Why is gun control so difficult in the US?

Write4U said:
Moreover, if a person carries a gun, he may be stopped to ask for identification. When you get stopped in your car, the first thing a police officer asks for is your driver license.
Click to expand...
Driving is a privilege, gun possession is a right. Equating the two is a threat.
No one can be "stopped" without probable cause - that's a basic principle. Carrying a gun (properly, in a legal manner) is not probable cause.
Write4U said:
Public safety rights outweigh all other individual rights, IMO.
Click to expand...
That's a threat. You lose lots of support talking like that.
 
iceaura said:
Driving is a privilege, gun possession is a right. Equating the two is a threat.
No one can be "stopped", for any reason, without probable cause - that's a basic principle. Carrying a gun (properly, in a legal manner) is not probable cause.
Click to expand...
I agree, but if I see a guy carrying a gun who is obviously drunk or high or acts in a threatening manner, there would be probable cause.

That's a threat. You lose lots of support talking like that.
Click to expand...
I don't see how. If I am drunk and weaving my car, an officer has "probable cause" to stop me and investigate the situation, in the name of public safety. A car is also a deadly instrument if improperly handled.
In a report released Monday, the NTSB found that rear-end collisions kill around 1,700 people each year and injure around 500,000. But more than 80 percent of those deaths and injuries could have been prevented if the cars had been outfitted with a collision avoidance technologies, according to the NTSB, a federal agency that investigates transportation-related accidents.
Click to expand...
https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/...ems-should-be-standard-on-all-cars-says-ntsb/

Rights are only earned by strict compliance to law. You screw up and you land in jail, in spite of your right to Liberty.
 
Last edited:
Public safety rights outweigh all other individual rights, IMO.
- That's a threat. You lose lots of support talking like that. -
I don't see how. If I am drunk and weaving my car, an officer has "probable cause" to stop me and investigate the situation, in the name of public safety. A car is also a deadly instrument if improperly handled.
Click to expand...
A question of rights you answer - yet again, after being braced on exactly that distinction - with an example of car privileges.
That's a threat.
As long as you talk like that I won't trust you with power, and neither will the large fraction of the American public whose experience of the government's treatment of driving as a privilege is something they never want to see expanded to any other arena of their lives.
Write4U said:
Rights are only earned by strict compliance to law.
Click to expand...
If you are wondering why the refusal and defiance of gun owners is so oddly and irrationally adamant, why even the sanest and most reasonable of gun control efforts is met with outright rejection from so many Americans, contemplate the implications of those nine words.
 
privileges are earned
rights are a different matter
"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights..."

..........................
The bill of rights did not give anyone any rights!
It was written to preserve rights.
 
Last edited:
spidergoat said:
Then what is it about?
Click to expand...
It was about avoiding having to pay for a large standing Army. The locals were supposed to be first-responders and hold off the raiders until the regular forces arrived. "Drums Along The Mohawk" gives you a good idea of the concept as intended by the founders.
 
This really is not hard to understand. There is a specific segment of the US voting populace that are single issue voters on this issue, they believe that any regulation on guns will lead straight to tyranny, these aaah "Alex Jonesians" are beyond reason or sense, there no sensible compromise possible, not universal background checks, no allowing the CDC to study gun violence, nothing, because “those god dam liberal who hate America and hate freedom and love big daddy goverment will use that to take our guns, our precious guns!” Seriously just listen to the NRA at CPAC, totally off world conspiratorial demoralizing tribalism.


"There goal is to eliminate the second amendment, and our fire arms freedoms so they can irradicate all individal freedoms"

No, that is insane consipircy drivel. I have no problem with guns for hobbies and even for personal defense. The second amendment can't be eliminated any time soon, you sir need to stop smocking crack with gay prostitutes and get out of the closet.

"The solution is to make you, all of you less free"

Well assuming he pointing at criminals, then yes. I don't see how universal background checks and gun registration makes people "less free", should people be free to murder? The idea is simply to reduce the rate guns end up in the hands of criminals and psychotics. If one is a law abiding, sane citizens that just wants to kill bambi's mother now and then, I see nothing one needs to fear.

[Everything but guns, Families, school security, FBI, FUCKING FBI!]

Here is an idea, why can't we fix those things AND have universal background checks and CDC studies on to better determine what is needed most to reduce gun crimes?

oh and he goes on and on.
 
Last edited:
ElectricFetus said:
"There goal is to eliminate the second amendment, and our fire arms freedoms so they can irradicate all individal freedoms"

No, that is insane consipircy drivel.
Click to expand...
It's the content of a good share of the gun control posts here, given only the extra nudge of consciousness in the motive.

He's assuming awareness of consequence. That's not that big a jump - it's crazy, but not as crazy as it should be.
 
iceaura said:
And live in the presence of one, stationed in one's county, quartered in one's home, etc.
Click to expand...
Two different issues. They weren't talking about the King's army, who were guilty of those "offenses", but of a purely US army, one that wouldn't be needed most of the time and would have to be quite large to effectively cover all thirteen States. We would go into the War of 1812 with a rather pitiful Army and Navy due to cost cutting efforts by the early Constitutional government.
 
Write4U said:
No.
IMO, all sales of guns, commercial or private, should have background/mental history checks and registration of gun type and caliber (along with a sample bullet) itself would be a deterrent for that weapon to be used in a crime. The owner would be hesitant to illegally sell the weapon, because he would also be held responsible for breaking the law and in case of murder, might be held as an accomplice.
Click to expand...
Wishful thinking.
Moreover, if a person carries a gun, he may be stopped to ask for identification. When you get stopped in your car, the first thing a police officer asks for is your driver license.
Click to expand...
Depending on the state, you are advised to inform the police you're armed, first thing, when stopped, and provide your carry permit when asked.
Public safety rights outweigh all other individual rights, IMO. Forbidding the discharge of a gun within city-limits is but one example of a sound gun law. After all a gun of any caliber is a "deadly and inherently dangerous" long range weapon.
Click to expand...
The Constitution guarantees individual rights. But you can move to Canada, where you have no protected freedom of speech either.
Write4U said:
Define "crime". What's the difference between your home being invaded or your country being invaded. They are both crimes, no?
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure invasion is an act of war. And that's even distinguished from war crimes.

spidergoat said:
Then what is it about?
Click to expand...
The right to defend your own life.
 
Gawdzilla Sama said:
Two different issues. They weren't talking about the King's army,
Click to expand...
Same army, same issue.
They were indeed talking about the army of their own central government - that's the one they didn't want stationed in their county, quartered in their homes, etc.
As well as not wanting the expense, they didn't want the army itself. And they for sure didn't want to be disarmed in its presence - been there, done that, never again if it can be helped.
 
iceaura said:
Same army, same issue.
They were indeed talking about the army of their own central government - that's the one they didn't want stationed in their county, quartered in their homes, etc.
As well as not wanting the expense, they didn't want the army itself. And they for sure didn't want to be disarmed in its presence - been there, done that, never again if it can be helped.
Click to expand...
Well, you're wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top