Sensible Gun Laws Work
#1
Account Closed
Thread Starter
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 2
Sensible Gun Laws Work
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.) said she and other progressives had “proven it in California” that “sensible gun laws work” during a press conference.
Boxer: 'Sensible Gun Laws Work, We've Proven It in California' - Washington Free Beacon
Boxer: 'Sensible Gun Laws Work, We've Proven It in California' - Washington Free Beacon
#2
Re: Sensible Gun Laws Work
Fixing of the system can begin with the originalists on the Supreme Court looking closely at the phrase "A well-regulated militia" and work on the regulation bit.
#3
Re: Sensible Gun Laws Work
A question from an outsider whose mind is boggled continually by America and guns... Given the ludicrous amount of guns already owned in the US, is there a solution that would work? I mean even if you amend the amendment as to who can own, what they can own etc, how do you 'control' the millions of current owners? (Ignoring for a moment the vast majority who are 'sensible', 'reasonable' owners)?
I don't see how you can change what appears to be a national mindset regardless of whether it's an intelligent change or not.
I don't see how you can change what appears to be a national mindset regardless of whether it's an intelligent change or not.
#4
Account Closed
Thread Starter
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 2
Re: Sensible Gun Laws Work
as far as I am aware it is only the sensible reasonable owners that are targeted.
I know quite a few people who do not buy new, do not want anything traced to them, I thought it was a bit paranoid, now not so sure.
For most people most of the time it simply is just a media story issue.
I know quite a few people who do not buy new, do not want anything traced to them, I thought it was a bit paranoid, now not so sure.
For most people most of the time it simply is just a media story issue.
#5
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Aug 2009
Location: Arizona
Posts: 4,130
Re: Sensible Gun Laws Work
A question from an outsider whose mind is boggled continually by America and guns... Given the ludicrous amount of guns already owned in the US, is there a solution that would work? I mean even if you amend the amendment as to who can own, what they can own etc, how do you 'control' the millions of current owners? (Ignoring for a moment the vast majority who are 'sensible', 'reasonable' owners)?
I don't see how you can change what appears to be a national mindset regardless of whether it's an intelligent change or not.
I don't see how you can change what appears to be a national mindset regardless of whether it's an intelligent change or not.
#6
Re: Sensible Gun Laws Work
A question from an outsider whose mind is boggled continually by America and guns... Given the ludicrous amount of guns already owned in the US, is there a solution that would work? I mean even if you amend the amendment as to who can own, what they can own etc, how do you 'control' the millions of current owners? (Ignoring for a moment the vast majority who are 'sensible', 'reasonable' owners)?
I don't see how you can change what appears to be a national mindset regardless of whether it's an intelligent change or not.
I don't see how you can change what appears to be a national mindset regardless of whether it's an intelligent change or not.
#7
I approved this message
Joined: Dec 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,425
Re: Sensible Gun Laws Work
#8
Account Closed
Thread Starter
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 2
Re: Sensible Gun Laws Work
#9
I approved this message
Joined: Dec 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,425
Re: Sensible Gun Laws Work
Strange. If you access it from Google News, you go right through on the same URL.
Not sure if I can post the article, but here it is from today's Wall Street Journal editorial page (quoting The Iron Giant: "and all that that implies"):
Link again:
The Liberal Theology of Gun Control - WSJ
Article:
Mods, please accept my apologies if this breaks any rules and please feel free to delete.
Not sure if I can post the article, but here it is from today's Wall Street Journal editorial page (quoting The Iron Giant: "and all that that implies"):
Link again:
The Liberal Theology of Gun Control - WSJ
Article:
The Liberal Theology of Gun Control
by Willima McGurn
How does a man who entered the White House vowing to restore science to its proper place tell us that gun control is the answer to terrorism?
After all, California already has strict gun control, as does France, which just had its second terrorist massacre this year. Not to mention that the one time when terrorists with assault rifles and body armor were foiled, it was because an off-duty traffic cop in Garland, Texas, was carrying a gun—and used it to shoot the two heavily armed Islamists before they could kill anyone.
Or that “common sense gun control” would have done nothing to stop Richard Reid (the unsuccessful shoe-bomber); the Tsarnaev brothers in Boston (pressure cookers) or the 9/11 hijackers (box-cutters). Maybe the president should be demanding common sense pressure-cooker control.
Yet while the critiques of the president’s antigun pitch are correct, they are also beside the point. Because liberal calls for gun control aren’t about keeping guns from bad guys. It’s what you talk about so you don’t have to talk about the reality of Islamist terror. And focusing on the weaponry is part of a liberal argument that dates to the Cold War, when calls for arms control were likewise used to avoid addressing the ugly reality of communism.
Understand this, and you understand why Senate Democrats reacted to San Bernardino by putting forth antigun legislation. Why the New York Times ran a gun control editorial on its front page, and the Daily News used its own cover to feature the National Rifle Association’s Wayne LaPierre underneath San Bernardino killer Syed Farook—labeling them both terrorists. And why President Obama used Sunday night’s address to whine about those resisting his call for gun measures that would not have stopped any of the shooters.
Put simply, today’s liberalism cannot deal with the reality of evil. So liberals inveigh against the instruments the evil use rather than the evil that motivates them.
Not that there aren’t measures society can embrace to keep the innocent from being shot and killed. The best example may be New York City from 2002-13, during Ray Kelly’s last stint as police commissioner, when the NYPD was bringing the murder rate to record lows through America’s most effective gun-control program: stop-and-frisk.
This was gun control for bad guys, under the theory that when you take guns away from bad people—or at least make them afraid to carry guns on the street—you reduce shootings. But it was savaged by liberals. Because they don’t want just the bad guys’ guns. They want yours.
So they demonize guns while fighting approaches that try to identify threats, whether from mentally ill individuals such as Adam Lanza, who went on a murderous rampage at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012, or terrorists such as Syed Farook and his wife, Tashfeen Malik. Surely the key to distinguishing between the millions of law-abiding Muslims and those who mean us harm is intelligence.
Nevertheless, the urge to blame the weapon has deep liberal roots. It was particularly pronounced in the latter years of the Cold War when Ronald Reagan was president.
Even as Reagan was applying the pressure that would ultimately bring down the Berlin Wall in 1989—from arming the Afghan resistance to supporting Poland’s Solidarity movement to rebuilding America’s defenses—liberals derided him as a warmonger. Two things especially irked them: He’d called the U.S.S.R. the Evil Empire, and he was skeptical about arms control for the sake of arms control.
So when the Gipper walked away from the 1986 Reykjavik summit because Mikhail Gorbachev insisted his price for a nukes deal was the end of missile defense, Reagan was derided as a dunce. But his decision proved one of his finest moments: Scarcely a year later the Soviets caved and Mr. Gorbachev signed the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty.
Bad regimes are like bad guys in this respect. They’ll take a deal they know has no teeth. But they will accept a genuine arms reduction only when the good guys put them in a position where they have little or no choice.
This helps explain why, for example, Libya’s Moammar Gadhafi turned over his entire nuclear program to George W. Bush—and why the Iranians happily agreed to a deal with President Obama that puts them on the path to a bomb.
Meanwhile, we’ve just endured what may be the first successful ISIS-inspired attack on the homeland. And like her former boss, Hillary Clinton is demanding the government “take action now” on guns.
Back and forth it goes. Instead of debating the antiterror policy of the past seven years—the wisdom of ending the National Security Agency’s metadata program, whether ISIS can be knocked out without any ground troops, how the lack of nerve on Syria fed this mess, or whether Islamist terror can be defeated so long as our leaders refuse to call it by its rightful name—we’re all arguing over gun control.
Then again, if you were Mr. Obama or Mrs. Clinton, isn’t this the debate you’d prefer?
by Willima McGurn
How does a man who entered the White House vowing to restore science to its proper place tell us that gun control is the answer to terrorism?
After all, California already has strict gun control, as does France, which just had its second terrorist massacre this year. Not to mention that the one time when terrorists with assault rifles and body armor were foiled, it was because an off-duty traffic cop in Garland, Texas, was carrying a gun—and used it to shoot the two heavily armed Islamists before they could kill anyone.
Or that “common sense gun control” would have done nothing to stop Richard Reid (the unsuccessful shoe-bomber); the Tsarnaev brothers in Boston (pressure cookers) or the 9/11 hijackers (box-cutters). Maybe the president should be demanding common sense pressure-cooker control.
Yet while the critiques of the president’s antigun pitch are correct, they are also beside the point. Because liberal calls for gun control aren’t about keeping guns from bad guys. It’s what you talk about so you don’t have to talk about the reality of Islamist terror. And focusing on the weaponry is part of a liberal argument that dates to the Cold War, when calls for arms control were likewise used to avoid addressing the ugly reality of communism.
Understand this, and you understand why Senate Democrats reacted to San Bernardino by putting forth antigun legislation. Why the New York Times ran a gun control editorial on its front page, and the Daily News used its own cover to feature the National Rifle Association’s Wayne LaPierre underneath San Bernardino killer Syed Farook—labeling them both terrorists. And why President Obama used Sunday night’s address to whine about those resisting his call for gun measures that would not have stopped any of the shooters.
Put simply, today’s liberalism cannot deal with the reality of evil. So liberals inveigh against the instruments the evil use rather than the evil that motivates them.
Not that there aren’t measures society can embrace to keep the innocent from being shot and killed. The best example may be New York City from 2002-13, during Ray Kelly’s last stint as police commissioner, when the NYPD was bringing the murder rate to record lows through America’s most effective gun-control program: stop-and-frisk.
This was gun control for bad guys, under the theory that when you take guns away from bad people—or at least make them afraid to carry guns on the street—you reduce shootings. But it was savaged by liberals. Because they don’t want just the bad guys’ guns. They want yours.
So they demonize guns while fighting approaches that try to identify threats, whether from mentally ill individuals such as Adam Lanza, who went on a murderous rampage at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012, or terrorists such as Syed Farook and his wife, Tashfeen Malik. Surely the key to distinguishing between the millions of law-abiding Muslims and those who mean us harm is intelligence.
Nevertheless, the urge to blame the weapon has deep liberal roots. It was particularly pronounced in the latter years of the Cold War when Ronald Reagan was president.
Even as Reagan was applying the pressure that would ultimately bring down the Berlin Wall in 1989—from arming the Afghan resistance to supporting Poland’s Solidarity movement to rebuilding America’s defenses—liberals derided him as a warmonger. Two things especially irked them: He’d called the U.S.S.R. the Evil Empire, and he was skeptical about arms control for the sake of arms control.
So when the Gipper walked away from the 1986 Reykjavik summit because Mikhail Gorbachev insisted his price for a nukes deal was the end of missile defense, Reagan was derided as a dunce. But his decision proved one of his finest moments: Scarcely a year later the Soviets caved and Mr. Gorbachev signed the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty.
Bad regimes are like bad guys in this respect. They’ll take a deal they know has no teeth. But they will accept a genuine arms reduction only when the good guys put them in a position where they have little or no choice.
This helps explain why, for example, Libya’s Moammar Gadhafi turned over his entire nuclear program to George W. Bush—and why the Iranians happily agreed to a deal with President Obama that puts them on the path to a bomb.
Meanwhile, we’ve just endured what may be the first successful ISIS-inspired attack on the homeland. And like her former boss, Hillary Clinton is demanding the government “take action now” on guns.
Back and forth it goes. Instead of debating the antiterror policy of the past seven years—the wisdom of ending the National Security Agency’s metadata program, whether ISIS can be knocked out without any ground troops, how the lack of nerve on Syria fed this mess, or whether Islamist terror can be defeated so long as our leaders refuse to call it by its rightful name—we’re all arguing over gun control.
Then again, if you were Mr. Obama or Mrs. Clinton, isn’t this the debate you’d prefer?
Last edited by Hiro11; Dec 8th 2015 at 2:17 pm.
#10
Re: Sensible Gun Laws Work
I don't know if the right wing aim to write articles along the lines of "Liberals want to solve the problem with this, but they are dumb/oppressive and should use something else" without specifying the something else, but I've seen a ton of them lately. It's as if they don't have any other solutions and are just yelling "Them bad!"
#11
Forum Regular
Joined: Dec 2015
Posts: 35
Re: Sensible Gun Laws Work
Most of the shootings are drug related(almost 90%) gangs fighting each other in turf wars in poor urban areas. That's where the homicides are. They need to decriminalize drugs or something. It's a HUGE problem in central america and comes into the US. Yet there is no discussion about that, it's all just political demagogy.
#12
Account Closed
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 0
Re: Sensible Gun Laws Work
Sensible gun laws do work, but they cant prevent everything and just because some slip through does not mean we should scrap the laws.
The top 10 states with most gu n violence are also some the weakest on gun control.
Funny how the states with the strictest gun control have the least amount of gun violence.
And people in Calif really have no issues with the laws, only the fringe loons seem to.
The top 10 states with most gu n violence are also some the weakest on gun control.
Funny how the states with the strictest gun control have the least amount of gun violence.
And people in Calif really have no issues with the laws, only the fringe loons seem to.
#13
Forum Regular
Joined: Dec 2015
Posts: 35
Re: Sensible Gun Laws Work
Sensible gun laws do work, but they cant prevent everything and just because some slip through does not mean we should scrap the laws.
The top 10 states with most gu n violence are also some the weakest on gun control.
Funny how the states with the strictest gun control have the least amount of gun violence.
And people in Calif really have no issues with the laws, only the fringe loons seem to.
The top 10 states with most gu n violence are also some the weakest on gun control.
Funny how the states with the strictest gun control have the least amount of gun violence.
And people in Calif really have no issues with the laws, only the fringe loons seem to.
#14
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Jan 2006
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 12,865
Re: Sensible Gun Laws Work
#15
Banned
Joined: Feb 2011
Location: Mallorca
Posts: 19,367
Re: Sensible Gun Laws Work
Again, the American "gun problem" is cultural, not legislative. You can impose as many gun control laws as make you happy, but none of that will change the gun problem until you change the culture. There are 300 million guns in the US public domain for christ's sake. You think imposing some laws will change that? It didn't work with alcohol. Made it much worse in fact.
Brits don't need guns, not because they're illegal, but because nobody thinks they need one. You think Brits don't buy cocaine? It's very illegal. But you can get it easily.
Terrorists will always find a way to get guns, no matter where they are. It's just a little easier in the US. Ironically, the vast majority of terrorist attacks - employing guns - occur outside the US. How does one square that?
The US does have a big problem with domestic gun violence though. But that's not terrorism.
Impose all the laws you want, but until you change the culture, nothing will change.
300 million guns. Isn't that a bit like cleaning up all the volcanic dust from Mount St. Helens?
Brits don't need guns, not because they're illegal, but because nobody thinks they need one. You think Brits don't buy cocaine? It's very illegal. But you can get it easily.
Terrorists will always find a way to get guns, no matter where they are. It's just a little easier in the US. Ironically, the vast majority of terrorist attacks - employing guns - occur outside the US. How does one square that?
The US does have a big problem with domestic gun violence though. But that's not terrorism.
Impose all the laws you want, but until you change the culture, nothing will change.
300 million guns. Isn't that a bit like cleaning up all the volcanic dust from Mount St. Helens?