The goal isn't to take away all guns.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-09-2011
The goal isn't to take away all guns.
123
Mon, 01-07-2013 - 11:48am

Despite the scare tactics so typical of the right - see health care - there is no desire to take away all guns amongst most on the left. That is how the right wants to define the debate, as all or nothing. It knows it wins in that case.

All we want is common sense, but listen to, see the howls and declarations of 'you won't take away my gun!'

Which position is actually rational and reasoned?

Pages

Avatar for xxxs
Community Leader
Registered: 01-25-2010
Thu, 01-10-2013 - 6:07pm

Actually that is exactly what some in government want to do.  They want a defenseless country.  It also is a consumer issue.  Modern high quality against low quality obsolete gun of the past.   Advances over the last 65 years are what are aimed at.  If you are not conversant with guns then it may not seem important whether there is a pistol stock of not.  But for people who are it is a very big backward step. 

dragowoman

Avatar for jamblessedthree
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-23-2001
Fri, 01-11-2013 - 11:39am

What are you talking about..  Joe Biden is steering the committee to address gun control!  I am very conservative on a lot of issues and frankly, I neve runderstood the purpose of guns, Are we really using them to protect ourselves in our homes?  How many armed guns do you need to shoot a deer in the woods?  Are guns really a work of art that people should be allowed to possess and hang behind glass?  I do think changes should be made, Stiffen the cost to license them perhaps, but don't separate this as a right vs left issue!  I think the Connecticut situation took a lot of people over the brink who might have typically been neutral about gun rights..

 

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-17-2012
Sat, 01-12-2013 - 10:38pm

The left would have to have common sense in order to ask for common sense. Instead, they're simply using a tragedy to push their anti-gun, anti-Constitution agenda.

There's nothing in anything they're asking for that would have EVER prevented ANY of the mass shootings we've seen in the last 50 years, and they know that.  You can have 9 bullets in a clip, but 10 is too much because, as we all know, mass murderers and other criminals don't know how to reload. And several studies have been done following the decade-long assault weapons ban that proved it amounted to exactly nothing...but hey, because it was so unsuccessful, let's do it again.

So why persist with the Biden charade?  Because the left isn't interested in addressing the real issues, they simply want to take away people's guns and rescind the second amendment.

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-17-2012
Sat, 01-12-2013 - 11:15pm

Are we really using them to protect ourselves in our homes?

A woman in Georgia did just that a few days ago,  protecting her own life and those of her two children. I think some of the  Newtown teachers, hiding with their students in closets as the shooter hunted them, might have wanted a gun to protect them, instead of luck and prayers.  If a criminal broke into your home tonight threatening your family, would you want to have a gun?  I would.

http://actionamerica.org/guns/guns1.shtml

How many armed guns do you need to shoot a deer in the woods?

All of the guns would need to be "armed," otherwise you're just carrying a club, and it's tough to club a deer to death.  But hunters don't usually limit themselves to just hunting one type of animal.  You really wouldn't use a deer rifle to shoot a pheasant and there are a variety of guns to choose from based on what and where you are hunting.

Are guns really a work of art that people should be allowed to possess and hang behind glass?

Certain weapons of all types have been considered works of art for centuries.  Why shouldn't someone be allowed to own these pieces?

Stiffen the cost to license them perhaps

What would that accomplish?  It would simply make law-abiding citizens pay more to exercise their Constitutional right.  Would you also be in favor of having people pay for the privilege of free speech?  Raising costs only ensures that the wealthy and criminals will be able to protect themselves.  If that had been the case a few days ago in Georgia, I shudder to think what might have happened to that mother and her two children.

Avatar for jamblessedthree
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-23-2001
Sun, 01-13-2013 - 7:52am

I agree there are other issues that need to be addressed but what do you propose deenasdad....  What is the solution to this cancer of a problem?  And if the second amendment gets rescinded it will happen under this administration, They've showed they can do that to the first one..

 

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-09-2006
Sun, 01-13-2013 - 10:01pm
"They simply want to take away people's guns and rescind the second amendment." Really? I haven't heard anyone say that...it seems like sheer wild speculation. I think there is concern that the US is taking a step backward to a sort of pioneer situation where people seem to think they have to be armed to be "safe". Recently I read of a plan to arm school custodians. I'm wondering about the critical thinking skills of those who came up with the plan...and the critical thinking skills of the parents who do not withdraw their kids from that school...
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-17-2012
Mon, 01-14-2013 - 8:35pm

Well, first, there is no cancer of a problem.  You stand a better chance of being hit by lightning than you do being a victim of a mass shooting.  As for gun violence in general, less than 2% (as reported on the new today) involve "assault rifles."  So banning assault rifles now will accomplish exactly the same thing it did when they were banned for a decade...nothing.  You should also be aware that when liberals quote "gun violence" statistics, they're also including suicides and gang violence, not law abiding citizens running amok with their legally purchased firearms.

And what will compulsory registration do, even though it's already compulsory in the vast majority of cases?  It might keep convicted criminals from getting guns, but most criminals don't purchase their weapons legally and won't be spotlighted by registration.  It also won't flag people with mental health issues because medical records aren't public and no criteria has been established that determines what level of "mental health" would be sufficient to prohibit someone from obtaining a gun.

In other words, EVERYTHING the Democrats are proposing is a sham to limit people's Second Amendment rights.

Regarding mass shootings, the real issue is addressing mental health.  In every case the people who knew the shooters intimately were expressed long-time concerns for their mental health, but either didn't know how to address it, or were told that there was nothing that could be done.  I don't have the answers here, but it seems plainly obvious that a complete revamping of the system is required.

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-17-2012
Mon, 01-14-2013 - 8:41pm

Recently I read of a plan to arm school custodians. I'm wondering about the critical thinking skills of those who came up with the plan...and the critical thinking skills of the parents who do not withdraw their kids from that school...

First, why do you feel that a school custodian is too incompetent to be trained to handle a gun?

And second...if it was one of your children who was hiding in the closet while a gunman walked, unobstructed, around the school killing people at random, would you still think it was a bad idea if the custodian or the teacher hiding with them had a weapon?  Why is that?

Avatar for jamblessedthree
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-23-2001
Tue, 01-15-2013 - 7:01am

Well, gang violence, domestic violence (which involve guns), suicides are a growing problem too... The commonality of it all is guns! Yes, Of course mental health needs to be looked at but if we step back and crack down on guns, who has them or/and where we should allow them then that is a step in the right direction, right? My state is having these buy back gun events, Is this happening in other areas too? Is that a good thing IYO or no?

 

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-17-2012
Thu, 01-17-2013 - 5:26pm

Well, gang violence, domestic violence (which involve guns), suicides are a growing problem too... The commonality of it all is guns!

Guns are not a "commonality" of the situations you mentioned and all would continue to occur, and have occurred throughout history, even if you were able to confiscate every gun in existence.

Yes, Of course mental health needs to be looked at but if we step back and crack down on guns, who has them or/and where we should allow them then that is a step in the right direction, right?

No. The only people who would be affected by legislation are law abiding citizens who aren't committing crimes or shooting up schools.  The anti-Constitution left is simply fear-mongering and offering right-crushing policies that will accomplish nothing.

My state is having these buy back gun events, Is this happening in other areas too? Is that a good thing IYO or no?

Of course not.  No one who wants their gun is going to give it up for a supermarket coupon.  All a buyback does is waste taxpayer money collecting guns from people who don't want them (and those people probably inherited them and were never going to use them), or guns that are broken or have been stolen.  Did it remove a single gun from the hands of a criminal or someone with a demonstrable mental problem?  No.  It's just a ridiculous dog and pony show that, again, accomplishes nothing.

Pages