More Gun Control or More Surveillance?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 04, 2015 12:42 AM GMT
    Ari Fleischer, former press secretary to GWB, says we don't need gun control but we do need to allow our government more surveillance of citizens, of us.

    What do you think?

    Personally, I'm glad to let my government see how many guns I'm buying and how much bomb-making supplies I stockpile. I kinda hope they'll do the same with my neighbors too.

    How much surveillance would you permit?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 04, 2015 1:09 AM GMT
    I honestly don't think there is a solution, except to stop tolerating religion and the grotesque inequality that spawns these nut cases.

    It would take a generation to round up and destroy a reasonable fraction of the assault weapons, and by then you'll probably be able to 3-D print one.

    The anarchists did pretty much the same thing, more than a hundred years ago, with only home-made bombs.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 04, 2015 1:22 AM GMT
    stop tolerating religion

    Hey, that's a bold plan! But I think that stands even less chance than gun control.
  • Triggerman

    Posts: 528

    Dec 04, 2015 2:06 AM GMT
    I am for neither. California has amazingly stringent rules when it comes to guns and criminals and such seem to get them anyway. We have something like 300 gun control laws and each gets lauded by politicians when they pass them. And when they are completely ineffective come the next shooting incident, the same politicians cry for more gun control. 99.9% of gun owners are responsible citizens that own guns for various reasons: personal safety, sport, hunting, ect. So, we take away guns from them or restrict them to stop criminals and fanatical lunatics. It is pissing in the wind and not the answer to the problem but it makes everyone feel good.

    More government spying on private citizens? I live a pretty bland life but I do not want the government to read my emails, my mail, look at my Visa purchases. I am not paranoid but one it is a waste of my taxes to pay some person to monitor me and two, who get's to make the call? The next Republican hand picked Attorney General?

    In a free society, bad actors will surface. No doubt. But should I be restricted from buying fertilizer for my winter lawn because Tim McVeigh blew up a building with ammonia nitrate that he bought from a landscape supply store?

    Also, I have a pet peeve with the media and anyone that talks about guns and ammo that does not know guns and ammo. I have a .22 semi auto rifle that I bought for target shooting 30 years ago. Shooting cans with friends. That is considered an assault weapon. Hardly unless I am assaulting squirrels and I never shoot living things ever. Second, the news reporters will breathlessly say the SHOOTER (in some incident) had 500, 1,000, ect rounds in their apartment, car, home, ect. .22 ammo comes in boxes of 100, 500, ect. If you buy ammo by the case to save money, you could easily have 1,000 bullets in that case. That is an average purchase for most recreational shooters. One day shooting at cans with friends I might shoot 200-300 bullets. But if you are unfamiliar with guns that sounds like a stockpile of ammunition. It is not. It is a case from the sporting goods store so that you can target shoot with a few friends for an hour or so.

    My two cents....
  • SkyMiles

    Posts: 963

    Dec 04, 2015 1:24 PM GMT
    If there was anything else causing this much widespread havoc, shocking death and bloodshed in America it would've been banned by now -- gone the way of lead paint, lawn darts and thalidomide. But because it's guns which occupy such a sacred place in the hearts of many Americans, backed by a powerful lobby in the NRA we can't even talk about even the most modest gun-control proposals like required training, more stringent background checks or outright bans on military type weapons.
    This is not what democracy is supposed to be.
  • TroyAthlete

    Posts: 4269

    Dec 04, 2015 2:00 PM GMT
    Triggerman saidCalifornia has amazingly stringent rules when it comes to guns...In a free society, bad actors will surface. No doubt. But should I be restricted from buying fertilizer for my winter lawn because Tim McVeigh blew up a building with ammonia nitrate that he bought from a landscape supply store


    Not really. No place in this country has truly stringent gun laws, due to the efforts of that toxic white supremacist terrorist group known as the NRA. Paranoid gun nuts do not care as terrorists mow down our families in churches, schools, movie theaters or wherever, so long as "conservatives" can whore themselves out to gun manufacturers and scare idiots into buying more guns.

    The "Tim McVeigh's fertilizer" type analogies are nonsense. Fertilizer has a legitimate purpose outside of blowing people up, and 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the time, fertilizer is used for that purpose.

    The only purpose of guns is to maim, wound, and kill. That is what they are designed to do and what they are used for. Republicans' insistence on allowing those who should not have guns unfettered, unimpeded access to firearms is insane.

  • musclmed

    Posts: 3274

    Dec 04, 2015 2:28 PM GMT
    personally the no fly list/gun ban isnt to me a big deal.
    Nor is the gun show loophole.

    But even before the dead from this attack are in the grave the left demagogue the issue.

    Proposed legislation would not have prevented the recent attack, nor the almost of a dozen attacks since President Obama has been in office.

    The people who oppose gun legislation would argue that current laws are sufficient. And meanwhile while ( mostly the left) propose anything up to a total ban on guns. They simultaneously propose leniency on criminals. The people who by the way are not inhibited by laws.

    President Obama early in his presidency and his administration called alarm to "right wing conservative militias" as the biggest terrorist threat. That predication and focus was woefully wrong and of coursed biased.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 04, 2015 3:43 PM GMT
    theantijock%20engage%20stalker%20reducti

    I'd need more info to even consider if the question has relevancy to every day living, never mind if the question itself is valid and not just more smoke and mirrors.

    homicide rates by personal gun ownership per country
    person freedoms (of gun ownership, of privacy, etc) rated per country
    gun laws enacted per country (& their effectiveness)
    etc.

    Why is the question more gun control vs more surveillance? Why one personal freedom vs another? Will more gun control negate surveillance required to stop or at least reduce terrorism?

    Example pulled out of the hat: Jamaica

    very high in homicides by gun
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

    gun controls in place
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_of_gun_laws_by_nation

    Very little terrorism (well, except against LGBT)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Terrorism_Index

    Not an excellent but not such a bad rating on freedom
    https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2015/jamaica
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 04, 2015 3:44 PM GMT
    Liberals: Since pipe bombs were involved, you need to outlaw pipes to so we'll be returning to this technology:

    gacedaroh2.jpg
    drewbee.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 04, 2015 3:45 PM GMT
    a citizen should own a gun because they need to not because their dick is sub optimal.
    acceptable:
    -You live in an unincorporated area w/o civil services, farm, own a legal grow house operation in town with employees; all justification to legally arm your self.
    not acceptable:
    -People working in the oil fields who are compensated beyond their station have no justification to own a gun because they can afford it.

    Americans always want to feel they invented something. Too late now but law makers should look at governments that have a mix of gun control and availability. Pattern a known successful system to regulate guns and bulk ammunition with a plan to review it in a few years time. Seems any social change here obligates a whole generation of citizens to debate complain about it for the next 20- 30 years.


    icon_idea.gifgovernments and for that matter google and everyone else already are "spying" on you.
  • wellwell

    Posts: 2265

    Dec 04, 2015 3:53 PM GMT
    "F" the regulations; we've already got them, and apparently, they are a complete failure !
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 04, 2015 6:31 PM GMT
    RGR (Sturm Ruger) and SWHC (Smith&Wesson) are the stocks to buy.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 04, 2015 7:31 PM GMT
    FBI announces that the San Bernardino, Calif., massacre is now being treated as "an act of terrorism."
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3274

    Dec 05, 2015 2:08 AM GMT
    mx5guynj saidFBI announces that the San Bernardino, Calif., massacre is now being treated as "an act of terrorism."

    no comment from President....

    The French have the strongest gun control laws on the planet , however were hit 3x in the last year.

    Meanwhile the President demagogues the issue and pivots to gun control which is irrelevant to the current issue.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 05, 2015 8:45 AM GMT

    We just need to tell, the other countries, that "extremism" exists in our country too, in the form of misinterpreting christians (The First Amendment) who misinterpret gun laws (The Second Amendment). Together, they equal the American Terrorist, our founding fathers, fucked up when they created this extremists class of people by leaving such an open ended document, probably unintentionally but ya never know icon_rolleyes.gif



    The BBC is so clearly tired and fed up with gun violence in America
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/03/the-chilling-way-foreign-media-talk-about-gun-violence-in-america/


    It's sobering to hear how others in the world feel about the problems afflicting the place where you live. Especially when the reaction is as telling as the one displayed on air last night--when the BBC began its report about the most recent wave of gun violence in the United States.

    The segment, which covered the shooting in San Bernardino, Calif., where gunmen opened fire on a center for people with developmental disabilities, killing 14 and injuring another 17, opened on a rather ominous and somewhat frustrated note.

    "Just another day in the United States in America—another day of gun fire, panic, and fear. This time in the city of San Bernardino, California, where a civic building was apparently under attack."

    The BBC report, much like other reactions to American gun violence before it, is a chilling reminder that from the outside the problem in America is perhaps a little clearer. While this country experiences a near daily dose of gun-related mass shootings, other countries seem to be growing tired of pretending like they don't have an answer—or at least an inkling—about what is happening with the United States.

    To see these reports is to see a message that the U.S. is entirely exceptional in its gun ownership—it has less than 5 percent of the world's population, but is home to between a third and a half of the world's civilian-owned guns. It's also exceptional in its rate of gun deaths, which is extremely high by international standards. The United Kingdom, meanwhile, which has some of the most stringent gun laws in the world, is home to very few gun deaths
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 05, 2015 8:52 AM GMT
    ^We just have to explain our country in the simplest terms icon_rolleyes.gificon_redface.gif




  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14327

    Dec 05, 2015 3:14 PM GMT
    I say more stringent gun control is the better option. I also think the minimum age of carrying a concealed weapon should be twenty-five (25) years. Too many young adults under 25 are prone to committing violent crime. The maturity level of most of today's 18 to 24 year olds is quite substandard and leaves a lot to be desired. We do not need more surveillance, this is not the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea).
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19119

    Dec 05, 2015 4:52 PM GMT
    I vote a combination of the two. We need smart gun control while still protecting 2nd amendment, to keep guns out of people who simply shouldn't have them. We also need smart surveillance that is minimally intrusive but gets the job done.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 05, 2015 6:04 PM GMT
    SkyMiles said we can't even talk about even the most modest gun-control proposals


    True, it's sort of like talking about smaller government.

    However if I remember correctly California has gun control laws.

    Experts have theorized that the Charlie Hebdo attackers in Paris obtained their Kalashnikovs illegally through the black market, and that the weapons had been smuggled in from Eastern Europe. A Washington Post article from last January estimates that there are now twice as many illegal guns as there legal ones in France.

    Do you think it would be different in the US?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 05, 2015 9:34 PM GMT
    If you look at the non-skewed statistics, gun violence isn't quite as much of a problem as it's made out to be. There's work to be done, sure, but we're certainly not on the level of Honduras.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 06, 2015 12:24 AM GMT
    " we're certainly not on the level of Honduras."

    We've had fewer terror attacks than Pakistan too.

    Thanks for your perspective. I think we all feel better now.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 06, 2015 3:30 AM GMT
    "More Gun Control or More Surveillance?"

    false dichotomy
  • tj85016

    Posts: 4123

    Dec 06, 2015 6:02 PM GMT
    jock203 said"More Gun Control or More Surveillance?"

    false dichotomy


    yep, eventually you loose both 2nd Amendment rights and privacy rights
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 06, 2015 7:34 PM GMT
    jock203 said"More Gun Control or More Surveillance?"

    false dichotomy


    Yes, you are correct. I forgot to mention the other options:

    PRAY that the ISIS fighters find JESUS.

    PRAY for the victims of gun violence/pipe bomb-violence and any other kind of violence caused by lunatics.


    Can you suggest any other options besides any form of gun control or surveillance or prayer?
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3274

    Dec 06, 2015 7:50 PM GMT
    HappyNomad said
    jock203 said"More Gun Control or More Surveillance?"

    false dichotomy


    Yes, you are correct. I forgot to mention the other options:

    PRAY that the ISIS fighters find JESUS.

    PRAY for the victims of gun violence/pipe bomb-violence and any other kind of violence caused by lunatics.


    Can you suggest any other options besides any form of gun control or surveillance or prayer?


    A big government solution is more laws. Currently we dont have a deficit of laws. We have an administration that sets a dangerous tone throughout its time in office. One of being a benefactor and hypersensitive to the words, Jihad, Islam, Muslim etc.

    Unshackled the CIA/FBI and law enforcement know how to protect us.

    This is from the former Nasa Adminstrator. Now what does ISLAM have to do with Space.... Very little actually, despite revisionist history it is historically accurate that very little science or math was inspired by Islam. After an area was conquered the knowledge was just assimilated.

    "When I became the NASA administrator, (President Obama) charged me with three things. One, he wanted me to help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math; he wanted me to expand our international relationships; and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math and engineering."

    Really, Nasa's job is to make a whole culture feel good.

    So after 7 years of a cultural war Obama is left with a terrorist mess. He would have us believe that the answer now is that we just need some gun laws.

    In fact it would be better right now since his inclination is to try to be a guidance counselor to the Muslim world Obama would help us out to do nothing. Yes please do NOTHING. Hit a few hundred golf balls here in Palm Springs and we will sort it out in 2016.