Care2 will go offline for site maintenance July 31 at 9pm PST.
START A PETITION 25,136,189 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x
Group Discussions
Ban the Assault on Weapons
1 year ago

Every freedom-loving American would be DAMN PROUD to wear this shirt.  If I had the money to do so, I'd be buying it.  DAMN SKIPPY, I would!!! The American Challenge The American Challenge Back text reads: a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." -2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution

 

 

http://patriotdepot.com/ban-the-assault-on-weapons-t-shirt/  



This post was modified from its original form on 12 Jan, 12:27
1 year ago

I want to begin by saying that I know absolutely nothing about guns, so please allow me to be self indulgent.

A gun for self protection needs only the ability to fire less than 10 rounds.
A gun used for hunting needs only the ability to fire less than 10 rounds before reloading.
Guns that fire many round rapidly seem to appeal to target shooters. Why can't these types of guns be restricted to target ranges only, where such guns are kept and not removed from the premises?
Unlike guns that fire limited rounds, and unlike "hammers, knives, and whatnots", these rapid firing guns in the hands of killers have the ability to mow down tens of people without reloading in a matter of seconds.
I do not buy the slippery slope argument that all guns will be on the target list if certain guns - with the ability to cause excessive carnage - are limited to restricted use only.
The fact is our violent culture will not become less violent any time soon. Until a time when we've cleaned up the mind pollution of violent video games, music and films, and a time when parenting becomes a serious responsibility again, I would want to remove the most lethal weapon from really bad people.

1 year ago

I sent two big green STARS for your comments!!

1 year ago

Thanks, Diane . I expect to get some raspberries too. But that's OK.

1 year ago

Elizabeth, green star sent.  My only comment is this, regarding those using the semi-automatic for competitive shooting, it is really not going to work to limit them to "renting, so to speak" a weapon at the target range or gun club.  These people highly "tune" their weapon to their specifications and therefore they do need to own their own weapon.  Futher, they do use larger capacity magazines at least during practice as it is about the speed, etc.  But I believe you will find that these people, some are accomplished women shooters I might add, are highly responsible, too.  They can pay $6000 or more for their weapon.  They are not going to be careless in the handling of the weapon and it is always kept well locked up.  These are people with gun safes, etc.  Therefore, I think that they should be given exception and it would be easy for them to have special registration for this.  So I am not, therefore for a total ban; limited exceptions, yes, but not a total ban.  Elizabeth, a lot of these people are Olympian-caliber or Olympian shooters.

Regarding the "slippery slope argument", I am not that convinced that there is not the intention to start with the one element and then gradually go for more and more banning of guns; that is if the liberals have their say in this.  

My argument is not toward this, though, it is that every time you begin to limit the scope of a Constitutional Amendment such as the Second Amendment, you erode the integrity of the Amendment and before long it no longer exists or at least not in he manner it was intended and a person's rights do not exist.  

Our Declaration of Independence states:  "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, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-"

However, the amendment to the Constitution allowing for abortion denies this unalienable right to thousands of children yearly, and they are not allowed a voice in the matter at all. So, to alter our Constitution does indeed alter those things that this Country was founded upon; and any laws that limit the scope of the Bill of Rights is going to erode their integrity to the people to the point that the original intent and purpose no longer exists.  

I do feel, as you do, that for the average hunter or person that enjoys target practice, that the semi-automatic is not necessary.  However, I do feel that when we restrict ownership we are restricting the right to bear arms and that the potential in doing this is as bad as the excuse for why.  

The answer is not to ban semi-automatics, it is to do the other things you have suggested. Our culture has to become less violent.  Parents need to return to parenting as children have too much free reign now days with activities, etc.  There is no monitoring of the video games that their children are playing, there is no monitoring of TV that their children watch, schools are no longer allowed to institute corporal punishment which has proven to put the children in charge of the classroom rather than the adult authorities.  Music has no limits and parents don't bother to really listen to it, or are just as gulty of listening to it as their children.  Challenge:  Watch Cartoon Network for an entire evening sometime soon; you will see that the amount of violence and inappropriate TV disquised as "cartoons" is unbelievable.  So violence is being thrown in the face of our children from every direction.

Add bullying and the fact that it is not being addressed more seriously in schools.  I remember that when I was in school (K-12th grade) we were expected to keep our hands to ourself, we were expected to be respectful to our teachers and staff and to each other.  I don't know a single student that received a "hack" (spanking) that was ever scarred or severely wounded and the end result spoke volumes.  No one wanted the stigma that went with this.  Expelling a student or suspending them does nothing today but to give them time out of school and some really enjoy that to the point they will purposely do something to get expelled or suspended and their parents do not follow through with added discipline at home.  I know my parents favorte statement was "if you get in trouble at school or away from home, the discipline that is given to you there is nothing compared to what will happen when you get home" and it worked.  It really worked as most kids were not so crazy to doubt this.  Now days parents have no follow through.  

I guess what I am saying is that people, from childhood on, are not being held accountable for their actions and there is no legitimate fear or concern for the repercussions of their actions.  They can even plea bargain themselves from felonies to misdemeanors; from jail time to probabion only; from prosecution to giving testimony against another eliminating any discipline toward oneself.  

Until this is addressed, bans on semi-automoatics is not going to accomplish a thing.  You said it, Elizabeth, it only takes one bullet to injure or kill, so those bent on school shooting will not be stopped.

No raspberries, I understand and agree with you for the most part.

1 year ago

These people highly "tune" their weapon to their specifications and therefore they do need to own their own weapon.

Linda,
I suppose those people could park their own gun at the range. They could also apply for a special transport permit to bring it to other ranges, if they choose to practice elsewhere. The permit would only allow a transport from one range to another - not to an interim location, ideally.
Others could purchase a permit that would allow them the use of a gun at any range throughout the country for less money than the cost to buy a gun... just thinking...
I appreciate your comments. Thanks for the star.

1 year ago

What is being overlooked in this discussion is the true purpose of the Second Amendment which isn't about hunting, target shooting, or collecting but defense from threats be the threat criminals, non human treats in certain area, and a tyrannical government. The latter is why the "progressives' are always looking for more "reasonable" gun control measures which for the true elites is we have security from YOU and you have no security except what WE give you which is usually followed with yellow crime scene tape. Once again the discussion above fails to define what an "assault weapon" is since the amount of misinformation being spewed by the Left and media is just pushing another "low information voter" issue in this area. I have a problem with the government telling us what we can do, how we should do it, if we will be "allowed" to do it, and how much we should pay to exercise a right specifically stated in the Constitution. BTW, if no one has a means of defending themselves in an assault situation (as was the case in CO and CN) then what does a ten round magazine limit do for you since changing magazines takes only a couple seconds if you practice? It is interesting, as well, as we hear the Newtown discussion that we don't hear any discussion of how to prevent the likes of another CN mass killing where two men broke into a house, assaulted and tied up the husband and father, and then assaulted and killed the wife and two teenaged daughters. To be sure the two were caught and tried but the three women are still DEAD. Not sure if a six round revolver would have done the job there for the husband even if he was armed and maybe one of those 'evil' semi autos like a M92F Beretta with a 15 round magazine might be a better choice since it appears to be a fine piece for the military.

Two common factors in both CO and CN were both killers had serious mental problems and both areas were the mass killings took place were 'gun free zones" (except someone who couldn't read the sign, I guess, brought a gun and did some killing). One thing you may not have heard about the shooting at the Portland mall was the killer stopped and shot himself when a man who had his legal gun on him (he forgot about the restriction when he went in) pulled his, but didn't shoot since he didn't have a clear shot, and the killer shot himself then ending the shooting spree. The cops got there promptly but AFTER it was all over,

1 year ago

Linda; There is no Constitutional Amendment that addresses abortion in any way shape or form. There was a Supreme Court decision that "found" a 'right to privacy" in the Constitution (which doesn't address "privacy"either) that found the "right to an abortion". Not sure if that is is stretch of the 4th Amendment or something they think should be in the 9th but no mention of either abortion or privacy in the Constitution. Plenty of other language that makes one wonder where some of the justices pull ruling out of their posterior like Kelo v New London case letting the city take private property to give it to some other private citizen that may generate more tax money (actually everyone lost in that case) or even defacto self incrimination like refusal to take a blood test in a DUI stop or the abuses of the RICO law. Not that the objectives of the last two are bad but the Constitutionality is certainly questionable based on other Court rulings that found "Constitutional protections" a lot more vague than those in those situations and other instances. It appears that the Supreme Court of the moment finds whatever it wants in the Constitution to justify political decisions at times as we saw with the ObamaCare case. BTW, even those who support the outcome of Roe V Wade aren't thrilled at how the Court got there and think it was a bad ruling from a Constitutional perspective but still use it to push their "choice rights".

1 year ago

It appears necessary to address the difference between a right and a privilege.  A right, by definition, is inherent to the people and the government is obligated to respect it as a superior standard.  By entension, exercising it rightly requires no official permission and no justification aside from the fact that it is in fact a right.  A privilege, by contrast, requires official permission, often requires justification to the satisfaction of some government official, and can be modified or revoked at the pleasure of the government. So far as the Second Amendment goes, this is adequate to put the issue to rest.

 

I will, however, indulge in some history.  Rather than engage in a mammoth cut and paste, I will simply provide you with a single link to explore in order to gain some perspective into the history and purpose of the Second Amendment.  While the title addresses handguns, you will notice that none of the quotes limit the types of arms addressed in any way.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_gives_the_Americans_the_right_to_carry_a_handgun



This post was modified from its original form on 13 Jan, 18:28
1 year ago

John, pardon me.

1 year ago
20 hrs ago

I do not buy the slippery slope argument that all guns will be on the target list if certain guns - with the ability to cause excessive carnage - are limited to restricted use only.


Please watch and reconsider:

1 year ago

Something else worth reading (note that you have to use your right and left arrow keys to change pages forward and backward, respectively):

http://www.assaultweapon.info/

1 year ago

David,
I know there are a few extremists. But they will never be the majority needed to pass sweeping legislation against gun ownership. There are too many voting Americans who support the 2ND amendment, and they include the coveted minorities.

1 year ago

Any whatsoever is too sweeping to meet constitutional standards.  These people, unfortunately, are like ankle-biter dogs--no matter how hard you kick them, next thing you know, you feel teeth in your ankle again.  Our founing fathers were remarkably clear about the purpose of the Second Amendment, and limiting citizens to ownership of Elmer Fudd guns completely defeats that purpose.

1 year ago

Where does the constitution define the right to own any and all guns?
In the 1990s, semi automatic guns were outlawed. That can happen again. But what will never happen is the ban of gun ownership across the board.
By a large majority, Americans support gun ownership. And politicians, being the self serving animal they are, want to be re elected, first and foremost.

1 year ago

The Second Amendment consists of an introductory clause addressing the intended purpose followed by the clause declaring that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  Take that in combination with the words of our founders as supplied in part in the link in one of my earlier posts, and you will find a clear picture that the Second Amendment is intended as the guarantee on the rest of the Constitution, fact notwithstanding that the federal government has been in teh habit of routinely ignoring the Constitution for the better part of a century.

 

One of my bigger pet peeves is the political redefinition of words.  For example, regulate and derivatives thereof refer to making something work right, as opposed to the hijacking of the term as a synonym for restriction.  The militia is all of us, not the National Guard.  I should hope that the word infringe is still adequately obvious.

 

I wish I could share the optimism about the future.  First, a repetition of the 1994 law (as ineffective as it was) is unacceptable.  Second, most people were saying immediately before that happened that nothing of the kind would/could ever happen (it did).  Most people prior to 2008 never believed it possible for the federal government to outright grab something like a fifth of the nation's economy and institute the yet-to-be-implemented socialized health care, but it happened.  Now why should we believe wishful thinking this time?

1 year ago

Now why should we believe wishful thinking this time?



People like their guns and support the right of others to own them. In a 2011 Gallup Poll, 73 percent said they would not support the banning of handguns. The evidence seems to support that the more violence that occurs, the more people want the right to own a gun for their self protection. Guns are here to stay!

http://www.infowars.com/support-for-second-amendment-at-record-high/

1 year ago

"A gun for self protection needs only the ability to fire less than 10 rounds."  

 

 Really???  So e.g. say there are three intruders breaking into your home.  You think that 10 would be enough?  Better be a good shot...real good.  Recently, a mother in Georgia fired 6 shots at an intruder and 5 hit him.  He still somehow kept moving (out of the house fortunately) and that was only one man.

 

As far as a gunman out to slaughter people,  my husband tells me that reloading a magazine takes only a couple seconds so limiting guns to 10 rounds won't make a difference.

 

John: "What is being overlooked in this discussion is the true purpose of the Second Amendment which isn't about hunting, target shooting, or collecting but defense from threats be the threat criminals, non human treats in certain area, and a tyrannical government...."

 

Absolutely!

1 year ago

I still want mental health issues addressed more. 

1 year ago

Sandy, that is the point.  We have the right to protect ourselves from criminals, non-human threats, and yes, tyrannical government and the way this one is going right now, that is becoming more of a potential reality.

As for mental health issues, I just am not sure how that is to be accomplished without relinquishing our patient/doctor relationship and I do not want to lose that nor to see people lose that relationship.  There is just too much of a threat in these areas with Obamacare, Medicare, etc., we don't need to give up more.  I am not convinced that it would make that much of a difference, either.  I think that we need to focus more on reminding people of the importance of gun safety and safe storage of guns and ammo in their homes.  Most responsible people already know and do this, but it doesn't hurt to remind people.  

1 year ago

Linda: The issue with mental illness and also substance abuse is a thorny one since not all mental illness or abuse requires reporting and some conditions are situational and temporary and others are chronic and almost impossible to really cure (control to degree maybe but not cure). The problem is in both AZ and CO proactive action should have been taken. In the AZ case it was the local sheriff who dropped the ball because the shooter's mother worked for the county but that didn't prevent the sheriff (a Demagogue of course) from slamming gun owners, In the CO case the doctor dropped the ball in not being a bit more proactive in reporting the possible danger that shooter posed since there were some worrisome signs before hand. Some action ahead of time may well have prevented both incidents but what action is always a hard to define matter.

Elizabeth: The question really is where in the Second Amendment is there a hint of restrictions on what gun ownership should be? That includes type of weapons, capacity, who can legally own, etc. Prior to the 1934 law there were no Federal restrictions on gun ownership although there were some state and local prohibitions (most to restrict ownership by select groups of people). As to there not being draconian gun control measures in the works, all you have to do is follow what is happening in NY where, in secret behind closed doors of course, the movers and shakers of both parties in both houses of the legislature are pushing even more restrictions including dropping magazine limits for 10 rounds to 7 and other restrictions in a very restrictive (and very "progressive") state.

The reason more people are arming up is due to the actions of the radical "progressives" in all levels of government, the issue with drug gangs and other criminals in some areas, the threat from terror groups which is a carefully hushed up story, and such actions as the Feds letting loose criminal illegal aliens who should be deported and can't because the receiving country won't take them (and the Feds not keeping track of them or reporting that he have been released to past victims and local law enforcement). When it comes to type of weapons and capacity, the need of the gun owner is what should be the controlling issue and both semi automatics and mags containing more than 10 rounds may be an individual's solution to their self defense needs.

1 year ago
10 hrs ago

Now why should we believe wishful thinking this time?



People like their guns and support the right of others to own them. In a 2011 Gallup Poll, 73 percent said they would not support the banning of handguns. The evidence seems to support that the more violence that occurs, the more people want the right to own a gun for their self protection. Guns are here to stay!

A similar percentage opposed ObamaCare.

1 year ago

A similar percentage opposed ObamaCare

David,
That's true. Opposition to obamacare was about 56%. Support for Gun ownership is about 73%.
But unlike opposition to obamacare, which split along party lines, support for 'responsible' gun ownership cuts across all lines: political, economic, ethnic, racial. And you can probably throw gender and sexual orientation in there too for good measure.

1 year ago

I am not going to get comfortable with Barry and the usual proxies talking about using executive orders to do an end run around congress.  It is also significant to be clear on what gun ownership those 73% believe in maintaining.  Not everyone who opposes eliminating private ownership of firearms completely would stand behind maintaining the law as it is now or, better yet, repealing laws that really need it.



This post was modified from its original form on 14 Jan, 16:51
1 year ago

Not everyone who opposes eliminating private ownership of firearms completely would stand behind maintaining the law as it is now or, better yet, repealing laws that really need it.



Absolutely agree

1 year ago

As a believer that 'shall not be infringed' means shall not be infringed, that puts me in a position of not relaxing in the least based on poll numbers.

1 year ago

Americans need to stand firm on this issue and as David pointed out, a very high percentage of Americans aren't buying into this.   The liberals have longed for this day for the perfect storm to swoop in and confiscate our guns....that's the second thing a socialist driven country needs to have happen.   The first thing is to grab the country's healthcare.    Once these two are accomplished, we are like sitting ducks with the government controlling all the rest, too.

Remember, Obama was raised by communist leaning people, his grandparents, mother and his biological father was a communist.    Hell, Martin Luther King was a communist.

1 year ago

Diane: You are so right about MLK and he was one of the biggest phonies of the 20th Century as well as not being a very nice person (had a history of woman abuse)! A 'day of remembrance" and a monument on the Mall is an insult to both the country and those who really worked for true civil rights and not the perverted issue that has become (fill in "LGBT rights", "gay marriage", etc).

1 year ago

John, it sucks that we honor a communist like this once a year.   The Black community all but goes into a trance over the mention of his name but he belonged to the communist party....a pure chameleon....but, no, no one really wants to read about that because now he has a monument and a gazillion streets and boulevards named after him.

1 year ago

At the time MLK got whacked in Memphis when there supporting the Sanitation Workers organizing efforts (and not "civil rights"), I knew who he was because I was listening to his efforts to broaden his activities to anti war, income redistribution, and other similar efforts since the so called "civil rights" and "voting rights" legislation were done deals. My only reaction to the incident was being seriously pissed because I was in the Army at the time and we were restricted to post for almost two weeks afterward in case of trouble. MLK was out for MLK period!!!!!!! He was a smoother Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton. Even smoother than Dear Leader Obama!

1 year ago

Diane, may I respectfully correct you.  First they take over the educational system (that has been accomplished), then they take over the health care system and they are on the road to that one and then they take away our guns.  But there is another step, as well, and they are working on that one as well, making us a society that is less mobile.  The one thing that has stopped this from being successful in the past and still will is that the U.S. is a large land mass and that the people living within the continental U.S. are mobile.  There are no restrictions from one state to another and we are free to travel freely.  They have to restrict that mobility, as well, and what better way than slowing and restricting the oil production domestically and making gasolilne prices prohibitive buy having to purchase oil. Thus, people are less likely to travel; air fares become higher than affordable for the majority, and bus and rail transportation becomes prohibitive as well.  We already see that the gas prices effectively limit the travel of the people; as resort owners all over the Country.  

You add these things together and you see just as you said, Government control of the citizens; loss of freedom and communist takeover.  I learned these things on my Grandfather's knee and all the things he and my mother taught me I have seen happen or see happening in the U.S. right now.  What has killed us is apathy and a complacent nature.  It was just too easy to let someone else make the decisions.  You also see the liberal Democrats efforts through entitlements to make the people compeletely dependent on them.  These people don't really understand that the government already owns them and controls them; they are given only what they need to live day to day, etc.

MLK was a product of the Democratic Machine, and Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, etc. are the current arm to control the Black Community and to keep them agitated.  I am sure they have other minority leaders involved in doing the same in their communities; Hispanics, etc.

Good information and John, you brought out good info on MLK; thank you.

1 year ago

Communism was running rampant during the Kennedy years in the whitehouse.  Both JFK and Bobby Kennedy were afraid of MLK and what he represented.  Hoover had all the goods on MLK - even had tapes, etc. on his "extracirricular" activities.  When MLK was planning his "March on Washington" he was summoned to the whitehouse where he was informed of the information that had been obtained.  It is rather interesting that JFK was informing him of his "piccadillios" (sp) (sorta like the pot calling the kettle black) - or perhaps a bit of warning.  One will never know. 

 

And, if you are old enough to remember, it was during the Kennedy years that we had missles in Cuba - compliments of Russia.  Another move on the part of communism.  Does anyone remember the "Cuban Blockade" - very scary time in this country.

 

There were other Democrats who were not MLK fans.  One of those was LBJ.  However, later, LBJ made Civil Rights the cornerstone of his presidential  run for his first term. 

 

And, if you will remember, the Democrats were not enamoured with the idea of the Civil Rights movement.   Bobby Kennedy was in the middle of all the marches, etc.  The integration of schools, etc.    

 

Lee Harvey Oswald was also a known Communist - even belonged to a communistic group in Dallas.   It's really hard to imagine that he wasn't thoroughly checked out before that fateful day in Dallas - when Camelot ended.

 

 

1 year ago
6 hrs ago

John, it sucks that we honor a communist like this once a year.   The Black community all but goes into a trance over the mention of his name but he belonged to the communist party...

Diane, I find it remarkably scary that so many of our black neighbors can't see past black.  It applied then and it applies now.  Race appears to trump everything, as indicated that I know more than 2% of black voters are professing Christians yet voted for the most anti-Christian president ever to cross the threshold into the White House.

1 year ago

Tara Jane: There was a lot of incompetence in the JFK administration and it came right from the top when it came to foreign affairs, They booted the Bay of Pigs and that led to the Soviets putting up the Berlin Wall which set the stage for the Cuban Missile Crisis. The resolution of that was somewhat of a draw since we removed our missiles from Turkey and the Soviets removed theirs from Cuban after we agreed not to topple Castro. The untold story, though, is the Soviets were rethinking the missiles in Cuba anyway since they didn't trust the Cubans not to try seizing them. At least JFK gets credit for tax cuts, a excellent space program, and pushing unconventional warfare training. LBJ was even more incompetent and his administration accomplished nothing positive including the alleged "civil rights" legislation.

Unfortunately MLK has become an icon even if it is not only undeserved but really a perversion. His true nature and agenda have been carefully buried to keep the fiction alive. I've even heard some conservative radio commentators laud the phony "civil rights leader".

1 year ago

John, unfortunately the information regarding the Berlin Wall is incorrect.  The Wall was constructed by the German Democratic Republic (GDR, East Germany) starting on 13 August 1961 (not the Soviet Union). According to the GDR, the Wall was erected to protect its population from fascist elements conspiring to prevent the "will of the people" in building a socialist state in East Germany. In practice, the Wall served to prevent the massive emigration and defection that marked Germany and the communist Eastern Bloc during the post-World War II period. It neither had anything to do with JFK, nor was it the result of the Bay of Pigs.


Your information regarding the Bay of Pigs, otherwise, is correct.

1 year ago

Linda: The Soviets would have to give the go ahead for the Wall especially as Berlin was still a divided city and there was speculation that if the US and other allies had pushed back on the Wall, since the agreement gave all some rights to access the whole city, the Soviets and the GDR would have backed down. JFK actually signaled acceptance of the Wall. The fact that JFK failed two foreign policy tests, the Soviets were emboldened. I think some of the papers that came out after the USSR indicated that was the case. Keep in mind there were agreements in place after the war on access to all of Berlin. Remember the Soviets tried to take over all of Berlin on 1948/1949 and the other occupying powers responded with in the Berlin Airlift.

This thread is archived. To reply to it you must re-activate it.