. Oh wait, the data says otherwise.

As ASF noted, are you actually suggesting the assault rifle ban caused more assault rifles to wind up in criminals' hands? If so, you should probably learn the difference between correlation and causation.

[Popeman38]

As ASF noted, are you actually suggesting the assault rifle ban caused more assault rifles to wind up in criminals' hands? If so, you should probably learn the difference between correlation and causation.

Point conceded. What I intended to say was it had no impact on the number of assault weapons because of that pesky little nugget of criminals not caring about/following the law.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Studies were done on the assault weapon ban. There was no difference in the use of assault weapons in the commission of crimes than there was before or after the ban.So we had an assault weapon ban in place from 1994 through 2004, and there wasn't enough evidence to prove whether any of the provisions worked? A decade isn't enough of a sample size? What constitutes an appropriate sample size? A century? If there wasn't enough evidence after 10 years, I think it is safe to say there will never be enough evidence. Supply an demand might work.....................if you banned these weapons globally. Good luck with that.

EDIT: As to the UK firearm ban:So, how does enacting a gun ban keep violent crimes down? Keep in mind, all those statistics quoted earlier about gun violence.....

Hmmmm, let's put on our imagination caps and think about how big those numbers would have swelled without the ban. Yeah, sorry I forgot we can't do that because it might cause us to realize that bans do make it harder and more expensive to acquire illegal assault weapons, but that doesn't fit with the "they're comin' to git yer guns!" mantra of the gun lobby. Sorry, but your logic is so flawed as to make it really comical.

---------- Post added February-1st-2011 at 11:58 AM ----------

Point conceded. What I intended to say was it had no impact on the number of assault weapons because of that pesky little nugget of criminals not caring about/following the law.

I do appreciate the point being awarded.

But, the data provided doesn't prove what you want it to prove, because it doesn't show the guns that weren't purchased because they were too hard to get or too expensive that would have otherwise, without the ban, been cheaper and easier to acquire.