In the wake of the shooting in Aurora, CO, some officials are calling again for tougher gun laws.
Baltimore County, MD, police Chief James Johnson and other law enforcement officers spoke at the National Press Club this week, supporting the notion that a high-capacity magazine like one used in the Aurora shooting “simply has no place in civilian hands,” according an article in the Los Angeles Times.
“It is ridiculous to argue that hunters or civilians who own weapons for self-defense need a 100-round drum magazine,” he said in the LA Times. “As we have seen, people don’t stand a chance against this kind of firepower.”
Police say the weapons and ammunition used by Aurora shooting suspect James E. Holmes were legally purchased.
Some officials are pushing for background checks and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg said earlier this week that police officers across the nation should threaten to go "on strike" to press for more restrictions on armor-piercing bullets. Later, Bloomberg backed off that statement somewhat, noting that police in New York are not permitted to strike.
Legislation targeting ammunition magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds was introduced after the shooting of then-Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) in Tucson, but the measure has languished for more than a year in Congress.
Take our poll. Should Congress enact tougher gun laws to prevent citizens from owning assault weapons, armor-piercing bullets or high-capacity magazines?
2. Because it increases in value over time, expecially as the antis keep playing their stupid games making it a safe long term investment 3. Because it pisses the anti's off so much that I have them 4. Because it is fun to shoot 5. Because of bad shoulders, it is necessary to have the firearm cycle itself rather than I pumping the action, cycling a bolt or reloading a side by side quickly when shooting doves, waterfowl, or prairie dogs, or pigeons, or a followup shot on a running deer in thick cover, etc, etc, etc, etc making the hunting experience more enjoyable. 6. See # 3 again. 7. Because many of my friends thinks its cool and fun! 8. See # 3 again. 9. Because it reduces the decibel report enough so the neighbors dont get pissed when I practice or take care of an offending woodchuck., oh wait, we are not talking about suppressors are we? You know, that class3 device that many anti gun nations in Europe require gun owners to have and use as it reduces the noise of practice, naw, that would be too enlightened for the anti's here. 10. See # 3 again. 11. Most importantly because I can. Now if you dont like that, TJTFB.
Is that plain enough or does this need explained in a more tactless way?
In the late 70's and early 80's, this experiment was tried in Argentina under the dictatorship of General Gualtieri. Those reported as being communists were summarily arrested by the secret police, and never heard from again. They are known now as the desaparacedos--the disappeared ones.
I have no problem with people owning weapons. I just don't see the need to own a semi or automatic weapon. Need = requirement, obligation
We get you are also too stoopid to discern the difference between choice and a need. We understand you are too stoopid to understand we dont give a hoot about what you think others want. We understand you are too stoopid to acquire the authority to do anything about it, much less change the US Constitution & BOR. We understand you will whine about your inability to discern these differences until you die because you are stoopid. Uh do you want us all to send you some cheese to go with that annoying childish whine you seem destined to have the rest of your life? Step #8 -go back to step #3
BTW Jarhead, are you gonna eat with that mouth?
I’m not so sure you understand the point regarding a citizen’s right to determine his/her own wants or needs. Given this right, why would a citizen have to justify ownership of a legal firearm to you anymore than you would need to justify to me ownership of legal property I find unnecessary?
Exactly the attitude the eletists wish to foster - to keep the Great Unwashed in line 'cause they know what's best for us. However, just the OPPOSITE idea to that encouraged by the founders (and all the men and women who sacrificed their lives to give us this Republic) - the idea that We the People are Sovereign, and to maintain that they guaranteed (through the Bill of Rights) that Governments could NOT put limits on the our means to keep THEM in line. Yet we have allowed them to talk us into putting limits on those "means", haven't we? Your arguments do nothing more than show that you have succumbed to the progressive drugs they put into your koolaid.
Why do you believe you have a say? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? Oh yeah already covered why, cause your too stoopid or maybe its hardheaded to understand! Ed, we dont know how to fix your brand of stupidity, really we dont. Thats not name calling, thats just the facts.
And Jarhead I think it would be rather "stoopid" of my to debate with you.
Because the speed limit on most interstates in PA is 65 mph and in other states it's higher than 65 mph. How's that!
When all else fails, resort to name calling. Typical radical.
- Thomas Jefferson
We "must" I repeat "must" have "Jesus" in "any" conversation that has to do with violence.... Why??? Because If we "all" conducted ourselves the way "Jesus" did; There would be "no violence"!!!......Do we "all" agree?
With that being said, in an ideal world where people are rational, there are some laws that could reduce gun violence. Mandating that people report lost or stolen guns would be a good start. People shouldn't be able to sell their gun on the street and then tell police they just lost that gun when it shows up two years later in a shooting.
I just really wish that before people started pulling a Heston, they would actually read about any attempts on their gun rights. I see a lot of talk about the 2nd Amendment and hypothetical gun grabs. Much of this seems to be fueled from the attempts at polarization by our favorite partisan news sources. Very frustrating...It is similar to these cries for "FREEDOM!" without the talk about what is currently taking away which freedom. We have a tendency to get fired up before we know what we are fired up about..I do it too.
It was inspiration that I need too. National gun regulation is not really a big issue for me. USA involvement in international arms dealing is. So I thank this article for giving me that direction, and I my cyber eye roll stands over the response. I don't like when people are afraid or filled with rage against their govt without really knowing why. It makes me sad. :)
I hope you are willing to admit that all legislation (or the need for all legislation) is abstract until it is drafted, debated, amended, debated again, voted on and signed into law. The abstract is the birth place of legislation/public policy. To say the abstract has no place ever in discussions about the government would stifle it to a standstill. Wait a second, that might not be a bad idea. Ha! The topic of this thread is, “Should Congress Enact Tougher Gun Laws?” It’s natural that those who believe Congress should to suggest what those tougher laws might look like. It’s also natural for those who oppose to explain why tougher laws are not needed. Do these discussions become heated, yes they do. Do they get personal, you betcha! That’s what is great about issues that inspire such passion in participants. It is through this crucible that we get to the root of the issues and thoughts are laid bare.
Interjecting hysteria into discussions about guns is the modus operandi of anti gunners. God forbid that facts, such as how many crimes are prevented each year by good guys with firearms, get in the way of an anti gun rant. If you are asking if many politicians are hypocrites, I guess the answer would be yes.