Opinions/Editorials
See other Opinions/Editorials Articles
Title: Libertysflame's Question of the Day: If we ban guns will there be an increase in knife related deaths?
Source:
[None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Dec 24, 2012
Author: A K A Stone
Post Date: 2012-12-24 00:45:54 by A K A Stone
Keywords: None
Views: 31905
Comments: 78
So I was thinking about all this talk of banning guns. If they ban guns do you think that there will be an increase in knife violence? I do. I know it If you are going to kill someone you are going to do it. Murder has existed since the first family. It will always exist. It is already against the law to kill someone. So by outlawing guns you are just taking peoples rights away and leaving them defenseless to someone can simply print out a gun and kill you anyways. It is pointless. Or is there an ulterior motive? 1. Would there be an increase in knife violence if guns were banned. (note you are dumb if you think they will stop with the guns currently targeted). 2. What is that ulterior motive?
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: A K A Stone (#0)
Banning guns in the USA, and confiscating them are two different things, and that damn well isn't going to happen over night, nor do I believe, in my lifetime. jmho! "The Idiots Who Say It's Physically Impossible To Find 15 Million Illegal Aliens Are The Same Idiots That Think They Are Going To Find And Confiscate 300 Million Guns" - BIGFURHAT
(“You can't always control who walks into your life but, you can control which window you throw them out of.”)
Confiscating guns? Why? Who would suggest such a thing?
We're set. Expecting yeast to moderate it's growth and save, create redundancy is unrealistic......;} It is now two days until Christmas, and as I was casting about for something to write about today, I got so depressed that I thought I'd write this little essay instead. Over my entire lifetime, I can not remember a time when the Holiday Season was as dreary as it is in 2012. The reason is simple—there is nothing to celebrate. Nothing at all. America is a defeated nation, and its self-defeating behavior is everywhere on display. The 2012 election charade, which changed nothing, morphed seamlessly into a Fiscal Cliff charade which only proves beyond a shadow of doubt that nothing changed. This silly debate is the latest distraction "designed" to give Americans the impression that important changes are afoot. Nothing could be further from the truth. This country's fate was cast in stone decades ago. No current policy debate changes our fate in the slightest, but these sham debates do serve to remind us of how helpless we feel. As if that weren't depressing enough, the ghastly massacre at an elementary school in Newtown is still fresh in our minds, and has now morphed into the usual, futile gun control debate. peakwatch.typepad.com/decline_of_the_empire/ “Evil in Our Backyard:” The Rudi Dekkers Dossier Posted on December 21, 2012 by Daniel Hopsicker When Rudi Dekkers, the man who ran the flight school where terrorists who crashed airliners into the Twin Towers learned to fly was arrested for drug trafficking in Houston last week, one of the first congratulatory calls I received, after covering his continuing criminal activity for the past ten years, was from his son.
"They" won't ban all guns, not even most guns. So the question of knife violence is a completely different matter. I certainly do not have many answers with regard to gun control ...... But I do believe that there are some steps that can be taken that might make some sense, from a big picture perspective. For instance, effective at a certain date in the near future, all firearms must be registered. The registration must be renewed each year, and a registration tax must be paid. Additionally, all gun owners must pass a competency test, and carry specific liability insurance. In the course of normal law enforcement, when guns are discovered, absent valid registration and proof of insurance, the individual in possession of the firearm will be charged with a crime, and the weapon in question would be confiscated. Obtaining a firearm would become much more challenging, requiring a more in depth background check, including medical and criminal history, and a semi- annual drug and alcohol screening. (at the gun-owners' expense) Qualifying for Concealed Carry permits would require additional proof of competency, higher levels of liability insurance, a more thorough background investigation and registration with law-enforcement. Reasonable?
In the course of normal law enforcement, when guns are discovered, absent valid registration and proof of insurance, the individual in possession of the firearm will be charged with a crime, and the weapon in question would be confiscated. I don't think that is reasonable at all. In your scenario since it obviously violates the second amendment. You would want a constitutional amendment to implement this correct?
obviously? Not obvious at all. While I am not an expert on constitutional law, I don't see how the simple registration of an object violates anyone's rights.....
What is a constitutional scholar? It is someone who is "taught" something that is not true about the constitution. You only have to know the English language. It is not a complicated document. Lawyers use words to try and make it complicated and mean something that it doesn't. infringe [jnÈfrjnd’] vb 1. (tr) to violate or break (a law, an agreement, etc.) 2. (intr; foll by on or upon) to encroach or trespass Would what you suggested about the second amendment be constitutional to put those restrictions on say free speech?
Because you are saying that you have to give them your information to exercise that right. A right is something that can't be taken away. It is a pre existing natural right. Remember we are to be free from unreasonable searches of our papers persona and affects. If the right to bear arms can't be infringed. Then it would take a court ordered search warrant to lawfully get that information. You are proposing a law to do that. A law that is plain as day unconstitutional.
You do realize that Hitler registered the guns too? Do you not see a danger in that?
you are saying that you have to give them your information to exercise that right. Gun registration would not take away anyone's right. . Requiring personal accountability and responsibility for ownership of a deadly weapon is simply common sense. As a proud law-abiding American I would feel that it was my patriotic duty to do what is right and register my weapons, pay my taxes and provide the appropriate liability insurance. I suspect that many of the people who would be reluctant to registering their weapons would probably have serious "issues" that would possibly prevent them from gun ownership.
Straw man - irrelevant
It is not irrelevant and it is not a straw man. It is historical. It shows the nature of man. History repeats itself.
I suspect that many of the people who would be reluctant to registering their weapons would probably have serious "issues" that would possibly prevent them from gun ownership. It isn't patriotic to obey an illegal government screwing with God given rights. I would suggest it is unpatriotic to register your gun.
There will be if foolish criminals use a knife to attack people who didn't give their guns up.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
So you are saying that people with violent tendencies are prone to use guns? I thought all violent criminals were liberals. And liberals don't own guns.
Almost every country in the Middle East is awash in oil, and we have to side with the one that has nothing but joos. Goddamn, that was good thinkin'. Esso posted on 2012-01-13 7:37:56 ET
Of course. A very reasonable request. After all,when has that never worked out and led to gun confiscation after the various governments that have done this found out where all the guns are. Nothing to see here,people. Move on. In the course of normal law enforcement, when guns are discovered, absent valid registration and proof of insurance, the individual in possession of the firearm will be charged with a crime, and the weapon in question would be confiscated. Nothing wrong with that,either. Makes good sense and it is very reasonable and moderate approach to solving all the violence in this country. After all,if people knew that murdering other people was illegal,surely nobody would commit murder,right? There is one pesky little thing standing in the way of this,though. The US Constitution,which says this is a RIGHT,not a privledge. While you are at it,which of the other 9 Bill of Rights do you want to nullify? Obtaining a firearm would become much more challenging, requiring a more in depth background check, including medical and criminal history, and a semi- annual drug and alcohol screening. (at the gun-owners' expense) Good idea! This will keep all of those poor darkies and rednecks from having guns,and our bodyguards get to keep theirs. The very people who need to defend themselves the most. Excellent idea! Other than that "equal protection under the law" nonsense,that is. Qualifying for Concealed Carry permits would require additional proof of competency, higher levels of liability insurance, a more thorough background investigation and registration with law-enforcement. Reasonable? VERY reasonable and sensible. IF you are a Nazi or a Stalinist.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Your Korean heros in that photo you posted on that other thread were on the side of the GOVERNMENT.
Almost every country in the Middle East is awash in oil, and we have to side with the one that has nothing but joos. Goddamn, that was good thinkin'. Esso posted on 2012-01-13 7:37:56 ET
You would want a constitutional amendment to implement this correct? Who cares? Obviously the last several presidents didn't and don't give a damn about it other than to hate it for stopping them from doing what they wanted to do.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
It will and it does. Only a fool or a liar would claim it doesn't. Which is it in your case?
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Guns, knives, fists, gasoline, automobiles matches. There are more murders by knife and feet then guns. FBI Crime statistics.
So what. The government isn't always wrong. I know you side with the rioters and say they had a just cause.
TNT.
And I agree. None of mine are registered,and will never be registered as long as I own them. Or even after I own them. I have recently started to give away some of the ones I never carry or shoot to the adult children of friends. People I know who are under the radar screen and who will never register them,either. I recently gave away a 1930's S&W 22lr "kit gun" with a 6 inch barrel to the son of a dead friend of mine who is currently in college. Very nice kid who is very conservative and who is holding a 4.0 grade average. I hadn't even shot the damn thing in 20 years,so I gave it to somebody who would shoot it. Being in college,a 22 is about all he can afford to shoot. I highly recommend that others start to do this,too.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Sure they do,and you are wrong about something else,too. They are NOT liberal in ANY sense of the word. They are communists or communists adult brother,fascists. *I* am a liberal,not you or they.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
There are more murders by knife and feet then guns. FBI Crime statistics. I never said that there wasn't. BUT the conservative position is that the violent criminal element that prefers guns as it's weapon of choice tends to be more liberal than conservative and that the gun owning public tends to be very much more conservative than liberal. Both fallacies BTW but plenty believe them to be true. Just like you still think I'm Lucy.
Almost every country in the Middle East is awash in oil, and we have to side with the one that has nothing but joos. Goddamn, that was good thinkin'. Esso posted on 2012-01-13 7:37:56 ET
They are NOT liberal in ANY sense of the word. They are communists or communists adult brother,fascists. *I* am a liberal,not you or they. Why... there are Commies under every bed now, and you need to kill a few more for Mommy.
Almost every country in the Middle East is awash in oil, and we have to side with the one that has nothing but joos. Goddamn, that was good thinkin'. Esso posted on 2012-01-13 7:37:56 ET
I don't recall anyone making that argument. But it is probably true as conservatives have better morals. For example "liberals" see nothing wrong with killing a kid. They think it is a right.
Should 3d printers be illegal?
The conservative movement now claims the violent criminal element as their own? LOLOL I must have missed that. Actually the Tea Party's corporate owners have NO morals.
Almost every country in the Middle East is awash in oil, and we have to side with the one that has nothing but joos. Goddamn, that was good thinkin'. Esso posted on 2012-01-13 7:37:56 ET
There are lots of liberal gun owners. A good friend of mine who's a liberal, went out and bought a Chinese AK-47 just before the AW ban took effect in the '90's. He loaded up a hi-cap mag and started blasting at the rocks on the other side of the arroyo about 20 feet away, until a ricochet broke a bottle of Bullseye barbeque sauce sitting on the tailgate between two people. We gave him a few gun safety tips, but he's still a hardcore liberal.
Should files and tempered steel pipe be illegal?
Almost every country in the Middle East is awash in oil, and we have to side with the one that has nothing but joos. Goddamn, that was good thinkin'. Esso posted on 2012-01-13 7:37:56 ET
You sure lie a lot. Do you have a conscience?
There are lots of liberal gun owners. I used to work for this restoration company. There was one liberal Jim. He was for Clinton and hated Bush. Had that bumper sticker "To hell with the environment re elect George Bush. He was liberal on almost everything. But he wasn't on guns. He was very pro second amendment. He was a good guy too. Learned a lot from him.
For example?
Your Korean heros in that photo you posted on that other thread were on the side of the GOVERNMENT. So what. The government isn't always wrong. I know you side with the rioters and say they had as just cause. I said THEY thought they had a just cause. Someday you will learn to discuss topics without always having to put your biases into it. And you sided with cops and and said they had as just a cause. Like the safety of the general populace.
Almost every country in the Middle East is awash in oil, and we have to side with the one that has nothing but joos. Goddamn, that was good thinkin'. Esso posted on 2012-01-13 7:37:56 ET
CEOs routinely put their morals aside for the good of the corporation and stockholders which in all cases is to return a profit. Making money for the owners is always their primary concern, and their legally bound fiduciary duty.
Almost every country in the Middle East is awash in oil, and we have to side with the one that has nothing but joos. Goddamn, that was good thinkin'. Esso posted on 2012-01-13 7:37:56 ET
For example?
How can you be in favor of a movement run by corporations with their corresponding new found "rights" as "individuals" yet not know anything about the legal responsibilities that those same corporationss have to their owners?
Almost every country in the Middle East is awash in oil, and we have to side with the one that has nothing but joos. Goddamn, that was good thinkin'. Esso posted on 2012-01-13 7:37:56 ET
I guess the silly question I have is how do you plan on making all the criminals register their firearms??? All you are doing is making it harder for the average person to defend themselves adequately from the people I mentioned in the above sentence... And if you think the police are going to solve the problem by responding faster well that ain't gonna happen either, some people live "HOURS" from police response!! Of course I know you don't see it that way because you think that what you think is right even though it's wrong, and that you also think money grows on trees!!!
“We have four boxes with which to defend our freedom: the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the ammunition box.”
All you are doing is making it harder for the average person to defend themselves adequately from the people I mentioned in the above sentence... And if you think the police are going to solve the problem by responding faster well that ain't gonna happen either, some people live "HOURS" from police response!! Of course I know you don't see it that way because you think that what you think is right even though it's wrong, and that you also think money grows on trees!!! Why can't we follow Israel's lead on this one?
Almost every country in the Middle East is awash in oil, and we have to side with the one that has nothing but joos. Goddamn, that was good thinkin'. Esso posted on 2012-01-13 7:37:56 ET
And what would that be anyway???
“We have four boxes with which to defend our freedom: the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the ammunition box.”
Comments (42 - 78) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest"So I was thinking about all this talk of banning guns. If they ban guns do you think that there will be an increase in knife violence?"
#2. To: Murron (#1)
#3. To: A K A Stone (#0)
#4. To: A K A Stone (#0)
So I was thinking about all this talk of banning guns. If they ban guns do you think that there will be an increase in knife violence?
#5. To: Jameson (#4)
For instance, effective at a certain date in the near future, all firearms must be registered. The registration must be renewed each year, and a registration tax must be paid. Additionally, all gun owners must pass a competency test, and carry specific liability insurance.
#6. To: A K A Stone (#5)
In your scenario since it obviously violates the second amendment.
#7. To: Jameson (#6)
#8. To: Jameson (#6)
I don't see how the simple registration of an object violates anyone's rights.....
#9. To: Jameson (#4)
#10. To: A K A Stone (#8)
#11. To: A K A Stone (#9)
#12. To: Jameson (#11)
Straw man - irrelevant
#13. To: Jameson (#10)
Gun registration would not take away anyone's right. . Requiring personal accountability and responsibility for ownership of a deadly weapon is simply common sense. As a proud law-abiding American I would feel that it was my patriotic duty to do what is right and register my weapons, pay my taxes and provide the appropriate liability insurance.
#14. To: A K A Stone (#0)
#15. To: A K A Stone (#0)
(Edited)
#16. To: Jameson (#4)
For instance, effective at a certain date in the near future, all firearms must be registered.
#17. To: A K A Stone (#13)
It isn't patriotic to obey an illegal government screwing with God given rights. I would suggest it is unpatriotic to register your gun.
#18. To: A K A Stone, Jameson (#5)
In your scenario since it obviously violates the second amendment.
#19. To: Jameson (#10)
Gun registration would not take away anyone's right.
#20. To: mininggold (#15)
So you are saying that people with violent tendencies are prone to use guns?
#21. To: mininggold (#17)
Your Korean heros in that photo you posted on that other thread were on the side of the GOVERNMENT.
#22. To: mininggold (#15)
#23. To: A K A Stone (#13)
I would suggest it is unpatriotic to register your gun.
#24. To: mininggold (#15)
And liberals don't own guns.
#25. To: A K A Stone (#20)
Guns, knives, fists, gasoline, automobiles matches.
#26. To: sneakypete (#24)
Sure they do,and you are wrong about something else,too.
#27. To: mininggold (#25)
BUT the conservative position is that the violent criminal element that prefers guns as it's weapon of choice tends to be more liberal than conservative
#28. To: mininggold (#26)
#29. To: A K A Stone (#27)
I don't recall anyone making that argument. But it is probably true as conservatives have better morals. For example "liberals" see nothing wrong with killing a kid. They think it is a right.
#30. To: mininggold (#15)
liberals don't own guns.
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#31. To: A K A Stone (#28)
Should 3d printers be illegal?
#32. To: mininggold (#29)
The conservative movement now claims the violent criminal element as their own? LOLOL I must have missed that.
#33. To: hondo68 (#30)
liberals don't own guns.
#34. To: mininggold (#29)
Actually the Tea Party's corporate owners have NO morals.
#35. To: A K A Stone (#21)
(Edited)
To: mininggold
#36. To: A K A Stone (#34)
For example?
#37. To: mininggold (#36)
CEOs routinely put their morals aside for the good of the corporation and stockholders
#38. To: A K A Stone (#37)
(Edited)
For example?
#39. To: Jameson, AKA Stone, sneakypete (#4)
For instance, effective at a certain date in the near future, all firearms must be registered. The registration must be renewed each year, and a registration tax must be paid. Additionally, all gun owners must pass a competency test, and carry specific liability insurance.
#40. To: CZ82 (#39)
I guess the silly question I have is how do you plan on making all the criminals register their firearms???
#41. To: mininggold (#40)
Why can't we follow Israel's lead on this one?
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]