Quote:
Originally Posted by Tenrocca
Incredible logic right there folks. And while were at it lets legalise Meth because we really want everyone to access to that dont we - we really dont want to leave that to the bad guys. 
Ill say a few more things on this issue before I sign out because it really is like banging your head against a wall.
I am not for gun prohibition, but surely, in America, a system where you can be on a no fly list but you can buy a gun is wrong. How can ANYONE think this system is OK. Even if you are "pro gun", you would have to be insane to think it is OK for potential terrorists to buy a gun.
Cars aren't designed to kill people, fast food isn't designed to kill people, so comparing guns (which are designed to kill people) to these things is really dumb IMO.
According to recent CBS news poll, 58% of Americans want to see change to the gun laws. Those folk telling me that Im not welcome to visit your fine country because disagree with you and agree with the majority of your countrymen - Im guessing you would like those 58% to leave then?
Separating terrorist attacks from gun control is not entirely valid. If you were to compare the most recent attack in San Barnardino to the 2 most recent in the UK and Australia. Both lone attackers, the UK guy using a knife in the subway injuring a few, the Australian using a single pistol killing one. The huge part of why these were so less damaging than the San Barnardino attack was because access to weapons in the UK and Oz is so much more difficult. It is very logical to conclude that if there are more weapons in circulation in the general public, then more weapons are able to end up in the hands of those we don't want to have then, such as terrorists.
This is not a quick fix. It is a little like the global warning debate (and Im not saying I support one side or another) but the sooner a change is made the sooner the problem starts to get better. Even if the sale of all guns was banned from now, it would still take decades for an impact to be felt, however, if something is not done, then in 50 years time you will still be seeing the same type of stats saying you are 20 times more likely to die in the US by being shot then any other first world country. Any of those bragging about your gun collections, that stat is nothing to be proud of. It is actually shameful.
Cheers |
Get yourself a nice lawyer buddy and have him explain some basic principles to you.
This has got little to do with common sense anything, nor did it fact have anything to do with anything that could have been prevented by non- gun no fly co- lists. The other type of incidents happened with legal guns that proposed regulations by our progressive friends would have zero influence upon.
If you follow Mrs. Clinton, for instance, and take a hard look at Mike Bloomberg and his funding, you should take him at his word, because he has stated it rather publicly more than a few times.
His approach, in fact the major moneyed anti gun liberal approach has long stated that this is a battle that will require many victories. The long term objective is elimination of handguns, restrictive ownership, ideally zero ownership.
It must start with strong legal precedent. It must start with restrictive laws that rational people can call " common sense" and then be constantly expand upon until the ultimate long term objectives are realized.
This is why it is " exactly" spelled out as a constitutional right and not an earned privilege.
One should think more about that given the most restricted areas of this entire nation are murder capitols as long as laws on the books don't get enforced.
Given the last few of these events, when's the last time anybody heard a damn thing about common sense mental health care laws other than the post shooting" he was always volatile" ", he was never right" ", I was always scared of him, " he alway said he'd hurt somebody".
A final point. All this relation to the no fly list is spurious at best. While I understand the list itself is a cause for closer scrutiny. Unfortunately we still have something here called "due process". Is it going to lead us down a rabbit hole when rights get suspended, not reviewed but suspended, not because you were convicted, charged, or even suspected of something, but made a list that nobody really knows much about?