patrick.net

Why can't Diane just be honest and say she doesn't want people other than her own bodyguards, and those of the other elites to own firearms?

Maybe she thinks if people don't have guns then she won't need armed bodyguards. Two problems solved.

Right, because nobody has ever been assaulted or murdered till guns were invented.

People who are the targets of assassination / kidnapping attempts will always need body guards. This includes pretty much anybody who is very famous and most people who are very wealthy.

If regular people didn't have guns, the bodyguards would still be necessary, but they wouldn't need guns.

Anyway, she's a politician, she's just saying what the people who vote for her want. There's a reason why she keeps getting elected.

Call it Crazy says

Kevin says

There's a reason why she keeps getting elected.

Yup, and that speaks volumes about the people in her state!!

Yeah, they don't like guns. This isn't news to anyone, and it doesn't matter. As a senator, she's doing a good job for her constituents, and representing their views. It's that simple.

As a non-californian, I'd much rather have people like feinstein making laws that affect me than ignorant, backwards, fact-challenged dipshits like Inhofe.

Call it Crazy says

Vaticanus says

Right, because nobody has ever been assaulted or murdered till guns were invented.

Exactly!!

Even today, only 2/3 of murders are by guns, why aren't people screaming out about the other 1/3?? Are those other murders considered O.K.??? Just wondering....

......"Roughly 16,272 murders were committed in the United States during 2008. Of these, about 10,886 or 67% were committed with firearms.[11]"

Because the other things that people are murdered with have practical purposes, and there are many different items. Guns represent a disproportionate portion of murders. If something else was responsible for the most murders, people would focus on that.

The only practical purpose of a firearm is killing. It doesn't matter if it's killing someone in self-defense, killing an animal for food, or killing someone during a bank robbery. It's a weapon.

A knife, baseball bat, hammer, or automobile is not inherently a weapon. There's a difference.

Call it Crazy says

Where I have a problem is, that these same people who are fearful of guns, ignorant and uneducated about guns want to ban OTHER people's ability to purchase and own them. I don't force MY beliefs on them and tell them what to own or not own, but the anti-gun crowd wants to force their beliefs on others.

Isn't that exactly what Republicans do....force their beliefs on others eg. gay marriage and abortion rights?

Call it Crazy says

Even today, only 2/3 of murders are by guns, why aren't people screaming out about the other 1/3?? Are those other murders considered O.K.??? Just wondering....

Because 2/3rds is twice as large as 1/3rd and easily stopped with a gun ban.

Vaticanus says

Right, because nobody has ever been assaulted or murdered till guns were invented.

It could be because until guns were invented no one has been able to murder 20 kids in 20 seconds. Don't you think our laws should change along with changing technology?

Call it Crazy says

Yes it does matter, A LOT....

Welcome to democracy. If you'd rather live in a country where people with different beliefs than you don't have any influence on the law, try living in Saudi Arabia.

Call it Crazy says

Go take a look at the FBI data...

Please point me at the "FBI data" that says that automobiles, hammers, baseball bats, or knives are weapons. Go on, I'll be waiting.

Call it Crazy says

Vaticanus says

Right, because nobody has ever been assaulted or murdered till guns were invented.

Exactly!!

Even today, only 2/3 of murders are by guns, why aren't people screaming out about the other 1/3?? Are those other murders considered O.K.??? Just wondering....

......"Roughly 16,272 murders were committed in the United States during 2008. Of these, about 10,886 or 67% were committed with firearms.[11]"

This assumes that many of the so-called suicides are not actually murders. We have about thirty thousand people killed by guns every year. How can all these be properly investigated?

Kevin says

Please point me at the "FBI data" that says that automobiles, hammers, baseball bats, or knives are weapons. Go on, I'll be waiting.

Here- http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-11
Please educate yourself about the facts of this issue. People manage to murder each other without firearms.

What is more difficult is protecting your self from violence without them.
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#crime
From this report:
"A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 0.5% of households had members who had used a gun for defense during a situation in which they thought someone "almost certainly would have been killed" if they "had not used a gun for protection." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 162,000 such incidents per year. "

I'm all for stricter car and traffic laws. It should be way harder to get the privilege to drive. All cars should have a breathalyzer deactivation system to prevent drunk driving. Making owning an automobile more difficult would result in more efficient public transportation. There are way too many vehicles on the planet and it is only going to get worse.

Its not a "fact" that any o those things are inherently weapons. A weapon is something that is designed primarily yo injure or kill. A sword or a gun are examples.

An automobile is designed for transportation. Using it to kill or injure someone is using it in a manner inconsistent with its intended purpose.

A firearm is designed to kill (or at least injure). Using it to kill or injure someone is using it as intended.

That's the difference. It's what makes a weapon a weapon in the first place.

"sporting" uses of firearms were invented after the fact. Nobody was sitting around going "man, we have these targets. Now we just need something to hit them with!"

Kevin says

"sporting" uses of firearms were invented after the fact.

Sorry, but blowing stuff up was the original intended purpose of gun powder, and projectiles. The canon was for attacking walls, and ship hulls, it was a tool.

Even early pistols were fitted with a bayonet, as were muskets.

Now where the lethal aspects of guns came in was during the Civil War when wholesale slaughter was commited by weapons, then we had the revolver, and Winchester to wipe out huge swaths of people.

So really guns are the short timers in the art of war, and now they have been religated behind smart bombs, nukes, and even chemicals.

The fire arms today really are more for sport than weapons of mass destruction.

The United States has glamorized guns as a way to settle scores, seek vengence, or for protection. That glamour is really what should be changed.

I personally don't carry a gun, and haven't for years. I pay attention out on the street, and do have a baseball bat for home protection. If any one is really interested in revenge taking away the guns won't change that.

There are a lot of ways to kill that are even less personal than a gun.

David Losh says

Sorry, but blowing stuff up was the original intended purpose of gun powder, and projectiles. The canon was for attacking walls, and ship hulls, it was a tool.

Even early pistols were fitted with a bayonet, as were muskets.

What the hell are you talking about? Those are still uses that squarely qualify as "weapons".

Early firearms had bayonets because they weren't very good at killing people. They were still designed as weapons to hurt.

"ATTACKING" walls and hulls isn't a "tool". It's a WEAPON. The idea that the cannon was invented for anything other than a weapon of warfare is ridiculous.

Gun powder isn't a firearm. Explosives have many practical uses other than killing that are essential to society.

Kevin says

Gun powder isn't a firearm.

You really have a blind spot here in terms of war, as both a business, and an industry. All I'm really saying is that guns have been around for a relatively short amount of time in terms of killing. The time for guns has been surpassed by other bombs, that's the warfare you are seeing today.

You're saying guns weren't for sport, but yes they were, and are. It's the new nifty thing.

What I actually mean by your blind spot is that you are glossing over the glamour of guns in our society. The American Revolution, as opposed to the French Revolution, the Civil War, the Wild West, Prohibition, and Viet nam, complete with the radical movement that, yes, included guns, and bombings.

It's the glamour of the gun that is the problem here. We look at it as sacred. How are you going to fix that? Make it more underground?

No, you have to address the root problem rather than the tool.

They are coming for our guns. Anyone ever shoot down a drone?

David Losh says

You really have a blind spot here in terms of war, as both a business, and an industry. All I'm really saying is that guns have been around for a relatively short amount of time in terms of killing. The time for guns has been surpassed by other bombs, that's the warfare you are seeing today.

That doesn't change the fact that guns are weapons. It's why they exist.

David Losh says

It's the glamour of the gun that is the problem here. We look at it as sacred. How are you going to fix that? Make it more underground?

That is exactly what I've been saying for a hundred posts now, actually...

Kevin says

A weapon is something that is designed primarily yo injure or kill. A sword or a gun are examples.

Alongside bagpipes and women named Bobbi Jo.

Kevin says

That doesn't change the fact that guns are weapons. It's why they exist.

Actually guns are like a hundred other weapons. They start out as something useful, and end up being villians in a long plot to kill people. You're debating against bombs made of fertilizer, or Sarin gas, even airplanes directed at the World Trade Centers.

Kevin says

David Losh says

It's the glamour of the gun that is the problem here. We look at it as sacred. How are you going to fix that? Make it more underground?

That is exactly what I've been saying for a hundred posts now, actually...

What you have been saying is that the guns are the problem.

The problem is we have a government heavily invested in manufacturing military weapons. Colt doesn't just come up with an AR 15 because hunters will use it. The AR 15, is a cheaper version of the M 16 which has been replaced with the M 4. So there are thousands of surplus military weapons in the system that we export.

You're not looking at the business of war, or how the United States government itself justifies an armed society.

We could maybe make a discussion about how when our police force changed from revolvers to Glocks they escalated the need for criminals to increase the capacity of the weapons they had.

It's a vicious circle, but if our government really wanted to do something they would address the escalation of violence rather than the weapons.

Here is another one from a different era... resembles Feinstein and Obama.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/CuaRGtIrM9U

HEY YOU says

They are coming for our guns. Anyone ever shoot down a drone?

You have to remember your history. Our government had no problem when they could to order executions or imprisonments of those who they found very inconvenient.

Guns make that task a lot more inconvenient forcing government to act more cautions and more humane in order not to spark violence.

David Losh says

Actually guns are like a hundred other weapons. They start out as something useful, and end up being villians in a long plot to kill people. You're debating against bombs made of fertilizer, or Sarin gas, even airplanes directed at the World Trade Centers.

What was the non-weapon use for guns that they "started as"?

The primary use for guns is to kill things. Soldiers, hunters, home defenders. Target practice is a secondary use (and its practice for killing things!)

The primary use for fertilizer and airplanes is not to kill things.

Thats a huge difference.

David Losh says

What you have been saying is that the guns are the problem.

No, I haven't. Check my post history.

robertoaribas says

get some education in thinking.

Having gun rights is not up to a debate, it's a right.

And education in thinking, that does sound very soviet communist.

robertoaribas says

So, whenever you want to quit being an idiot, feel free to actually join the adults

You mean adults like you and the 121212, both of whom like to indulge in personal insults against disagreement to further their points... Your points are more sophisticated then say 121212, but still childlike sarcastic insults.

An adult, at least socially in our generation, is someone who can handle responsibility, ability you are not demonstrating.

Kevin says

What was the non-weapon use for guns that they "started as"?

To blow stuff up, and blow holes in stuff.

You have that blind spot about war.

Nukes started as some do good salvation, now they are a weapon of very mass destruction.

The gun was refined from a cannon.

The projectile isn't relevant.

I'll also say again that the gun, rifle, or cannon have been around a very short time in the big scheme of things, and is very possibly obsolete.

Kevin says

David Losh says

What you have been saying is that the guns are the problem.

No, I haven't. Check my post history.

I have read your comments. If there is a point other than guns bad I'm missing it.

FortWayne says

Here is another one from a different era... resembles Feinstein and Obama.

Your such a fucking moron! How do you expect to have a conversation!

FortWayne says

You mean adults like you and the 121212, both of whom like to indulge in personal insults against disagreement to further their points... Your points are more sophisticated then say 121212, but still childlike sarcastic insults.

An adult, at least socially in our generation, is someone who can handle responsibility, ability you are not demonstrating.

Get off you high horse you suck and so do your anti gay, pro gun opinions.

Another foolish racist bigot.

robertoaribas says

are you really that clueless? that incapable of debating even say background checks on gun buying, that you have to go this route? if so, you should quit posting for a while, and get some education in thinking.

Many racist bigots like FortHood and others on this forum believe they have the moral high ground. It must be a religious zelot thing!

FortWayne says

Your points are more sophisticated then say 121212, but still childlike sarcastic insults.

They are the same dim witted son of a bitch. He's very angry at me, because I got him fired twice. When he was paid to come here and attack conservatives. He's an internet political schiel but sucks at it. He can't engage anyone on a level any deeper than a bedpan. Which is where his posts always end up, just a big ole shit slinging angry protest stink.
I would challenge him to post one thought out post that didn't involve him railing against someone. No I'm not talking about coherence here, just anything even if I didn't agree with he has to say.

Pathetic moron, lunatic. The dim fuck every time he posts in my threads I dislike him then delete. His dislikes goes up while his post count goes down. It gives me great pleasure to delete them.

If this is contest about who can waste the most amount of time, I would still win, because AT LEAST I HAVE JOB!.

FortWayne says

Here is another one from a different era... resembles Feinstein and Obama.

That is so odd-you must not have watched that video . He speaks tea party language- watch from 18sec to 48 -typical tea party jargon.

CaptainShuddup says

because I got him fired twice

Delusional fool. I am self employed unlike you.

CaptainShuddup says

He's an internet political schiel

You know nothing, as usual.

CaptainShuddup says

He can't engage anyone on a level any deeper than a bedpan

Have you looked in the mirror, BIGOT!

CaptainShuddup says

If this is contest about who can waste the most amount of time, I would still win, because AT LEAST I HAVE JOB!.

Delusional, Lunatic, Moron, Racist bigot.

Back to work with you. You employed slave.

robertoaribas says

NOTHING that Obama proposes will interfere with your or my right to own guns. Nothing.

But is any of it effective? Or does that not matter, we just have to do "something".

Robert Sproul says

But is any of it effective? Or does that not matter, we just have to do "something".

That's right, we have to do something, immediately and not stop!

Thedaytoday says

Many racist bigots like FortHood and others on this forum believe they have the moral high ground. It must be a religious zelot thing!

have you looked into the mirror lately... you certainly will find a zealot alright.

lostand confused says

That is so odd-you must not have watched that video . He speaks tea party language- watch from 18sec to 48 -typical tea party jargon.

Tea party talks about small government, private enterprise. Hitler was talking about socializing everything. And by the way, Hitler did disarm civilian population through an equivalent of executive orders at that time.