I am in favor of "people control"

You know, it's been said that gun control isn't about controlling guns, but about controlling people. I've come to realize that the best way to go about "gun control" is to control the people. Instead of trying to limit what access violent offenders can have to guns, why not limit what access those violent offenders can have to people? Granted, it won't stop first time offenders, but it would do a lot more to reduce future violence than the system we have right now.

If a drunk driver hits a school us head on and kill everyone, we do not blame the alchol and car companies. Nor the bottle of liquor he drank. We blame the person. The same needs to be said about tragedies like this.

Fast cars kill people, but we keep making them... Etc..

Sure, we could build places to house the criminals. I say we call them prisons…

Fast cats kill people, but we keep making them

I suppose a cheetah could kill you, but I hope you meant "fast cars."

As a gun owner I think we are going to have to give in and do some more regulation on the assault weapons, BTW I call them assault weapons knowing the history of the Strumgrever 44. Gay does not mean the same thing as it did 45 years ago. A semi auto with large mag is what seems to be in the lexicon today so its what we have to go with. To argue over NO NO it means selective fire bla bla bla is to waste time. Maybe to make semi autos similar to NFA weapons. I don't' know but we are not going to win on our old arguments with this one.

fast cars do kill people, but we keep requiring seat belts and regulation to own and operate them. Why not have similar regulation on guns? I think you have killed your own argument.

Maybe to make semi autos similar to NFA weapons.

No offense but are you in the wrong place? I think this would better suit you.....http://www.bradycampaign.org/

To argue over NO NO it means selective fire bla bla bla is to waste time.

If you feel it's a waste of time why are you on this website? Please explain why you think that defending and protecting our gun rights isn't important? If you can't explain youself then I have to believe that your simply trolling, looking to spark an argument and nothing more.

Sure are a lot of sleeper accounts being dusted off today.

As a gun owner I think we are going to have to give in and do some more regulation on the assault weapons, BTW I call them assault weapons knowing the history of the Strumgrever 44. Gay does not mean the same thing as it did 45 years ago. A semi auto with large mag is what seems to be in the lexicon today so its what we have to go with. To argue over NO NO it means selective fire bla bla bla is to waste time. Maybe to make semi autos similar to NFA weapons. I don't' know but we are not going to win on our old arguments with this one.

I think you will find yourself in the vast minority here.

Instead of trying to limit what access violent offenders can have to guns, why not limit what access those violent offenders can have to people?

This is the exact premise of the argument some of us have that gets us painted as "hardliners" or "no compromise" and even acused of being crazy or malicious.

That premise is: There should be ZERO restrictions on RKBA, because people who have beem deemed to dangerous to have weapons are simply too dangerous to let loose in society.

It's an idealogical standpoint at this juncture, because our legal system and revolving door prisons don't allow us to keep dangerous people where they should be. But the theory is sound.

We require seatbelts to regulate the safety of the vehicle for the user. Similarly, gun manufacturers include safety devices on their weapons to ensure that their use is safe. Also, just as it is illegal to shoot someone (even accidentally), it is illegal to drive unsafe.

No, regulating seat belts is not the same as banning semi-autos. Banning anything capable of going over suburban speed limits is.

Mach4, that's my point. Go after this legal system, and maybe we'll see a drop in repeat offenders.

Castile, we do have those requirements. They are NCIS background checks. While they may not be perfect, they are the best choice out of what we have. Same as seat belts have malfunctioned and trapped people. Preventive measures only work under the circumstances they were initially designed for. The fact is we do have problems with people. If they ban guns, they should ban alcohol, fast food, soft drinks, fast cars, ..etc. they are all only as dangerous as the PEOPLE that have them...

That premise is: There should be ZERO restrictions on RKBA, because people who have beem deemed to dangerous to have weapons are simply too dangerous to let loose in society.

Of course, you don't really mean ZERO. I assume, for example, that you would be in favor of prohibiting inmates in prison being armed.

Well Phatty, that's the point.

As a gun owner I think we are going to have to give in and do some more regulation on the assault weapons, BTW I call them assault weapons knowing the history of the Strumgrever 44. Gay does not mean the same thing as it did 45 years ago. A semi auto with large mag is what seems to be in the lexicon today so its what we have to go with. To argue over NO NO it means selective fire bla bla bla is to waste time. Maybe to make semi autos similar to NFA weapons. I don't' know but we are not going to win on our old arguments with this one.
I am calling Troll here. 5 posts doesn't make you one of "we".

More gun laws are like more drug laws - they won't work. All you're going to do is create an underground market. If schools are targets, then you need to arm the people at the school - not disarm them and make "gun free zones."

Yeah -gun free zone - that really worked well.

1. Allow people with concealed carry permits to carry in gun free zones.

2. Require a certain amount of people at the school to be trained in response tactics just like airline pilots - and keep guns available at the schools.

3. If 1 and 2 are unacceptable, then there will need to be at least three armed and trained guards at each school.

I know that more restrictions and gun laws are the "feel good" solution but, that is reactive not proactive and provides no defense against the person who obtains a gun illegally - and you know they will do that.

The way to stop shootings is to have the ability to defend yourself by shooting back.

Maybe to make semi autos similar to NFA weapons. I don't' know but we are not going to win on our old arguments with this one.
troll

5 posts?

fast cars do kill people, but we keep requiring seat belts and regulation to own and operate them. Why not have similar regulation on guns? I think you have killed your own argument.

castile,

Because the act of keeping and bearing firearms is a right that may not be infringed upon per the constitution.

Driving is not a right, but is a privalege that is subject to regulation.

Please troll elsewhere.

Ancient Rome placed an enormous value on the rights of a Roman citizen. For instance, a citizen could be arrested by soldiers - verbally. The soldiers were forbidden to bind the hands of an accused citizen or even lay hands on him - because he had been convicted of no crime. They could drag him if he refused to go, even put him down with a sword if he resisted violently ... but as long as he complied with a lawful order, as long as he acted within the law, he was literally untouchable. As a citizen, it was expected that controlling him was unnecessary - as long as the citizen was self-controlled.

I am a self-controlled citizen. It is unnecessary to control me or my guns.
Only a citizen who willfully refuses to be self-controlled must be controlled; occasionally, one who cannot be controlled must be put down.

fast cars do kill people, but we keep requiring seat belts and regulation to own and operate them. Why not have similar regulation on guns? I think you have killed your own argument.

So, how does that have anything to do with the drunk driver hitting the school-bus and killing all of the kids?
We have a background check, that is the "seat belt",
We have the second amendment, that is the "license"


What argument were you trying to make? Because it derailed the fact..
We don't blame the car, thew alcohol, or the bus, etc..

Blame the person and the act.

As a gun owner I think we are going to have to give in and do some more regulation on the assault weapons, BTW I call them assault weapons knowing the history of the Strumgrever 44. Gay does not mean the same thing as it did 45 years ago. A semi auto with large mag is what seems to be in the lexicon today so its what we have to go with. To argue over NO NO it means selective fire bla bla bla is to waste time. Maybe to make semi autos similar to NFA weapons. I don't' know but we are not going to win on our old arguments with this one.

Just say "no" works even on the almost brain dead. We have laws against all kinds of deviant behavior and certainly enough ( to many IMO) with regards to firearms ........

I listened to a discussion on psychotropic drugs today and the over 49 million individuals who are prescribed them in America. Do a Google search and you might even see how many shooters have had them in their system. Drug inserts talk about all kinds of side effects but....naw that can't be it; duh! 88 people killed this year in mass shootings and many of those were gang bangers doing the gang thing. There are 200 people killed by deer on the roads a year...the emotional side of a debate is needed sometimes to open a door to the facts. the 49 million number is from Google and the 200 deer I heard maybe correct maybe not but interesting and sounds about right to me.

Ok, as a compromise how does everyone feel about this, any CCW holder can carry in a "gun free zone" if they complete an advanced carry course, that does not exceed 3 times as many hours or 3 times the cost of the basic CCW class in their state, permit license cost must remain the same as regular CCW though?

If a drunk driver hits a school us head on and kill everyone, we do not blame the alchol and car companies. Nor the bottle of liquor he drank.

They used to; it was called the Prohibition Movement, and Unsafe at Any Speed. FWTW

TCB

Isaac, how do you feel about this? Any reporter can write any article they want, so long as the government has determined the subject matter is okay? Gun Free Zones basically mean "we can't fight back" zones.

Also, "compromise", as I've come to learn, means putting gun control advocates one step closer to success. What do they give up for a "compromise"? Nothing. What they do is create laws that create a greater hassle for me, possibly prevent me from defending myself, and don't do a damn thing to stop criminals. So no, I don't want to compromise.

Barnbwt, unsafe at any speed refers to cars that were found defective(ie Corvairs,Pintos..etc). As far as I know most DUI's and drunken accidents were not in these cars. We all know how well prohibition worked, now don't we... You don't see protesters calling for the government to outlaw a certian car because "more alcoholics prefer it"... My point is that the people are the problem in the equation...

As a gun owner I think we are going to have to give in and do some more regulation on the assault weapons, BTW I call them assault weapons knowing the history of the Strumgrever 44. Gay does not mean the same thing as it did 45 years ago. A semi auto with large mag is what seems to be in the lexicon today so its what we have to go with. To argue over NO NO it means selective fire bla bla bla is to waste time. Maybe to make semi autos similar to NFA weapons. I don't' know but we are not going to win on our old arguments with this one.
Compromise away...you'll be pissed when they come for your duck or deer gun. And when they do....expect no help from me.

You either support the 2A, as written, or you don't. The real reason for it is to overthrow a tyrannical government, not so you can kill Daffy or Bambi.

Some people just don't get it.

While I agree in a perfect world everyone would be armed and know what they are doing, however it seems in a practical world that locations like schools, stadiums and other places where crowds gather that we often listed as gun free zones, could benifit from responsible colcealed carry holders, and as a practical matter it seem prudent that those people be trained to a higher level than a person in a less crowded situation. Would I like concealed carry for everyone (well almost everyone), yes, but would I feel safer knowing that the people carrying concealed in a crowded stadium, theater, shcoool, etc. had some degree of training beyond this is the end that goes bang, the answer is again yes, particularly if I were one of the bystanders.

As a gun owner I think we are going to have to give in and do some more regulation on the assault weapons

NO, I refuse.
"Assault weapon" has no meaning. It's whatever you want to ban, and I do mean YOU.
If you were hoping to get real gun owners to just roll over, you're really in for a lot of disappointment.

Fast cars kill people? Hogwash! Utter nonsense!

Show me the car that ever started up on its own and ran down a pedestrian or the car that decided on its own (mechanical malfunction excluded) to go too fast for conditions and crash, killing its occupants. You can't, because a few untrustworthy car operators, not the cars, do that stuff, just like a few untrustworthy gun operators, not the guns, commit murders.

It should definitely be required to have at least one well armed guard at schools. By well armed, I mean a good handgun and some form of shotgun, carbine, or pdw.

It should definitely be required to have at least one well armed guard at schools. By well armed, I mean a good handgun and some form of shotgun, carbine, or pdw.
Who pays for this? Already cash strapped school districts? States? The Fed?

Gun laws have disarmed the populace. So now we are going to pay more government workers for something school staff could do on their own if they had not been denied their right to bear arms.

In all the armed attacks against schools, how many of them could have been prevented or mitigated by one or two members of the school staff if they had been armed?

+1 to Snakeman.
My wife and I already have plans to attend our next school board meeting to let them know that we fully support their allowance of CCW amongst their staff. If the great state of Virginia has already deemed them approved for CCW carry, then who are we to create "gun-free" zones? They can quietly make it known to their staff that they will allow the practice, and that shouldn't even make a fuss if they are worried about that.
I feel the necessity to be vocal in our support.

I didn't say that the principle or some other faculty member couldn't double as the guard did I? I'm also not saying that they should walk around with their long gun strapped across their back like rambo. What I am saying is that someone trained in the safe handling and use of firearms in a defensive or offensive situation should be available within the facility and have quickly accessible capable firearms at all times. Some schools already have cops on campus most of the time anyway.

I would prefer to seem them with long guns than handguns locked safely away in the teachers desk drawer, long guns are easier to aim which is important when there are a lot of inocent bystanders.