Given the recent events in America with guns, do you think it's about time laws get stricter? Or is the notion of gun control itself hypocritical, as the constitution was made to withstand time and not be transformed by it. This debate could be one of freedom vs safety; would you alter your human rights in order to feel more Comfortable? Or is safety as dangerous as freedom? Here are my thoughts on it in detail below. Let me know yours! — Outss

This question rears it's head every time there is a mass killing. There is outrage, calls for action, vigorous defense of gun rights by the NRA, then nothing. It gets tiresome. If there was no action after 20 elementary school kids were murdered in Connecticut, what could ever make any difference.

Personally, I don't think gun control is an issue that it is worth spending a lot of political effort on. I don't own guns, although I did when I was a kid. I have no objection to reasonable restrictions. Many gun owners agree with that sentiment.

Every responsible gun owner wishes that idiots could be kept away form guns.

As far as I have been able to research, the mass shootings have been carried out by people that the government should have prevented from accessing guns.

That being said, just how far can any government go in restricting access to guns?
I think that it is about as feasible as preventing people access to cars. And there are many cases of underage drivers killing people with "borrowed" or stolen cars.

Laws are only as useful as the governments ability to enforce them. How many more cops would they need to enforce a ban on guns in the USA?

The political block that is most dangerous in the politics of gun-control is the one which holds that The People need to be armed to protect themselves from a malignant, freedom suppressing Federal Government. The Armed Militias see the Feds rolling into town and Marshals forcing them to be vaccinated against measles, taking away their independence, their property rights, their children, their women, their reproductive organs, their guns.

They can hardly bring themselves to entertain the thought that perhaps, possibly, maybe, the deranged should not be allowed to have guns. But then, who gets to decide who is deranged? The Feds, again... keeping their big databases on potentially deranged Americans -- who knows who is on their lists?

Another dangerous group is the political block of gun fetishists who have sexual feelings about guns leading to orgasm. Naturally, they are gun-protective. While not possessed of the paranoia of Fed-fearing right wingers, they make up a large denomination of gun worshippers. Their main reason for opposing any sort of gun control is that they fear being pathologized. Deep deep down down in the bottom of their hearts, they intuit that there is something quite screwy about their affection and enthusiasm for guns, which would probably not look good in the broad light of day.

A third troublesome group in the body politic are the numbskulls who prattle on about gun culture, happy hunting, how they, pioneers all, defend themselves from varmints of all kinds, and how it is up to them to defend the defenseless from crazy or just extremely ill-advise shooters.

The paranoid Fed Fearers, the gun masturbators, and the numbskulls do not form any sort of majority, but they are--of course, who else?--most convinced of their righteousness and are the most vocal. Braying jackasses all.



At the very least these three groups should be subject to the most scathing, cruelest, most humiliating ridicule that can be devised. They should also be guilt-tripped to the max, deemed to be entirely politically incorrect, addicted, un-American, perverse, child-endangering, condemned by the Pope to perpetual hellfire and damnation.

Shouldn't the NRA be investigated as a front for child pornography?

The US needs to be disarmed. STAT! Proved not ready to play nice with others.