SO ARE THEIR HANDS COLD AND DEAD ENOUGH WE CAN LET THE GUNS GO?

Your point?

THE NRA IS OLD AND COLD AND DEAD PEOPLE. Can we know look at the reality of what guns are to protect and feed and what guns are deathly weapons and instruments only used to maim, harm and kill.

U.S. guns being sold 'like candy' to Mexican drug cartel. The number of powerful weapons sold at gun shows obtained in America are now being transported to Mexico to arm the drug lords that have grown in power to fight the government of Mexico.

How is gun control going to stop criminals and thugs from getting guns?

I heard they were auctioning off the gun they pried from his dead clammy fingers

Was there ever an Oscar winner who deserved it least than Heston?

His best performance though was in the Michael Moore Bowling for Columbine.
Moore kicked his butt, didn't he?

Gun Controls save lives.
Delayed delivery or shipping unless a current gun registration or license shown.
Designated collectors license.
Military style weapons should never be sold to John Q Public.
Police registered off duty arms and weapons.
Theft of guns reported in timely fashion to police or feds.
Bullet registry.
Mandatory safety locks.
I can go on.

Care to provide some statistics to back up your claim that gun control saves lives?

Guns don't kill

Only idiots who have them do

It is a known fact, knives kill less people than guns
Fists kill even less

Why does a hunter need a sub-machine gun to kill one of God's creatures just for fun (and then only wound them because they were out drinking and can't shoot straight? So the poor animal runs away bleeding, and dying a slow, agony death).

It is also a fact no one would have died in say Columbine without a gun

My hands are still warm.

You can try and take my gun if you want to...

My hands are still warm.

You can try and take my gun if you want to...

With all due respect, cutecat...Stick with topics you know something about. Facts impress me...Unfounded rhetoric does not!

I wouldn't want to take yours away.
I trust you to save all of us and to use it for the correct purpose.

I would also trust there is no reason you wouldn't pass all of the bare minimum requirements to owning guns

but you do have to admit, there are people who should not be allowed easy access
People have to go through bare minimum exams and tests to drive and fish too

And if you purchase a car, you have to register it, and yearly do inspections on it, don't you?
If someone has his/her liscence taken away, would you say that person should be allowed to still drive?

For someone that has a distrust of government when it comes to the matter of privacy, why would you hand over the keys to the kingdom? Why would you give the government to ability to pick up your guns when it pleases them?
Would the criminal element register their guns too?

apples and oranges

You are correct, but so is the other side too

It's just a wedge issue to be argued/debated and in heat of moment change sides back and forth.

Most of the bad incidents anyhow might be planted mind game incidents (Hinkley for one, possibly some of the school shootings, possible the sniper in Baltimore).
If so, none of those would have been stopped because access would have been given

But possibly some kid somewhere having harder access might be stopped and some domestic dispute might not happen.

These days, less people would be shot if NY would change their way of policing(shoot to kill, paramilitary type undercover units that were outlawed a decade ago but came back under a different name, where there is no way for a citizen to know those people are cops as they do not identify themselves, like in the Sean Bell case, and those cops
presume guilt not innocence, which is backward).

The cops are your only recourse, Graham. New York doesn't believe in self defense. Good luck.

if you are white in NYC, that is fine, cops are you friends

if you are black, you have a target on your back "shoot to kill" and it don't matter if the cop is black or white either
It is the training

They would never shoot a white person 51 times
They are trained to fear just like people don't like roaches or spiders or whatever they are afraid of
To those training the cops, it is blacks

One would think after the first 10 shots it was evident the person had no gun was not going to hurt them, etc.

A person should not fear the security that their tax dollars pay for
A person should not be in fear of being killed by those same

I agree with Frenchy's post above to answer your question to me.

Now three questions for you...

Did you happen to notice that two of the cops involved were Black?
(Added on edit) I reread your post and you said that it doesn't matter if the cop is Black or White!

Did you know that you use the term "Lynching" excessively?

What or who made you the spokesman for Black people?

Yes, but do you care to back up that gun control does not save lives. Now remember we are talking about every citizens life. So do not give me your racial and economical profiling of statistics.

I was shown that when the National Wildlife is open for clearing deer that thinning the heard keeps more deer alive by keeping the population low makes sure the rest of the heard won't starve. I was also shown that when these hunts are allowed the deer meat is given to food pantry's. I was shown the meat is leaner and healthier then corn fed beef. (I had to stop my poor Bambi, you killed her mother routine.).

I have not been shown a quality argument for the type of guns and who has them to today.

I have a friend who bought a licensed had gun and went through training after some one broke into her house and raped her. I saw her keep it locked in the day and put it safely hidden by her bed at night to return it to its lock box everyday. I did not agree but felt she was responsible.

I have known people who learned to live w/o guns after years of having them. All their friends died young in gun battles and they died old.

I do not believe gun control laws take away any second amendment rights if the types of guns are controlled and bullets registered.

I do not believe in guns or ammunition being sold in K marts or Walmart where food and children's toys are sold and I do not believe in any on line sales of weapons or ammunition.

I think it is the total responsibility of a gun owner and if a gun is involved in injury or death no matter who fires the gun the owner is as responsible of criminal negligence unless gun reported within 12 to 48 hours as lost or stolen.

I think gun owners should have to have liability insurance. If you can sue a surgeon for holding a scalpel then a gun owner would have an even greater liability.

I feel guns improperly stored, handled or used is as great a threat to my life as a drunk behind the wheel of a car.

OK!...

Here is just the begining. If you want more let me know. *I beleive the 1999 stats were 85 a day in the usa


Brady Research
www.bradycampaign.org

The National Violent Injury Statistics System
www.hsph.harvard.edu

National Center for Injury
US mortality data
www.cdc.gov

http://www.childtrendsdatabank.org/indicat...iolentDeath.cfm
Teen Homicide, Suicide, and Firearm Death


Youth Violence Statistics Fact Sheet
www.safeyouth.org

healthlink.mcw.edu
Firearm Injury Center Releases Stats on Violent Deaths in Wisconsin

If your guns are registered and a paticular gun beomes illegal they do come and get it. That would mean you are not current on your gun laws.

I think guns have become a mine issue or what is best for me rather then what is best for WE THE PEOPLE.

If you reread post you will see that I believe in safe responsible trained and licensed owner ship for small arm to protect and hunting rifles for food or sport.
I think the general belief in" my right to bear arms" has reached the point of insane protectionism then intelligent compromise.

I do have a question for those with military backgrounds. When you leave the military are you allowed to take arms or ammunition with you?

Not unless they are your personnel property. If you tried to take Uncle Sam's property you could get in some serious trouble...

I have been thinking about Grahams question about licenses and here is my take. I am inclined toward safety and took classes to get a permit for concealed carry. I do not carry my Ruger on the bus on any place where it is illegal. I sign the proper paperwork for purchases and I follow the law. More stringent laws would not be followed by the criminal element and would only hurt people inclined toward being law abiding.

What I do support is very harsh penalties for people using guns to commit robberies etc...

We are just talking here...

now, let's say guns are legal for all who have a permit and can have one
Then, they put in metal detectors (let's say we all agree metal detectors are ok for the argument), and when it beeps, you show your liscence and pass through.

that way only those with permits/liscences have it

Would that be more freedom, and less crime and in actuality, not a police state, because the citizens would have
the upper hand?
Would that be suitable? (and assuming all who have a permit/liscence are responsible people who know what they are doing and wouldn't in haste use it.)

By same token, let's say you were able to have a foolproof method around your house to know if a gun was entering the zone of your house too (without a criminal being able to disable or fool it).

The problem with this is that while you could show your permit and go on your way by going through the detector you have just let Big Brother know when and where (and what) you are carrying. They can change laws and you are an instant criminal!



A perimeter security system would be a good idea. In that case you are talking about choices for ones personnel space.

Simple question, cutecat...When has a gun law stopped an outlaw?

That boils down to the question of what we are afraid of, and in my changed point of view since the 1980s.

And rightly so, bigbrother is more scary than a criminal.

And as I have said before, in Bushworld, I would rather everyone have a gun privately who wants one, good or bad, because that is the last line of defense against martial law.

In a non-Bushworld, gun control is good, because people who have guns legally need not be afraid.

But say, John Lennon would be alive today if not for a gun. One could say the a-hole that shot him could have attempted to stab him, but there would be a great chance that having to directly inflict a knife would have been too
much for the a-hole to do, plus most knife wounds are not fatal, and Lennon could have fought back instead of recieving a fatal shot.
And in the school shootings, one person might have died, but maybe not at all. A person with a knife could be stopped by someone throwing a chair in their head, instead of fearing a submachine gun killing them through the chair.

After Katrina, when they tried but failed to take the guns away, that showed in reality, every person who is good should have guns and learn how to use them (which is a shame), but we live in warped times in Bushworld 2008.

You show yourself as a responsible gun owner.

Our Worlds past history shows the criminal element is defined by ability to afford an attorney. This then becomes a majority, minority issue (or manipulation of women to plead guilty to not loose their children to states).
The Criminal Justice system is one way to protect and preserve but the incarceration levels are not a + to deterrence but a - .

Would not a better rational be limit types of weapons; encourage responsible ownership with licensing, training and insuring;have accessible records of what guns by #, registration, and records. of ammunition identified. Limit how sales and registration of guns and ammunition are handled.

It is like the argument for illegal aliens. ( stop the employers who hire or punish the immigrant trying to feed family in central or south America). Punish and return the illegal immigrant who lives unemployed and on the street. Spend money and law enforcement on the crime of transporting women as cargo to work in prostitution from third world countries.

NO!...I will no longer compromise with those that would ultimately obliterate my rights. We have been doing that since 1934, with little positive result.
Solve the social issues, and you solve the gun issue...NUFF SAID.

i doubt they would

when russians came in, the first thing they did was make Defence League to give up their weapons. wonder why...

i do think it possible to be both pro private-owned firearms and pro tougher legislation, though. now, where to draw the line... times are changing, and it is no longer the era of WWW - Wild, Wild West...

Don't be so sure of that, gabriellemy. In some parts of the country, the criminal element is quickly gaining the upper hand.



This, in a city that has some of the strictest gun control measures in the country.
The answer is not to deprive the public the means to defend themselves.

i never meant to include criminals to law-abiding society and i daresay you at least missed that. they don't even comply with less restrictive regulations, do they? - making the point moot.

in relations to www - look back 200 years, and you find most domestic appliances had no instructions or warning labels; anyone stupid enough to presume a sharp knife will not cut defied public ridicule at his own peril. how likely were you to find a homeowner without important knowledge on how to handle a gun? or even a 10-y-o? and how widespread were idle spoiled miscreants hungry for attention?

that was the point i made

cops are supposed to take care of most criminal activity. getting more cops or better cops or some other idea on how to deal with criminals is another issue. a common citizen shouldn't be expected to be a part-time cop in legislation.

It is what happens when society becomes complacent and dependent on government for every aspect of their lives.