Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page:  « First  ‹ Previous  1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (5 total)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Lanikai
Hang on Help is on the way
04:04 PM on 09/02/2012
Wow a sensible approach to the regulation of guns. But I would say that our forefathers would probably disarm everyone and get order immediately. Then create an approach to reinstate the right to safely own a gun for hunting and home protection.
photo
Dimensio
I just don't know what went wrong!
04:36 PM on 09/02/2012
Wow a sensible approach to the regulation of guns.
Any assessment of Mr. Sanghoee's unreasonable suggestion that civilians be restricted to one firearm each and that ammunition sales be substantially limited despite ammunition being easily manufactured privately as "sensible" demonstrates only fundamental ignorance regarding firearms technology and usage.
But I would say that our forefathers would probably disarm everyone and get order immediately. Then create an approach to reinstate the right to safely own a gun for hunting and home protection.
That you "say" such is evidence of nothing other than your own unreasonable position.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Lanikai
Hang on Help is on the way
05:53 PM on 09/02/2012
Do you have a better plan and idea?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Lanikai
Hang on Help is on the way
06:08 PM on 09/03/2012
Yes I know what an assault weapon is. Automatic or semi automatic, large clip. What use besides military is this necessary in the USA? Who needs this weapon to protect their home? Target shoot? Hunt? Tell me? Why is this necessary and the average citizen able to buy this over the internet? Because they hide behind the 2 amendment? have a right to bare arm?, are paranoia that the enemy will invade? Belong to an unregistered militia? Want to take over the gov? Want to kill with rapid fire innocent americans in a theater? Why? paranoia? delusion, derangement, mental illness? Who profits from the sale of this weapon?
photo
Dimensio
I just don't know what went wrong!
08:30 PM on 09/03/2012
"Assault weapon", as defined by all proposed and enacted state and federal legislation, applies exclusively to semi-automatic firearms, not to automatic firearms, with certain cosmetic characteristics. Many of these firearms are popular recreational target shooting and hunting firearms.  Your ignorance of this subject suggests that you are not a credible source of information.
09:57 PM on 09/03/2012
Incorrect. There is no such thing as an "assault weapon". It is a term made up by Josh Sugarmann, executive director of the Violence Policy Center and former communications director of the Coalition to Ban Handguns, with the sole purpose of demonizing semi-automatic rifles that merely look military in origin, but have no more capability than a common semi-automatic hunting rifle. "Assault rifles", on the other hand, are select fire weapons capable of both semi-automatic and automatic fire modes. These have been tightly controlled since 1934, and require a special license issued by the federal government to legally possess.

The fact is, you, along with many others, have been snookered into believing that the AR-15 is the equivalent of the M-16.

"Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons." - Josh Sugarmann, Assault Weapons and Accessories in America, 1988
01:21 PM on 09/02/2012
The practice of stating what others would believe or do based on one's own beliefs and actions is called "projection".

The author is "projecting" his beliefs on the Founding Fathers.

Citing only to statistics, the majority of gun-related deaths are suicides, which may be, and in gun-free countries frequently are, carried out by other means. Japan has twice the US suicide rate. The "weapon" of choice? Tall buildings.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:19 PM on 09/02/2012
Wow I thought that the japanese used the "step in front of the high speed train" as their weapon of choice.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
ElmCreekSmith
I hunt the things that go bump in the night.
05:18 PM on 09/03/2012
Actually Japan's suicide rate is higher than the combined suicide rates (all mechanisms) and homicide rates (all mechanisms) in the United States.

ECS
01:21 PM on 09/02/2012
Of the intentional homicides with firearms, there are two salient facts that should be considered. Many (if not most) of the homicides involve the illegal trade in drugs and/or are committed by criminal gangs funded by the illicit drug trade. Smuggled drugs sell for as much as 600,000% more than the cost to produce, so there's no mystery about why the industry is active and competitive. Such was also the case during prohibition, complete with alcohol-funded gangs and drive-by shootings. Remove the profit, and not only do does the incentive to do violence disappear, but so do many of the gangs.

The second factor to consider is race. While blacks comprise just 13% of the population, they are responsible for more than 50% of all homicides. In fact, based solely on the number of blacks in the population (41 million), the number of guns in the population (290 million), and the fact that about half of all murders are committed with firearms and more than half of all murders are committed by blacks, the average black, selected at random, is on the order of seven times more likely to be involved in your death than is the random firearm.
01:20 PM on 09/02/2012
What should we make of this?

For one, clearly, we should legalize drugs. There's no point in the hugely expensive, unconstitutional, failed, "War on Drugs". People who want to rot out their own minds or bodies should be free to do so. Those not inclined to use drugs, won't. Legalizing drugs removes incentive for people to "push" drugs, defunds the drug cartels and gangs, and removes most incentive for violence. At a tiny cost of the current "War on [Civil Liberties]" we could provide rehabilitation for any who wanted it. The overall crime rate would drop precipitously. Addicts who previously had to steal $3000 a week to feed their addiction, could instead get by on working two hours a week to buy the same drugs legally.

As for blacks - if banning guns is the answer (it's not), then banning blacks would be seven times more effective in eliminating homicides. If disregarding one part of the Constitution (Second Amendment) is to be considered a "solution", disregarding another part (the 14th Amendment) which presents a solution that's seven times more effective would be just the sort of unconstitutional solution that Sanjay seeks.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
AMERIKA
Husband, Parent, Sibling, Business Owner, Progress
01:14 PM on 09/02/2012
The 2nd amendment specified a "well armed militia" ... The National Guard is that militia. Citizens don't need guns.
01:47 PM on 09/02/2012
The National Guard wasn't created until the early 1900s. If individual citizens didn't "need" guns, then why was the individual right to keep and bear them specifically enumerated in the 2nd Amendment.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
AMERIKA
Husband, Parent, Sibling, Business Owner, Progress
05:20 PM on 09/02/2012
Maybe true, but still, they server as a well organized militia on behalf of the States. We no longer need an armed citizenry. Besides, in the "pen is mightier than the sword" category, social media has bypassed the value of suppressing the nation - see the Arab Spring as a case in point. Guns are pointless, unless you aim to kill a neighbor.
photo
Dimensio
I just don't know what went wrong!
02:59 PM on 09/02/2012
"Need" is not relevant.  The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
AMERIKA
Husband, Parent, Sibling, Business Owner, Progress
05:21 PM on 09/02/2012
I really could care a less. The second amendment has seen better days. Time to amend the amendment...at least have a serious conversation about it.

If another country killed 30,000 of our citizens a year...what do you suppose we would do about it?
12:10 PM on 09/02/2012
If you believe the argument that the 2nd amendment exists to give citizens the means to overthrow a tyrannical government, then people should be allowed to own RPGs, surface to air missiles, or drones equipped with Hellfire missiles. We can't. People are allowed to own assault weapons because they pose no threat to the US government.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
12:08 AM on 09/03/2012
I'm not sure what your trying to say. Yes I beleave that the 2nd amendment exists to protect the american people in case of tyrannical government comes to power. And no we don't need to own hellfire missiles to do that. And yes, any government that has 80 million armed citizen should be concerned if those citizens feel that the government has become tyrannnical. You've never served in the military I take it?
11:19 AM on 09/02/2012
Ever notice whenever someone uses the "What someone, The Founding Fathers, Jeebus, the President would have done," its usually in conjuction with one's own personal agenda?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
swatcapt
06:37 AM on 09/02/2012
Mr sanghoee you not to stop writing about things that you have no idea about. Like saying that you think you know what the founding fathers would of done. When every points to just the opposite. And also because you write things like this.

In order to address this issue effectively, we need to first reject the objections to gun control brought up by the Second Amendment fanatics

So because I believe a certain way my thought dont matter. What if I said the same to you.
photo
OdinsEye
Silenced by HP. Cant be intimidated into Facebook
12:18 AM on 09/02/2012
"Severe Penalties for Gun Abuse"

You mean like 10-20-Life where a person is punished an extra 10 years for having a firearm in the commission of a crime, 20 for using the firearm in a crime, and Life for using a firearm to shoot or kill people in the commission of a crime? Hmmm... I wonder who else has advocated that... Oh, that's right THE NRA.

Or maybe you mean like charging and trying cases of violation of federal firearm laws in federal court with time to be spent in federal prison instead of being charged under state laws with lesser penalties or plea barginned away by state attorneys? I know that sounds familiar. Who was it who repeatedly came out in support of this? I remember! It was THE NRA!
photo
OdinsEye
Silenced by HP. Cant be intimidated into Facebook
12:13 AM on 09/02/2012
"I believe the Founding Fathers would have created a public-private system wherein private ammunition makers would only have been allowed to sell a fixed quantity of ammunition for any single weapon per a formula determined by the federal government to be necessary for citizens to protect their home or for hunting, but no more. "

Really? When exactly was the last time you took and passed a drug test, because what ever you are on, I am sure it is illegal.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jerry Bourbon
12:24 AM on 09/04/2012
If not illegal, certainly dangerous...
photo
OdinsEye
Silenced by HP. Cant be intimidated into Facebook
12:12 AM on 09/02/2012
"That would have been addressed by the Founding Fathers through a rigorous and community-based system to train and test all gun owners every six months to ensure competency. "

The FF were quite set against placing ANY prerequisites on the exercise of rights, especially against such an onerous and easily abused system as you are advocating.
photo
OdinsEye
Silenced by HP. Cant be intimidated into Facebook
12:10 AM on 09/02/2012
"with children automatically becoming eligible when they reached a certain age"

You mean like 18 for handguns and to purchase long guns from dealers, 21 to purchase handguns and handgun ammo from dealers? Gee -- that looks suspiciously like CURRENT FEDERAL LAW.
photo
Dimensio
I just don't know what went wrong!
12:38 AM on 09/02/2012
Mr. Sanghoee advocates, however, restricting all adult citizens to exactly one firearm, because Mr. Sanghoee lacks any understanding of firearms.
photo
OdinsEye
Silenced by HP. Cant be intimidated into Facebook
12:09 AM on 09/02/2012
"perhaps to the tune of a single gun for every adult in the household"

Deer rifle, varmint rifle, target rifle, goose gun, upland bird gun, skeet gun, trap gun, each firearm can have a different use and is optimized to that end. You don't use a .338 to shoot coyotes and you don't use a .223 to hunt moose. A 30" full choke 12 gauge is not very good for dove hunting and a 22" modified choke is not very good for hunting geese.

And this completely ignores that the Second was not about "fowlers" and hunting.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
swatcapt
06:41 AM on 09/02/2012
You don't use. 338 to shoot coyotes

But this is so fun.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
InanimateObject
01:17 PM on 09/02/2012
Yeah you do, just got to be near a nuclear power plant, they get big and glow in the dark for some reason.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
mackbolan
Libertas inaestimabilis res est
11:58 PM on 09/01/2012
i have been waiting two days now for my post to appear...all i did was laugh at you and point towards a possible outcome if we both did certain things...

if you would read the 2nd amendment you will find it makes no mention of who cannot own a gun...no reference to race or creed or sexual orientation or sex or age or legal status...

so i am going to interpret that to mean that anyone including criminals can own guns and carry them...the point being that the crime is in using the gun for a wrongful purpose not the simple possession of a tool...
11:31 PM on 09/01/2012
The author's argument is basically this:

"I believe the founding fathers, who included a right to bear arms in the constitution, would be in favor of many draconian restrictions that would clearly violate said right to bear arms."

Gee that's logical.....