Why is supporting gun control so unbeliebable?

#1."Fulfilling it's obligation" you say? It says "shall have the power to", not, "is obligated to". Is Congress obligated to pay the Debts? Obviously not. Are they obligated to collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts AND Excises? No. So to say that they are obligated to do something so incredibly vague as to make any and all kinds of laws that might be construed at the moment to be for the "general Welfare of the United States" is ridiculous, particularly when it contradicts the explicit, specific wording in the 2nd Amendment.

#2. Everything is a felony today. You are allowing the government to define away your God-given right to defend yourself. So let's say that the government makes dissent a crime, such as if they pass a Sedition Act again. Now you can't vote, you can't own a gun, effectively you have been prevented from any dissent, and any means to change the government that outlawed dissent. According to you,

Is this really the type of country you want to live in? Is this what you call freedom? You should be perfectly happy living in North Korea or some place like that then. But THIS IS AMERICA. (*)(*)(*)(*) that.

 

^^^ What he said......

 

I would like to agree with you but I can't; besides death we have no natural rights left. Even that they try to regulate like it or not it is the truth.

 

I can see your point I think America has arrested far too many of it's citizens for moral reasons. I think lot of laws should be removed from the books. Right or wrong that is how they operate. People with a violent history should not have weapons.; Nor should the mentally ill they are a threat to society. The war on drugs is a crock that destroys freedom and futures of it's citizens. We can only operate within the system that exist to be in denial serves no propose.

 

I support everyone owning a gun, even ex-felons

but I do support restriction, for certain guns

 

when you have done your time, that is it, should get all your rights back, right to vote, bare arms, ect...

you do the crime, you do the time... additional punishment after one has done their time, is punishing someone twice for the same crime....

every American has the right to protect their family and home, it's unAmerican to say otherwise

 

Part of the punishment is the loss of your right to bear arms. It is that simple. You wanna own a gun then keep your nose clean.

 

Stroll around AR15.com, 99% of those people are morons.

 

How many lives are lost to internet forums every year? 0.

How lives are lost by the misuse of firearms? 35,000.

You make an irrelevant argument.

 

35000?......not in this country...

 

While I think certain moral crimes should should be decriminalized. If a person choose to violate other people rights by violence or theft they have no reason to complain that their rights are restricted. The government restricts the rights of everyone so I do not understand the so I do not pity the ones who have hurt others having more restrictions on their rights.

 

What "guns" would that be? This makes no sense you say that we should not remove the rights of felons yet have no issue with removing the rights of all. I would like to know what weapons you feel should be restricted.

 

Suicide + homicide + accidents = 35,000+/-

 

Not even close...check again

 

Many of the laws of this nation disrespect the rights of others, and police officers and other authorities routinely disrespect the rights of peaceful citizens in order to enforce those laws. Would you agree that they don't deserve the right to firearms?

 

You were talking about risk; if it's a moral imperative to register people because of risk, what relevance is it if some people have died or not?

Oh, and the number isn't 0 when it comes to the internet. Many have committed suicide due to bullying. People deal drugs, and even illegal weapons, over the internet using forums where they can operate anonymously. The danger is very relevant. People are using the internet to break the law and even bully other people to the point of suicide. If you are going to rely on the emotional argument, then I can too. If internet registration saves the life of just one child, isn't it worth it? What do you have to hide that is worth the life of another human being??

 

Then I would suggest posting your stats eh?

Citations please.

 

Then what is the number?

 

I know it's not popular but I remember speaking with some folks from the Cancer Society about restrictions on smoking. The restrictions were for the most part quite reasonable. No cigarette machines in untended areas where children could buy cigarettes. No smoking areas in restaurants. I don't remember others but reasonablee.

And, look where we went. I was caught smoking within 25 feet of a window. I thought the fact that the window did not open, couldn't open, was a factor. Wrong. A city in California is discussing banning smoking in all apartment buildings. At a restaurant I stepped out to have a cigarette with a friend and they sent someone out with a tape measure to see if we were far enough down the highway.

I don't own any guns, I have in the past, but I do own a stake in the hated U.S. Constitution.

With all due respect, Wolverine, I do not believe the "reasonable" regulation folks will prevail. I feel trapped between gun nuts and anti-gun nuts. I feel quite strongly I have a right to ban all firearms from my private property if I wish. I believe the Constitution prevents the government from requiring me to allow guns on my property but that position drives the gun nuts, well, nuts. If they have a concealed weapons permit they can come on my property with their gun regardless.

On the other hand, the anti-gun nuts want to make private possession of firearms illegal, period. Then, my property would be a moot point and so would be the Second Amendment.

 

You can bar firearms on your private property.

There are the righties that will make the argument that they have more of a right to carry on gun on private property than that of the property owner to dictate what is allowed on their property. Silly. Some go far as to say that businesses that bar firearms should be held civily liable for any crimes committed on the property. Which is simply asinine.

 

i'm not trying to be a smartass, just think even with accidents it's nowhere near 35,000

 

For me the answer to the OP is simple and best summed up by the National Academy of Sciences (a pro gun control organization) study. Way back in the 90's the Clinton administrated teamed up with the Joyce Foundation to commission the NAS to study all existing gun control measures so as to see their impact on violent crime, accidents and suicide. The report after an exhaustive 4 year study concluded that not a single gun control law has had any measurable positive effect on violent crime or accidents and only one, the 3 day waiting period, had a minor but measurable effect on suicide (within the margin of error).

So, if we are discussing a fundamental right what exactly is the purpose of laws impacting that right that have no effect on anything?

I contend that making hysteric gun control folk feel warm and comfy is not purpose enough to impact a fundamental right.

I would link to the report but today the NAS charges a good bit to see it.

 

Ayuh,... Obviously, I don't have that nuumber, but,...
I'm bettin' it's Way Higher than the number of those hurt by the CCW'ers you deam to need More training...