Speakeasy forum: Here's where gun contol is most needed

The verbosity in our current legislation makes law so cumbersome to try and read and understand that even those who write it won't bother to read it before passing and signing it.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/armament

which includes military equipment and weaponry.

"chemical weapons and other unconventional armaments".

http://forums.cnet.com/7726-6130_102-5398798.html

The rest of your post is yet another typical response that resorts to ad hominem, and relies on more vague statements without supplying any specific, factual rebuttals. And your subsequent posting after I pointed that you were asked for specifics is tacit admission that you have no substantive arguments.

So then you try to shift the debate which you've lost to who has the higher moral ground. But even here you lose the argument because your position is that forcing law-abiding citizens to become helpless victims who are unable to protect themselves is the "moral" thing to do.

Yes, being unable to defend your 15-year-old daughter's life is such a small sacrifice compared to having to catch the bus to work.

......restricting what you can do with a car (how fast you can drive, DUI laws, etc.) and who can get a license. There would be a heck of a lot more DUI deaths if there were no such laws.

One of the biggest deceptions perpetrated by the gun lobby is that we shouldn't legislate at all because no law is going to stop gun violence. Of course not. Nobody thinks gun laws will eliminate gun violence. What they can do is reduce the numbers considerably.

Think it's because of violent video games? Explain Japan then. They buy around twice as many video games as we do, and their homicide rate is one of the lowest in the world.

I don't know how you can legislate Americans' love of guns or the NRA-led paranoiac propaganda that you need an arsenal in your garage in case the federal government starts taking cues from the Third Reich.

Didn't Jim Carrey get American citizenship?

He had no choice where he was born...he had a choice where he applied for citizenship.

I got a few more comebacks if you want, AND I feel like it.

Big Deal. If it keeps up the other way for a couple decades, then maybe it might matter to equal it out.

Maybe we're so divided we fear each other more than we do the government. That there will always be some division is to be expected. I believe, however, that our two major parties have exploited and deepened those divides in order to gain and maintain control of Washington. They do so by exaggerating our differences and turning us on one another. Our media has become the cheering section...egging on the battle in the way we hear of the old Roman games to the death. But people want to arm themselves against other people. When the government solution seems to be to take away a constitutional right, it invites just what we are seeing. There may be a few who'd like to mount an assault on Washington but only because Washington seems to want to take away people's ability to defend themselves in a society they fear is becoming more dangerous. I'd agree it's becoming more dangerous and partly due to the seeming failure to enforce our own laws in an effective manner. Make folks safer from everyday crime and much of this will go away.

Limits are imposed, but manufacturers are still allowed to build cars that go well beyond that speed limit and sell them to make profits.......then law enforcement needing revenue stops a driver for speeding. Government goes hand in hand with auto manufacturers in order to create revenue? Put governors on those vehicles so that they CAN'T go any faster than the fastest speed limit allowed across the country and revenue drops like a rock in a bucket of water.....AND gas prices might come back down because so much wouldn't be wasted on going over that limit. But neither of those solutions help the Democrats and their liberal agendas.

any car that could do over 70?

talking about guns, the comparison is misused by both sides. My point at the time I recalled referring to cars here was totally misunderstood or I stated it badly.

Pro gun are constantly saying cars kill more than guns, we should outlaw cars, as an exaggeration to belittle those who do want more gun control.

Pro gun control groups point out we have more restriction on driving than owning a gun.

The day after Sandy Hook, at work the first discussion I heard was about how there would be an attempt to outlaw some guns and/or ammo. Included was the argument we still make cars that will do over 100 mph although cars kill more than guns. This was the morning after, the first discussion was fear over gun control rather than what, how, or why the guy did it.

Here again there is the argument they still allow cars to be made that will go dangerous speeds even if they have laws against it. But I suspect most who use that argument are actually totally against laws or regulations that would insist a car not be able to do over a set speed.

Arguing more people die from flu than gun violence would just get people thinking you were nuts. Just because something else is worse, doesn't mean the first is ok.

Arguing that xxx kills more than guns actually in the end has little to do with and contributes nothing to the discussion about what gun control there should or should not be.

If you believe there should be no restrictions at all at what can be owned by individuals or who can own it, then using a comparison that cars that go too fast and kill more could be used to argue those individuals would prefer no speed limits or any other restrictions on driving.

Yet no one here would argue you should be allowed to drive totally drunk, at least I don't think they would.

The argument about guns and cars has been totally overused by all on both sides of the gun debate. Some comparison may be useful to express a position since arguably almost everyone in the US would understand car use examples.

But the arguments are often hyperbole to the point they invite ridicule from those that oppose the view expressed or they are intended so sarcastic as to ridicule the opposition.

But nobody has suggested banning guns, or taking the ones you already have away from you. That whole "don't take my guns!" bit is yet more fear-mongering.

I don't see how any president or Congress could attempt to confiscate existing guns. If it was legal when you bought it, then nobody can make you give it up. At best, they could try a voluntary buy-back program. There has been success with those at the state level. The guns would have to be legally registered in order to qualify (so criminals with illegal guns can't turn them in and get paid for them).

You can't drive a NASCAR car on the street; it isn't legal for that. There are rules about what makes a car street-legal.