PDA

View Full Version : Shouldn't the anti-gun be held accountable?


Odd
07-27-2012, 1:23 PM
I try to avoid playing the blame game, but it seems the biggest barrier to effective gun laws that not only work, but affect only criminals and not the law abiding, is largely due to the efforts of the anti-gun group. From my observations, the anti-gun people keep passing more pointless gun laws* without any input from the other side. As a consequence the pro-gun people do not have the chance to contribute to the gun laws because they're too busy trying to repeal the uniformed and misguided anti-gun laws/protecting what few rights they have left. Thus the cycle goes on and on, sucking up time and resources. Until the antis decide to maybe ask for input from the pro-guns, instead of pressing on with their willful ignorance(If I come across as overly biased, it's because the actions of the antis have done little to earn my respect), the anti-gun are responsible for the gun crimes as well: Their assertions that gun owners are at fault are unwarranted.

Another issue is that the non-gun owner majority and anti-gun mainstream media makes for a loopsided state of affairs which favors one view over the other. This brings me to the belief that the anti-gun lobby generally has the advantage though they may claim otherwise.

As for what I feel constitutes to reasonable gun legislation:
1) They are written by the rational and clear minded; those knowledgeable in the firearms field.
2) They are written by people with experience in dealing with crime and understand the criminal mind (not police chiefs, since most of them are more politician than public servant, NY/CA/IL in particular).
3) They are not written by politicians/those seeking votes/political gain, but "by the people, for the people".
4) The laws only affect criminals and not law abiding citizens.


*That usually do not work, and if the ineffective law expires they try the same thing over and over.

Curley Red
07-27-2012, 1:26 PM
When something bad happens like the shooting in Colorado there is no one to hold accountable but the shooter themselves. No one else should be held accountable for what another person does.

Just like how the anti's want to hold the gun manufacturer's accountable. The only one accountable is the shooter.

Odd
07-27-2012, 2:24 PM
When something bad happens like the shooting in Colorado there is no one to hold accountable but the shooter themselves. No one else should be held accountable for what another person does.

Just like how the anti's want to hold the gun manufacturer's accountable. The only one accountable is the shooter.

I didn't mean accountable for the shooting or any shooting. Rather the point I am trying to get across is that the antis keep clogging the system with more laws, which becomes the problem and not the solution. They are preventing progress so to speak. The picture I'm trying to paint is one guy goes around building unnecessary houses while another guy follows behind tearing down the unwanted buildings.

AeroEngi
07-27-2012, 2:32 PM
I didn't mean accountable for the shooting or any shooting. Rather the point I am trying to get across is that the antis keep clogging the system with more laws, which becomes the problem and not the solution. They are preventing progress so to speak. The picture I'm trying to paint is one guy goes around building unnecessary houses while another guy follows behind tearing down the unwanted buildings.

We all see your point but the anti's don't see themselves as clogging the system by creating more laws. They actually believe that their laws are helping.

Wiz-of-Awd
07-27-2012, 2:36 PM
When something bad happens like the shooting in Colorado there is no one to hold accountable but the shooter themselves. No one else should be held accountable for what another person does.

Just like how the anti's want to hold the gun manufacturer's accountable. The only one accountable is the shooter.

We all wish, here in California, that we had the same opportunities and gun rights that are allowed under Federal law, right?

So as an example, if a law in California prevented us from the right to personal protection at a level allowed by the Federal government, would not California be responsible in part for our limited ability to defend ourselves?

Federal law allows me as many rounds as I want in a magazine to defend myself. California limits my ability to defend myself with a 10 round mag limit. California is therefore compromising and limiting my defense of self and family.

A.W.D.

paul0660
07-27-2012, 2:40 PM
Enjoying snacks by the fountain indeed.

Odd
07-28-2012, 10:58 AM
We all wish, here in California, that we had the same opportunities and gun rights that are allowed under Federal law, right?

So as an example, if a law in California prevented us from the right to personal protection at a level allowed by the Federal government, would not California be responsible in part for our limited ability to defend ourselves?

Federal law allows me as many rounds as I want in a magazine to defend myself. California limits my ability to defend myself with a 10 round mag limit. California is therefore compromising and limiting my defense of self and family.

A.W.D.

Would be nice to divide CA into two zones, a Free zone and a Gun free zone. Other than that, I think to change the CA gun laws the gun owners would have to rally together in the same manner as the civil rights movements due to the non-gun owning majority population and anti-gun media.

If only there were some way to convince the anti gun group that gun laws are mostly ineffective and have limited effects on crime, that might open a path for more fair and just laws.

Might be interesting to see what would happen if the Brady bunch and the NRA were to bounce ideas off each other, with some firearms/crime experts nearby to provide facts and advice when needed.

Paul S
07-28-2012, 2:33 PM
We all wish, here in California, that we had the same opportunities and gun rights that are allowed under Federal law, right?

So as an example, if a law in California prevented us from the right to personal protection at a level allowed by the Federal government, would not California be responsible in part for our limited ability to defend ourselves?

Federal law allows me as many rounds as I want in a magazine to defend myself. California limits my ability to defend myself with a 10 round mag limit. California is therefore compromising and limiting my defense of self and family.

A.W.D.

Don't forget legislators and judges have very broad immunity when bad consequences result from their actions as a jurist or law maker.

yellowfin
07-28-2012, 3:04 PM
If only there were some way to convince the anti gun group that gun laws are mostly ineffective and have limited effects on crime, that might open a path for more fair and just laws. It isn't about that. They care neither about crime reduction nor fairness, hence why results to the contrary of those goals don't bother them.

Bruceisontarget
07-28-2012, 3:20 PM
There is no reason to compromise with the gun grabber types. We just need to defeat them. I'm not interested in their point of view, because their views are based in ignorance from the outset.

wjc
07-28-2012, 4:27 PM
There is no reason to compromise with the gun grabber types. We just need to defeat them. I'm not interested in their point of view, because their views are based in ignorance from the outset.

+1

They also use lawsuits as an alternative to using the process to get the
votes. Fortunately, a lot of organizations are getting tired of these endless lawsuits and are finding ways around them.

tpc13
07-29-2012, 10:52 PM
California also violates the 2nd Amendment "shall not be infringed" what we need to do if focus on getting Boxer Feinstein out of office because they don't believe in the constitution.

morfeeis
07-30-2012, 1:13 AM
We dont need any new firearm laws, so there isn't anything for the antis to talk to us about. Now if they want to start repealing stuff then we can talk.........

Wiz-of-Awd
07-30-2012, 7:41 AM
Don't forget legislators and judges have very broad immunity when bad consequences result from their actions as a jurist or law maker.

...yet another part of the problem IMO.

A.W.D.

Odd
07-30-2012, 10:36 AM
The anti gun people won't be going anywhere anytime soon(wish they'd move to the UK and other gun free utopias but no luck). So if there is a way to undermine and disprove the anti's message of 'gun laws=safer place' to the general populace, that would be the one part of defeating them. The other part is to convince the rest of the population, through rational arguments and civil behavior, that the anti-guns are a bunch of manipulative, delusional, disrespectful and ridiculous fools, then the game will be just about won.

nicki
07-30-2012, 1:54 PM
Early gun laws were racist is nature, designed to disarm blacks so that their other rights could be stripped.

Gun control laws allow politicians to divert attention away from other problems caused by laws/policies they created to cater to their cronies at the expense of everyone else.

Take John Holmes, here is a guy who I have a gut feeling had bad effects to psych drugs which caused him to have a disconnect from reality.

Considering that most of the mass murderers over the last 20 years or so were on these types of meds, how come the media isn't all over this issue?

Could it be that Big Pharma is the largest advertiser in the MSM and that the MSM is not going to kill their golden goose.

In fact, if one was a "tin foil hatter", one could come up with the idea that the media loves these events because it creates sensational headlines that boost ratings.

Mass murders create stories with a lot of dirty laundry that can be played from all angles of the three "Cs"(Controversy, Conflict and Compassion) in media which means boosted ratings.

Old saying, if it bleeds, it leads.

The promotion of gun control is emotionally driven and our opponents are snakes, how can we deal in good faith with people who have no honor or integrity.

Fortunately for us fewer Americans are buying the anti gun bs, public opinion is on our side nationwide, support for gun control is at an all time low.

The real dark ages for gun rights actually was in the late 70's, early 80s when the anti gun forces were close to a federal ban on handguns.

If they had succeeded, we probably would have lost our semi auto rifles/shotguns in the 1980s and by now we would be left with only sporting bolt action rifles and 2 shot shotguns if we were lucky.

In California things started going the wrong direction in 1967 and the pace picked up from 1989 till today. We are the battleground state, my hope is that we will become a Brady Campaign F rated state within a few years.

Nicki

DannyInSoCal
07-30-2012, 2:13 PM
How many more innocent lives have to be sacrificed in "gun free safe zones" -

Before anti-gunners FINALLY realize restricting the Constitutional self protection rights of law abiding tax paying citizens -

DOES NOT make anyone safer - Instead it creates more and more murder victims...?!?!?