Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Elegiac]

Have you ever wondered curiously, where the people obtain the weapons that live in strict gun law states/city's. The same place Mexico does. They have a ban on all people owning a weapon. It's from other states with relaxed gun laws. They take advantage of this. That's why we need fix gun show loophole which allows a person to buy a firearm without a background check as long as the person isn't a dealer.

Which is a -smart- piece of policy, but is being drowned in all the other shitty policy you are recommending.

The guns have to get there someway. It's funneled from other states. That's why unless we pass a gun law that targets keeping a clip to 15 bullets would be vital. No matter what weapon you'd obtain. You'd be limited to 15 bullets on all weapons. As far as the gun ban. That does not count.

Alright, several things.

First, a clip and a magazine are two different things.

Second, how does putting restrictions on the cross-state unregulated trade of firearms have anything to do with magazine size.

Third, magazine size has no bearing on a weapon's destructiveness. It is just as easy and probably preferable to carry three 10 round mags then one 30 round mag.

[FusedMass]

Which is a -smart- piece of policy, but is being drowned in all the other shitty policy you are recommending.

You're entitled to you're own point of view. Just like Dems and Republicans we simply disagree on the fundamentals and future vision of America.

Alright, several things.

First, a clip and a magazine are two different things.

Second, how does putting restrictions on the cross-state unregulated trade of firearms have anything to do with magazine size.

Third, magazine size has no bearing on a weapon's destructiveness. It is just as easy and probably preferable to carry three 10 round mags then one 30 round mag.

You're first one recently who got their point across without an attitude, condensing remarks or witty side lines. You know what? I agree. I stand corrected on what you explained to me. I'm sincere enough to admit when I believe I'm corrected.

[Jaxi]

Third, magazine size has no bearing on a weapon's destructiveness. It is just as easy and probably preferable to carry three 10 round mags then one 30 round mag.

Which is what happened at Virginia tech. The shooter there went through what, 13 magazines?

I've speculated before that magazine size might have an impact on a mass shooting that lasts for a very short amount of time, and not one that drags on. Even then, we're talking about a fraction of a the mass shootings, which are a fraction of gun violence in this country. It seems silly to pass legislation that would be aimed at such a insignificantly small issue.

I want to hear more about our plan for mental health issues. UC Berkeley already showed that states with strong civil commitment laws have 1/3 reduced homicide rate. One third to homicide rates! Not even gun violence, but homicide! Why is this not being discussed more?

[Nadev]

Bloomberg's face on that video alone is reason enough not to watch it. The godfather of "Let's ban things because they're bad".

[Zoranon]

Gun control is the one issue where liberals become conservatives and conservatives become liberals. It's puzzling tbh.

It is at first glance, but when you think about it in depth you discover is is not. So why do liberals want to get rid of guns? Well generally speaking liberals are supportive of big, some would say nanny state and having a monopoly on legal violence is a big part of that. Moreover making guns unavailable makes people much more dependant on the government since they cannot defend themselves against criminals.

BTW Fusedmass, I sincerely wish to thank you for your contribution to the pro-gun cause, the ridiculous propaganda and your non-arguments do more for the gun cause than 10 pro-gun people could.

[Shockzilla]

Taking guns away from people does not stop crime.

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847

It is a common fantasy that gun bans make society safer. In 2002 -- five years after enacting its gun ban -- the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner.
Even Australia's Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:
• In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
• Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
• Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
Moreover, Australia and the United States -- where no gun-ban exists -- both experienced similar decreases in murder rates:
• Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America's rate dropped 31.7 percent.
• During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
• Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
• Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
• At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent.
• Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women.
While this doesn't prove that more guns would impact crime rates, it does prove that gun control is a flawed policy. Furthermore, this highlights the most important point: gun banners promote failed policy regardless of the consequences to the people who must live with them, says the Examiner.
Source: Howard Nemerov, "Australia experiencing more violent crime despite gun ban," Free Republic, April 9, 2009.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...89-decade.html

Gun crime has almost doubled since Labour came to power as a culture of extreme gang violence has taken hold.
The latest Government figures show that the total number of firearm offences in England and Wales has increased from 5,209 in 1998/99 to 9,865 last year - a rise of 89 per cent.
In some parts of the country, the number of offences has increased more than five-fold.
In eighteen police areas, gun crime at least doubled.
The statistic will fuel fears that the police are struggling to contain gang-related violence, in which the carrying of a firearm has become increasingly common place.
Last week, police in London revealed they had begun carrying out armed patrols on some streets.
The move means officers armed with sub-machine guns are engaged in routine policing for the first time.
Shadow Home Secretary, Chris Grayling, said last night: 'In areas dominated by gang culture, we're now seeing guns used to settle scores between rivals as well as turf wars between rival drug dealers.
'We need to redouble our efforts to deal with the challenge.'
He added: 'These figures are all the more alarming given that it is only a week since the Metropolitan Police said it was increasing regular armed patrols in some areas of the capital'.


http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2974487/posts

[Porcell]

Have you ever wondered curiously, where the people obtain the weapons that live in strict gun law states/city's. The same place Mexico does. They have a ban on all people owning a weapon. It's from other states with relaxed gun laws. They take advantage of this. That's why we need fix gun show loophole which allows a person to buy a firearm without a background check as long as the person isn't a dealer.

I see this a lot, but always as an opinion and never backed up. Everything I see on the subject is that guns are generally purchased or stolen locally.

Chicago Guns: "Altogether, there are 441 federally licensed dealers in suburban Cook County and the five collar counties, according to the latest ATF data. Most of these suburban shops, officials say, are law-abiding businesses that operate responsibly. But a small percentage—fewer than 1 percent, the city says—are responsible for nearly half of all the firearms used in crimes in Chicago."

"It's not just Chicago: "Prior to May 1999, a single gun store sold more than half of the guns recovered from criminals in Milwaukee, WI, shortly following retail sale.""

Another article: "Stolen guns account for only about 10% to 15% of guns used in crimes."
"Wachtel says one of the most common ways criminals get guns is through straw purchase sales."
"The next biggest source of illegal gun transactions where criminals get guns are sales made by legally licensed but corrupt at-home and commercial gun dealers."
"Another large source of guns used in crimes are unlicensed street dealers who either get their guns through illegal transactions with licensed dealers, straw purchases, or from gun thefts."

None of this points to interstate gun trafficking.

So, it's just not true. People aren't carting truckloads of guns across state borders. Most crime guns are straw purchased illegally, and often from just a small number of FFLs. Or some druggy with an otherwise clean record goes and (illegally, because he is a prohibited person) buys a gun from an FFL and then trades it to a street gang for cash or drugs. There's improvements to be done here, for sure, but part of solving problems is accurately looking at the situation. And saying "Well, crime guns come from states with lax gun laws" is NOT true and will NOT help you solve the problem.

[PhaelixWW]

Holy Crap. I've been slow on the uptake, here, but California is now trying to ban any semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine.

SB-374, proposed on 2/20, would redefine the California AWB to include all semi-automatic rifles with a detachable magazine. And no more exclusion for rimfire.

So yeah. Buh-bye M1, 10/22, etc. The mind boggles.

[Tinykong]

Holy Crap. I've been slow on the uptake, here, but California is now trying to ban any semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine.

SB-374, proposed on 2/20, would redefine the California AWB to include all semi-automatic rifles with a detachable magazine. And no more exclusion for rimfire.

So yeah. Buh-bye M1, 10/22, etc. The mind boggles.

This is what pro-gun rights people are afraid of, before long we could be looking at a total ban on all firearms. People say it won't happen, but look where we're heading.

[FusedMass]

I see this a lot, but always as an opinion and never backed up. Everything I see on the subject is that guns are generally purchased or stolen locally.

Chicago Guns: "Altogether, there are 441 federally licensed dealers in suburban Cook County and the five collar counties, according to the latest ATF data. Most of these suburban shops, officials say, are law-abiding businesses that operate responsibly. But a small percentage—fewer than 1 percent, the city says—are responsible for nearly half of all the firearms used in crimes in Chicago."

"It's not just Chicago: "Prior to May 1999, a single gun store sold more than half of the guns recovered from criminals in Milwaukee, WI, shortly following retail sale.""

Another article: "Stolen guns account for only about 10% to 15% of guns used in crimes."
"Wachtel says one of the most common ways criminals get guns is through straw purchase sales."
"The next biggest source of illegal gun transactions where criminals get guns are sales made by legally licensed but corrupt at-home and commercial gun dealers."
"Another large source of guns used in crimes are unlicensed street dealers who either get their guns through illegal transactions with licensed dealers, straw purchases, or from gun thefts."

None of this points to interstate gun trafficking.

So, it's just not true. People aren't carting truckloads of guns across state borders. Most crime guns are straw purchased illegally, and often from just a small number of FFLs. Or some druggy with an otherwise clean record goes and (illegally, because he is a prohibited person) buys a gun from an FFL and then trades it to a street gang for cash or drugs. There's improvements to be done here, for sure, but part of solving problems is accurately looking at the situation. And saying "Well, crime guns come from states with lax gun laws" is NOT true and will NOT help you solve the problem.

I respectfully disagree. We're not getting these weapons from Syria or Iran. Where else could these weapons come from, Canada? I know people protest well "This law doesn't work because it has high crime after the ban" yeah, it's not that hard to get if you simply drive to another state and pick one up. Texas for example, someone could come into one of the numerous gun shows they host every month.

They could pick up any weapon as long as it's not a dealer they wouldn't have to submit to a background check. That is a major problem. You're arming yourself's for war yet you're arming the crimmials at the same time. Please remind me purpose of the gun is to protect yourself from a bad guy. Where would a bad guy have no problem getting a deadly weapon.

A gun show.

The report that signaled that the ban did not have much effect is fundamentally flawed. It's incomplete. We have tried to see the links of violence and crime. So many eager posters, urge me to "Look at the facts" then repeated the same flawed incomplete data. You have factor into account it only targeted a select few weapons.

Weapons easily modified by dealers to be acceptable under the law. Then it wasn't really a ban on the weapons but more the brand name associated with them. That is not a ban. Therefore you can't claim it did nothing when it didn't really happen.

I wish we had the data to account for crime at gun shows. Yet it's virtually impossible since that gun can be traced to the person who orginally bought it, not who he sold it to and who they sold it to.

If people crave information on guns to prove they're safe. Then why did NRA strip funding from CDC because they spent 2.1 million funding research. You only block something when you don't want people to know, while others may claim other ignornat but ignore to the reality that NRA is actively blocking research. What is there to hide.

Maybe you want claim the people doing research on liberals so they're biased. Okay, the person who did report on if ban had any effect was a republican. You cannot cancel it out. You can't make an excuse or exception.

It really is just that simple.

[breadisfunny]

all a gun ban would do is treat the symptons not the underlying issues. so instead of banning guns why not try and spearhead mental health reform or try and tackle poverty?

[FusedMass]

all a gun ban would do is treat the symptons not the underlying issues. so instead of banning guns why not try and spearhead mental health reform or try and tackle poverty?

Simple. Republican's don't want spend the money yet accept millions in donations from NRA. They even have a score card on their website and give donations as long as congress keep's heat off them. Republican's don't want to spend a dime for proper mental health and income equality but they want to protect kids by placing armed guards in school as against actual mental health treatment.

It's disgusting.

[Tinykong]

I respectfully disagree. We're not getting these weapons from Syria or Iran. Where else could these weapons come from, Canada? I know people protest well "This law doesn't work because it has high crime after the ban" yeah, it's not that hard to get if you simply drive to another state and pick one up. Texas for example, someone could come into one of the numerous gun shows they host every month.

They could pick up any weapon as long as it's not a dealer they wouldn't have to submit to a background check. That is a major problem. You're arming yourself's for war yet you're arming the crimmials at the same time. Please remind me purpose of the gun is to protect yourself from a bad guy. Where would a bad guy have no problem getting a deadly weapon.

A gun show.

The report that signaled that the ban did not have much effect is fundamentally flawed. It's incomplete. We have tried to see the links of violence and crime. So many eager posters, urge me to "Look at the facts" then repeated the same flawed incomplete data. You have factor into account it only targeted a select few weapons.

Weapons easily modified by dealers to be acceptable under the law. Then it wasn't really a ban on the weapons but more the brand name associated with them. That is not a ban. Therefore you can't claim it did nothing when it didn't really happen.

I wish we had the data to account for crime at gun shows. Yet it's virtually impossible since that gun can be traced to the person who orginally bought it, not who he sold it to and who they sold it to.

If people crave information on guns to prove they're safe. Then why did NRA strip funding from CDC because they spent 2.1 million funding research. You only block something when you don't want people to know, while others may claim other ignornat but ignore to the reality that NRA is actively blocking research. What is there to hide.

Maybe you want claim the people doing research on liberals so they're biased. Okay, the person who did report on if ban had any effect was a republican. You cannot cancel it out. You can't make an excuse or exception.

It really is just that simple.

The report on the gun ban isn't incomplete, you've just shaped your argument to say that it failed because not enough time elapsed and that not enough guns were banned.

Pretty sure that's been said so many times in this thread that people are tired of reading it. If the AWB was working, and figures were declining because of it, a longer ban for a bigger reduction would make sense. Instead, the opposite is true. After 10 years, there was no impact. It's illogical to think that "more time" would improve results.

Really tired of the NRA conspiracy theory shadow government stuff, other people get infracted or have posts deleted for discussing conspiracy theories, yet this one keeps getting brought up.

[breadisfunny]

Simple. Republican's don't want spend the money yet accept millions in donations from NRA. They even have a score card on their website and give donations as long as congress keep's heat off them. Republican's don't want to spend a dime for proper mental health and income equality but they want to protect kids by placing armed guards in school as against actual mental health treatment.

It's disgusting.

so then you are just going to give up and try to ban guns and HOPE that makes them pay attention to the issue. i dont think thats going to happen that way.

[FusedMass]

The report on the gun ban isn't incomplete, you've just shaped your argument to say that it failed because not enough time elapsed and that not enough guns were banned.

Yes it is incomplete.

A: Not factor into law long term if once law matured

B: Yes, lots. Even after the ban took effect, it was not difficult for someone to get their hands on an assault weapon or high-capacity magazine.

A 2004 University of Pennsylvania study commissioned by the National Institute of Justice explained why. For starters, only 18 firearm models were explicitly banned. But it was easy for gun manufacturers to modify weapons slightly so that they didn’t fall under the ban. One example: the Colt AR-15 that James Holmes used to shoot up a movie theater in Aurora, Colo., last summer would have been outlawed. Yet it would have been perfectly legal for Holmes to have purchased a very similar Colt Match Target rifle, which didn’t fall under the ban.

Meanwhile, here were already more than 24 million large-capacity magazines in existence before the federal ban took effect in 1994. Indeed, as soon as Congress began working on the law, manufacturers boosted production of weapons and magazines in anticipation of higher prices. Dangerous weapons were still plentiful.
Did the law have an effect on crime or gun violence? While gun violence did fall in the 1990s, this was likely due to other factors. Here’s the UPenn study again: “We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence.”

One reason is that assault weapons were never a huge factor in gun violence to begin with. They were used in only 2 percent to 8 percent of gun crimes. Large-capacity magazines were more important — used in as many as a quarter of gun crimes. But, again, the 1994 law left more than 24 million magazines untouched, so the impact was blunted.

Pretty sure that's been said so many times in this thread that people are tired of reading it. If the AWB was working, and figures were declining because of it, a longer ban for a bigger reduction would make sense. Instead, the opposite is true. After 10 years, there was no impact. It's illogical to think that "more time" would improve results.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...s-in-one-post/

Really tired of the NRA conspiracy theory shadow government stuff, other people get infracted or have posts deleted for discussing conspiracy theories, yet this one keeps getting brought up.

If by conspiracy theory you mean..facts. Then yes. What I have said, is what took place. I have a source to back up my claim. You have nothing because you're incorrect to prove how wrong you are. I'm going show you some information that might help you become better informed since you seem to be lacking some..information

(CBS News) On Monday, President Obama ordered the Centers for Disease Control to begin research on the causes of gun violence. That was something that Congress specifically prevented the CDC from doing.

"There is absolutely no question. These are preventable deaths," said Dr. Mark Rosenberg, who used to oversee research into gun violence and prevention at the Centers for Disease Control.

In 1996, the NRA successfully lobbied Congress to put this restriction into the CDC's budget: "None of the funds made available ... may be used to advocate or promote gun control."

"These were shots fired across the bow," said Rosenberg, "and they the terrorized people at the CDC. And they terrorized researchers who said, 'Whoa, this is scary. I don't want my funding jeopardized.'"

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_16...search-budget/

Really tired of the NRA conspiracy theory shadow government stuff, other people get infracted or have posts deleted for discussing conspiracy theories, yet this one keeps getting brought up.

I'm also tired of posters not informed, mocking others in condensing tones when the Irony is, they have no clue what they're talking about. As for mod actions discuss it with them. It's forbidden to do so here.

[Maneo]

Taking guns away from people does not stop crime.

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847

It is a common fantasy that gun bans make society safer. In 2002 -- five years after enacting its gun ban -- the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner.
Even Australia's Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:
• In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
• Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
• Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
Moreover, Australia and the United States -- where no gun-ban exists -- both experienced similar decreases in murder rates:
• Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America's rate dropped 31.7 percent.
• During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
• Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
• Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
• At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent.
• Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women.
While this doesn't prove that more guns would impact crime rates, it does prove that gun control is a flawed policy. Furthermore, this highlights the most important point: gun banners promote failed policy regardless of the consequences to the people who must live with them, says the Examiner.
Source: Howard Nemerov, "Australia experiencing more violent crime despite gun ban," Free Republic, April 9, 2009.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...89-decade.html

Gun crime has almost doubled since Labour came to power as a culture of extreme gang violence has taken hold.
The latest Government figures show that the total number of firearm offences in England and Wales has increased from 5,209 in 1998/99 to 9,865 last year - a rise of 89 per cent.
In some parts of the country, the number of offences has increased more than five-fold.
In eighteen police areas, gun crime at least doubled.
The statistic will fuel fears that the police are struggling to contain gang-related violence, in which the carrying of a firearm has become increasingly common place.
Last week, police in London revealed they had begun carrying out armed patrols on some streets.
The move means officers armed with sub-machine guns are engaged in routine policing for the first time.
Shadow Home Secretary, Chris Grayling, said last night: 'In areas dominated by gang culture, we're now seeing guns used to settle scores between rivals as well as turf wars between rival drug dealers.
'We need to redouble our efforts to deal with the challenge.'
He added: 'These figures are all the more alarming given that it is only a week since the Metropolitan Police said it was increasing regular armed patrols in some areas of the capital'.


http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2974487/posts

I really want the anti gun people to explain and comment on this.

Australia is pretty similar to the U.S. and the gun ban doesn't seem to work. They even instituted a mandatory buy back that I am positive is the Dems end game to disarm its citizens.

---------- Post added 2013-03-08 at 08:06 PM ----------

Holy Crap. I've been slow on the uptake, here, but California is now trying to ban any semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine.

SB-374, proposed on 2/20, would redefine the California AWB to include all semi-automatic rifles with a detachable magazine. And no more exclusion for rimfire.

So yeah. Buh-bye M1, 10/22, etc. The mind boggles.

You couldn't pay me enough to live in California, it is like a different country out there. Personally I say we let Mexico take it back.

[FusedMass]

I really want the anti gun people to explain and comment on this.

Australia is pretty similar to the U.S. and the gun ban doesn't seem to work. They even instituted a mandatory buy back that I am positive is the Dems end game to disarm its citizens.

---------- Post added 2013-03-08 at 08:06 PM ----------



You couldn't pay me enough to live in California, it is like a different country out there. Personally I say we let Mexico take it back.

Do you really want open doorway to comparing the deaths in United States to other places? we can if you want. It's not anti gun. It's anti criminal access to guns.

[Tinykong]

*Snip*

If by conspiracy theory you mean..facts. Then yes. What I have said, is what took place. I have a source to back up my claim. You have nothing because you're incorrect to prove how wrong you are. I'm going show you some information that might help you become better informed since you seem to be lacking some..information[/url]



I'm also tired of posters not informed, mocking others in condensing tones when the Irony is, they have no clue what they're talking about. As for mod actions discuss it with them. It's forbidden to do so here.

Not commenting on the first section, it's a dead horse and it's been beaten to death.

You're claiming that the NRA is hiding something they don't want people to know. That stinks of conspiracy theory, and needs to be treated no differently than the moon landing or JFK assassination conspiracies.

Just because they don't want research done doesn't prove anything. You're suggesting that the NRA has prevented ANYONE (because, you know, the government isn't the only research outlet) from uncovering anything related to firearm violence through black mail, assassination, kidnappings, extortion, or whatever other crack pot tinfoil hat theories people want to cook up.

I'm also tired of posters not informed, mocking others in condensing tones when the Irony is, they have no clue what they're talking about. As for mod actions discuss it with them. It's forbidden to do so here.

The true irony here, is that the only person using veiled insults, condescending tones and mockery is you.

[FusedMass]

Not commenting on the first section, it's a dead horse and it's been beaten to death.

You're claiming that the NRA is hiding something they don't want people to know. That stinks of conspiracy theory, and needs to be treated no differently than the moon landing or JFK assassination conspiracies.

Just because they don't want research done doesn't prove anything. You're suggesting that the NRA has prevented ANYONE (because, you know, the government isn't the only research outlet) from uncovering anything related to firearm violence through black mail, assassination, kidnappings, extortion, or whatever other crack pot tinfoil hat theories people want to cook up.



The true irony here, is that the only person using veiled insults, condescending tones and mockery is you.

It's not a conspiracy. You used that word. What I said is what actually took place and fact. Oh I see..you can spin it "we don't know what it is..so we can't claim their not some degree of trying keep it concealed"

for lack of a better word that is total and utter complete B.S.

It proves EVERYTHING again. You're counter to what information I posted, common sense and logical would tell us..they do not want us to know..

The JFK was a theory on who killed him. If they're was a second shooter. No one disputes he died.

NRA actively ripping funds to promote gun research proves something. You'd have to be totally denying every inch of reality to know when something is concealed from general public by a Lobbying group no less. It's not something they want to share.

My mind is blown, how you can't tell the difference.

The true irony here, is that the only person using veiled insults, condescending tones and mockery is you.

Last night I was tired and mispoke and like rapid animals they jumped on mistake barking to the high heavens instead of being polite and showing me the error. You even moaned and groaned how mod's were unfair and I post nonsense for lack of a better word.

I proved you wrong with several sources. You have nothing but theory. You didn't afford me being very polite like I requested. Now you want that ability. Well start being polite in return. I naturally respond the attitude in which the poster responds to me.

[Eroginous]

It's not. "Liberals" and "conservatives" in this case both agree that the violation of a basic constitutionally-guaranteed liberty is abhorrent.

It is at first glance, but when you think about it in depth you discover is is not. So why do liberals want to get rid of guns? Well generally speaking liberals are supportive of big, some would say nanny state and having a monopoly on legal violence is a big part of that. Moreover making guns unavailable makes people much more dependant on the government since they cannot defend themselves against criminals.

What I meant and intended to say was this: Simply speaking, conservatism tends to work to preserve a particular status quo by denying certain liberties. Conversely, liberalism tends to work to change the status quo by establishing certain liberties.

A traditionally liberal outlook would favor preserving gun rights while a traditionally conservative outlook would favor removing those rights. This is not the case, and it's honestly surprising, because I'm generally of a liberally oriented mindset, and I support gun rights completely, even the private ownership of 'military quality' arms. I'm also against the NRA and the manner/degree by which they campaign against gun legislation.

Their spokespeople have been such outlandish characters such as Charlton Heston and Ted Nugent, neither of which have much of a realistic outlook on the aspect of responsible ownership, and who are frankly, two people I would not feel comfortable being around, knowing they are armed.