By The Brady Campaign
, To Prevent Gun Violence
-
November 25, 2008
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
© 2008 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
Off Topic
100% on topic - I will not email you for any reason
If the anti-gun model is not on topic then the anti-gun model is a propaganda. Post my first reply and debate the issue. I will counter every move using gun control logic. Don't post it. I don't care. I have plenty of places to post. Delete my profile and continue to promote your side of it. Typical anti-american attitude of an anti-gunner.
- saga
January 19, 2009 8:46PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Okay looney-tunes, but you are off-topic
No one said anything about deleting your profile, so chillax. I never asked you to email me so fuck yourself a little more on that one, too, Jack. It's clearly stated (as if that makes a difference to someone like you) that if YOU WANT. It's simply available...
Typical gun-toting unreasonable response... throw yourself overboard and then claim you were pushed. Typical idiotic response to call someone who doesn't agree with you (on a NARCOTICS ISSUE) anti-American and anti-gunner. By the way, just which "America" do you mean? South? North? Central? What is this "America" you speak of, because fuck me but North America appears to be a rather large area, as does South, and Central. Or maybe you're just a typical arrogant fuck who think that because you spell the word and you're a citizen of these United States of America then CLEARLY "America" refers to you and your country.
Since you seem to keen on making comparisons, and since you're so anti-legislation of things THAT KILL PEOPLE I'm sure you'll be the first on board to get rid of licensing drivers.
And since you're all for that, let's just let anyone who wants to set up shop with a suitcase and a bottle full of whatever that will cure whatever you want it to. Why license doctors? Why should we legislate anything?
Now, instead of actually BEING an ignorant fuck, why don't you read a little more and put your head in your ass a little less.
You ARE off topic when you post your retarded shite about narcotics on a GUN DISCUSSION.
- SocialistBetty
January 19, 2009 9:39PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
You seem very pleasant
Thanks for your detailed reply. I see you are very receptive to my offer for debate of the issue of gun-regulations. The whole issue is about control which you seem to enjoy. I would expect a response as yours from a gun regulation view. The only problem you have with my proposed regulation of narcotics as a comparison to anti-gun regulation is that my control now affects you also, which, afterall is my point.
The fact that you know I can counter any argument you offer with your own flawed logic does not help your case either. The truth is the truth no matter how much you rant. Ranting just weakens your position on the issue. If it makes you feel better, have at it. I don't mind. However, if all you feel inclined to do is rant, I doubt we will accomplish anything of value for the readers.
Quote "These findings suggest that sensible gun legislation" end quote, suggests that we are talking about sensible legislation that affects all gun owning citizens. My comparison is sensible legislation that affects all citizens. The difference is minor. If legislation is good and sensible for one it is good and sensible for all, if it is applicable, and mine is. I understand that you may not like the legislation but that does not mean that it is not applicable.
I look forward to an interesting discussion with you.
- saga
January 20, 2009 3:33PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
A ha...
I see.
Well if you really want discuss this and not narcotics - which I'll just a run down now on why it's foolish to put further regulations on it now:
a) doctors are subject to heavy regulations as it is.
b) the cost of prescription narcotics is already expensive - though very overpriced by pharma companies so why should it be the responsibility of the person who was Medically Prescribed a medication to pay for something that they have every right to? the doctor is registered, and patients are registered through their doctors And insurance. So there are already several records that exist. If it's about control, all it takes is access to qualified personnel to go through those records.
So, on to the gun control:
Mind you, you're making heavy assumptions about what I actually think about gun control because I told you you're off-topic... which you Are... I haven't said what I think about it in this discussion forum. I haven't said a word about whether I think gun control is a good idea or not. Which is kind of why you pissed me off.
The problem with guns isn't guns.... it's the attitudes that have been fostered towards them. Guns are glorified. They are made into toys... both actual and "virtual" in which there are no consequences to running amok shooting and killing people. They are put on pedestals in movies and turned into objects of desire with no real understanding of them. They are not respected for what they are - weapons of destruction that kill. Whether people or animals.
That is the problem I have with guns. That they are not respected. Gun legislation that makes sense to me would be to ban toy guns. A child doesn't fully comprehend death, let alone that a gun is a force that brings it. Gun legislation that is appropriate would be require a physical test that shows if you WANT to buy a gun, or own one, that you know how to use it... the parts... how to take care of it, etc. This is the reason that the second amendment says the right to bear arms belongs to the state's militia. A militia provides training and discipline. It requires that the person owning the gun(s) know about it and how to use it... and When to use it. Most gun accidents occur because of lack of knowledge.... sheer stupidity in other words. Ideal gun legislation would disallow back-door selling. This is the kind of gun "control" legislation I would support.
I'm actually of the opinion that gun safety classes should be required for high school graduation. Guns are not scary... a gun in the hand of an inexperienced or angry person is scary. ....or a drunk person.
There you go. Now you can make an assumption about my opinions, since you're now aware of what they actually are.
- SocialistBetty
January 20, 2009 5:16PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The anti-gun lobby hopes you don’t care. I hope you do.
quote
A ha...I see.
end quote
I don’t know what non-gun owners know about gun regulations already being enforced around the country. Some may think there are no regulations or may not know the extent of the regulations in existence. It varies from state to state because it is the state’s government responsibility for the legislation, not the federal government. The people of each state have the say over the laws enacted in their respective state. The citizens of New York have no say in what the citizens of Montana want or need in respect to their state and vice-versa. The Federal Government has no authority to legislate gun laws or ammunition laws in any state.
The “Proposed regulations to restrict the illegal use of prescription narcotics” is an outline based on the concealed-carry regulations legislated by my state government and in effect 21 years. The outline also includes some new “currently proposed to the federal government” additional regulations in relation to purchasing and/or owning ammunition. Concealed carry does more to reduce crime in my state than all the laws on the books put together. Laws are meaningless if someone does not intend to obey them. An armed potential victim is a tangible deterrent who is already at the scene of the crime.
I will break down my responses in parts one and two since you have covered different and distinct areas. You can readily exchange gun owner with patient/drug user, pharmacy with gun dealer and in some cases drug manufacturer with gun manufacturer.
- saga
January 21, 2009 6:49PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Interesting
Despite the fact that the guy you are debating annoys the shit out of me, I think that your position on this is very interesting. In a nation in which owning a firearm is a basic right, I think requiring basic gun safety/use/care classes in schools would be appropriate. I don't know about banning toy guns, though. Would you then want to ban violent video games and movies that feature guns? That's a bit extreme. It's kind of like banning Barbie to encourage girls to dress more modestly. I must violently agree with your assertion that the Second Amendment protects the right of the State's militia. The Second Amendment grants the rights of the States to keep a militia, which is not the National Guard, AND the rights of the people to keep and bear arms.
Anyway, the point of this comment was to say that you are absolutely right, guns are not scary, a gun in the hand of an inexperienced, angry, or worst of all drunk person is scary.
- richardsonkr
January 21, 2009 8:37PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Correction.
Reading over my previous post, I see that I wrote "I must violently agree with your assertion that the Second Amendment..." I meant to say disagree. In fact, that whole sentence got messed up at some point. Here's what it should say.
I must violently disagree with your assertion that the Second Amendment only protects the right of the States to keep a militia.
- richardsonkr
January 21, 2009 8:40PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Dis
I actually "saw" the word as being disagree... probably through context. Weird, huh. You write it wrong and I read it wrong. Or rather, I read it correctly even though it was written incorrectly.
"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."
Let's not belittle the writer's with such nonsense as to say those are two separate rights. It's clear... crystal.. that the right to keep and bear arms belonging to the militia cannot be infringed by the Federal government. This doesn't mean that if you weren't in the militia that you couldn't keep and bear arms - only that you are not protected against measures of control and prevention. The militia cannot have their guns removed or restricted, but the ordinary citizen does not have that protection. Take a look at that without your preconceived notions about guns and your (assumed) life-long influences. Really read it without being coloured by your preconceptions. It's written that way for a Reason. If the right to keep and bear arms that could not be infringed belonged to any Joe Plumber (sorry, I had to) then there need not be any mention of the state militia at all. If it were simply the state militia that was being protected it's naturally assumed that a militia will have arms, and there need be no mention of arms. By the way it's written, it's clear that the protection against infringement belongs solely to militias.
And, mind you, if we actually had state militias that were not laughable we would probably be in a better position all around. Protection of the state first and the federal matters second... the centrification of government for such things as printing money (which has been given away), creating a Navy, etc. are all fine and well... but we're not called the United STATES of America because it looks cool to have USA on things.
But I digress.
I think the 2nd solely protects the state militia's right to keep and bear arms, not yours or mine.
- SocialistBetty
January 23, 2009 12:47AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Part one (crime) – Regulation(guns/narcotics) vs. results
quote
Well if you really want discuss this and not narcotics - which I'll just a run down now on why it's foolish to put further regulations on it now:
end quote
a) doctors are subject to heavy regulations as it is. the doctor is registered, and patients are registered through their doctors And insurance. there are already several records that exist. If it's about control, all it takes is access to qualified personnel to go through those records.
end quote
If illegal prescription drug use is costing the insurance companies 72.5 billion dollars annually as claimed, are the heavy regulations working? Are they heavy enough? Regulation will not always produce the intended results in certain applications (read intended as: the reason we are given for the need). More regulation will “not work” just as well as the regulations that are not working already. This is the basis of my argument.
quote
b) the cost of prescription narcotics is already expensive - though very overpriced by pharma companies so why should it be the responsibility of the person who was Medically Prescribed a medication to pay for something that they have every right to?
end quote
There are 4 important points that relate to my argument in that statement. Cost, responsibility, prescribed, right to.
1.Cost – A pro-regulation argument might be - Proper (good and sensible, not more) regulation could “potentially” offset the cost by saving money for the insurance companies. “Potentially offset” because Insurance companies and Pharmaceutical companies have no rivals in lobby efforts to control regulation of themselves. Firearms and ammunition mfg. is miniscule by comparison. Their primary goal is reducing cost and increasing profit, not saving the customer money. The consequence is regulation will be shaped by them and for them, not the end user. They spend hundreds of millions lobbying and advertising and the end-user covers that either by direct purchase or through insurance premiums. There are no pro-gun advertisements in mass media as opposed to endless flood of pro-drug advertisement. There are “incentive for distribution” programs by the drug manufacturers, not by gun and ammunition manufacturers.
2.Responsibility - The patient/gun owner is responsible for his/her own actions. Holding someone else accountable will not affect what he/she does. The law-breaking patient, doctor/medical professional, police officer, lawyer, judge, politician will continue to break the law until he/she is held accountable. If he/she is not held accountable, no amount of regulation will change their behavior and no one is any safer from the effects of their law breaking.
The law-abiding patient/gun owner will continue to be law-abiding regardless of how heavy the regulatory burden is and will continue to bear the financial load. Little, if anything, changes from the implementation of regulation/legislation with respect to creating a safer less criminal environment.
3.Prescribed: “Prescribed by” does not automatically guarantee it is done legally or being used legally. By and large the medical community and the gun community are civic-minded, law-abiding, responsible citizens. There will always be someone somewhere in every level of society who refuses to abide by the law of their of land for their own personal gain. Each state legislates it’s own laws to punish these people.
4.Right to – Constitutional for gun ownership. Your statement “could” indicate that you believe the patient should not have to pay anything for medication because he has a right to it. I would disagree if that is what you mean. If you are just referring to the extra cost because of more regulation, I would just say that that is the price to be paid to regulate criminal activity for the safety of society. I base my opinion on the regulation of guns to regulate crime. Everyone for gun regulation is OK with the higher costs it brings about. Why not this?
- saga
January 22, 2009 7:56PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Part 2 - On to Rights Control
quote
So, on to the gun control:
Mind you, you're making heavy assumptions about what I actually think about gun control because I told you you're off-topic... which you Are... I haven't said what I think about it in this discussion forum. I haven't said a word about whether I think gun control is a good idea or not. Which is kind of why you pissed me off.
end quote
I understand. You didn’t ask me how my post pertained to gun control, you just claimed it didn’t.
quote
The problem with guns isn't guns.... it's the attitudes that have been fostered towards them. Guns are glorified. They are made into toys... both actual and "virtual" in which there are no consequences to running amok shooting and killing people. They are put on pedestals in movies and turned into objects of desire with no real understanding of them. They are not respected for what they are - weapons of destruction that kill. Whether people or animals.
end quote
Children are not responsible for having irresponsible parents or relatives or governments. Children aren’t responsible for not being taught morals and responsibility. Should parents be regulated? That’s already being done and it doesn’t work. Should there be heavier regulation of parents? That will “not work” just as well. As for being put on pedestal and glorified, ditto for prescription narcotics. There is something for everyone, even children.
quote
That is the problem I have with guns. That they are not respected. Gun legislation that makes sense to me would be to ban toy guns. A child doesn't fully comprehend death, let alone that a gun is a force that brings it.
end quote
So, let’s ban all things that a child does not comprehend will bring death. That won’t matter either. They will continue to die.
quote
Gun legislation that is appropriate would be require a physical test that shows if you WANT to buy a gun, or own one, that you know how to use it... the parts... how to take care of it, etc. This is the reason that the second amendment says the right to bear arms belongs to the state's militia. A militia provides training and discipline. It requires that the person owning the gun(s) know about it and how to use it... and When to use it. Most gun accidents occur because of lack of knowledge.... sheer stupidity in other words. Ideal gun legislation would disallow back-door selling. This is the kind of gun "control" legislation I would support.
end quote
More legislation that won’t work. A chimpanzee could be taught to disassemble and reassemble a firearm, load it and shoot it. You can’t regulate away stupidity either. It is a constant that we will have to Live and Die with. I agree everyone should know how to safely and responsibly use and maintain a firearm. I believe that parents should teach their children morality, responsibility and firearm respect and safety By Example. I do not believe this should be legislated. It is our right. A Constitutional shortfall of the people is that there is no well regulated militia. We are the militia. It is our responsibility.
quote
I'm actually of the opinion that gun safety classes should be required for high school graduation. Guns are not scary... a gun in the hand of an inexperienced or angry person is scary. ....or a drunk person.
There you go. Now you can make an assumption about my opinions, since you're now aware of what they actually are.
end quote
Yes, guns wielded by inexperienced angry drunk people are scary. Many things in life are scary. We could die at any moment from countless horrible things. People do stupid things. Innocent children die. Evil people exist. That’s reality. All the regulations in the world will not change that. People fear, not only guns, they just fear. Fear drives irrational behavior.
Somehow, the idea that it is government’s responsibility to protect us has been distorted to the point that people expect the government to protect us from ourselves. Legislating away Rights is an incremental removal of guaranteed freedoms. As a free society, it is our responsibility to resist infringements of our guaranteed rights. We are only entitled to them if we are willing to fight for them. That’s what it took to get them and that’s what it takes to keep them. If you give up your rights, you are no longer free. Calling it a Free Country does not make it one. If we are not willing to fight for Rights, they will be taken away. Period.
Regulation is the illusion of a solution.
Now you know my position on good and sensible gun regulation. “Currently” you are Free to agree or disagree. That may change one day.
- saga
January 23, 2009 5:53PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Sure...
...but only if people like you don't destroy us, first.
The government's responsibility IS to protect us from idiocy. That's why we have government.
Lastly, you do not have the protection from having your firearms regulated. If you want that right... join your state's militia.
- SocialistBetty
January 23, 2009 9:16PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
No debate?
I don't know how anyone like me could destroy us. If you mean pro-rights advocates (that sounds simililar to an abortion slogan) will destroy us, yes, they are murdering us one at a time already (except multi-embryo pregnancies, of course. Would sextuplets be mass murder?). I'm sure you are happy Obama's Mama didn't exercise her so-called right. You are entitled by the rights I think we should be fighting for to voice your opinions as I am. When they are lobbying to remove those Rights the destruction will almost be complete. Either way, no matter who destroys who, death is inevitable for us both. I prefer death than to be controlled by the likes of you, so with any luck I'll be dead by then. Live long and prosper.
- saga
January 24, 2009 12:01PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.