Lady Gaga signs NYTimes Gun-Control Petition

[kupo 201]

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither safety nor liberty." - Benjamin Franklin

Don't know in what context he said it, but I think it can apply.

The conversation is whether or not the "right to bear arms" is "essential." And how far-reaching that right extends.

[Morphine Prince 96,073]

The conversation is whether or not the "right to bear arms" is "essential." And how far-reaching that right extends.

Yeah. I agree there should be restrictions but I feel as if they are trying to see how far Americans let go of their rights. "The right to bear arms" is in the Constitution. It's debatable if it's essential or not but what happens when something else is debated on if it's essential or not?

[Skins 40]

We need more gun control laws but I disagree that we should BAN them.

Inb4 I get attacked by monsters

[Shadow 6,039]

I think we can all agree that assault weapons are not essential. They are not needed for defense or hunting. They are attack weapons for tactical warfare. So I do agree that weapons created for war should NOT be so available to a peaceful, civilian population.

[Skins 40]

-This is tyranny. our government is committing tyranny

-Obama plans to use executive order to go through with this rather than going through congress. This isn't even the first time he has done this (he also started a WAR via executive order. But that's OK because he's black and hip and trendy, right)?

-Mass murders have not gone up or down in America, but in the UK after banning guns, violence has RISEN

-Taking away the guns will cause CIVIL WAR. You must know that. Our government knows that.

-Obama's fake tears for the children was one of the most disgusting things I have ever seen in my life

-The TV showing the children's pictures every day in between gun control propaganda is also very sickening

PREACH

[wonry 3]

It's indeed about time. Thanks to Gaga for stepping up. :clap:

:clap:

[pink sushi 4,351]

So great of her. :clap:

[sfaulds97 0]

What if you raised the prize of guns and ammo, limited the type of guns and amount of ammo you can buy?

[J e s s e 454]

One guy told me a couple weeks ago that he'd like to hunt people. And the desire for weapons also seems to be handed down from parent to child, much like religious views and other political views.

For **** sakes.

[SoldierDown 49]

I think we can all agree that assault weapons are not essential. They are not needed for defense or hunting. They are attack weapons for tactical warfare. So I do agree that weapons created for war should NOT be so available to a peaceful, civilian population.

This tbh!

I don't know enough about everything to say definitively what should or shouldn't be done, but surely making it harder to have access to such crazy guns can only be a good thing? Not saying take away the right to own them completely, but at least make it harder than it is to get your hands on one.

[DaR34lestBeitch 0]

I think it's to have protection if someone breaks into their house?

well if the robber didnt have a gun, then the family wouldnt need a gun. if the criminal has a knife or something, they could close the door and call the cops, or something ya know? guns take less effort to harm and yet can result in something really bad a lot quicker.

[wecanbestrong 0]

Agree 100%

Gaga, tell me more about how criminals follow laws. Good for her for taking some action, though.

Good points on self defense and gun control from a mass shooting survivor:

If America is going to enforce gun restrictions, they're going to have to tighten their borders first. People import illegal d--gs, and we have a large human trafficking problem in the Southwest right now. What would stop someone from importing guns? The only difference would be that the criminals/crazies would seek them, and the regular people would abide by the rules, leaving no one with a legitimate gun for self defense. Guns aren't just going to go away.

[wecanbestrong 0]

Amazing must-read column by Thomas Sowell.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/335848/gun-control-ignorance-thomas-sowell

Why doesn't somebody tell Obama to stop murdering children every day with his drone strikes????? Oh that's right, he's a Democrat so that's OK.

[PaperIz 7,261]

I think it's to have protection if someone breaks into their house?

That's why I'm getting a gun when I turn 21 tbh. I think we do need to do something with our gun laws, but if I'm correct the shooter at sandy hook was 20. He wasn't even legally old enough to get a gun. Banning all guns wouldn't solve anything because the real criminals will get a gun regardless. And then the only ones with them will be criminals which will end up being worse.

[Batwings 12,694]

I don't even know why people are flipping out about this. There will not be a complete ban on guns. It's not going to happen. And yet my pro-gun friends are having a meltdown. Their irrationally melodramatic reactions are telling, though--indicative of individuals who know they support increasingly untenable and questionable positions. Fear not, though. You can stop freaking out: the government isn't going to ban all weapons. Even if that evil, liberty-hating commie Obama wants to. (#sarcasm)

The fact is the statistics are murky. Saying that violence has increased after stricter gun laws...well, let's just say the corrrelation isn't clear. Just because violence (in this case in the UK) has risen after the banning of weapons doesn't mean those particular statistics actually inform one another in deep or meaningful ways. Just as Nicole can come back and correctly cite the statistic that gun laws seem to have worked and decreased the rate of certain violent crimes in Australia. The truth is that so many things inform violence and violent crime rates--so many sociocultural factors influence these things--that parsing out clear correlatives is extremely difficult.

Here's a fairly good and unbiased collection of relevant statistics that seem to indicate--not surprisingly--that stricter gun control does, indeed, lead to less gun violence: http://www.washingto...-united-states/

What most people are now saying is "it's time to have discussions about stricter gun control laws"--not bans on ALL firearms. And this is not only an understandable dialogue to have--it is an essential one. Weapons SHOULDN'T be easy to obtain. And there are certainly specific classifications of weapons that have NO PLACE in civilian hands (I come from southern roots--farm country. I understand how engrained in some peoples' lives firearms are. For hunters, for instance. And one could even argue they're necessities for farmers, who do still sometimes have to protect crops and livestocks from being preyed upon). I'm okay with people owning guns. But it is definitely an item with very limited use, and there is nothing wrong with the government keeping a close eye on the trading of such things.

What's really ridiculous is people learning about this situation, and instead of saying "okay, maybe we should at least have the gun-control conversation" or "maybe we need to re-evaluate the way we understand, react to, and treat mental health in this country" have instead immediately declared the need for more guns ("arm the teachers!") or more God (which is just such an obvious deflection from the fundamentalists that it's not even worth rebutting). That those are the first impulses of so, so many people is reflective of a fundamentally flawed logic, and a refusal to understand that THE ANSWERS WON'T BE EASY.

It's not going to go away by arming teachers or being a more Christian nation. It's going to go away when we understand and admit that these things are caused by an incredibly complex interrelation of factors. It will require legislation, yes--but more than that. It will require a deep and difficult re-evaluation of our priorities as a country, and our understanding of our "American" character. We need to look at gun laws, mental health, and a whole slew of sociocultural factors (starting, perhaps, with economic disparity, which is inextricably connected to overall crime rates).

You basically stated everything I had planned on stating myself.

Also, because everyone keeps citing the Second Amendment, let me state that I highly doubt that our founding fathers could envision the level of technological advancement of future weaponry, and our government and society have evolved significantly since the drafting of Constitution. I doubt that amendment was intended to permit some uneducated, antisocial, foilhat Bubba to stockpile as many firearms as possible.

Furthermore, we may indeed be granted the right to posses firearms, but certain rights have to stay in check. The First Amendment grants us the right to free speech, but it is illegal to yell "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater. Is it really so terrible draft legislation to keep guns out of dangerous hands and allow them to remain in the hands of safe and responsible citizens?

Lastly, people keep using the argument that "if people want to commit the crime, then no amount of gun regulation will stop them" -- This is always a terrible argument. "People are going to do it anyway" -- So do we then relax all of our laws and stop drafting new ones if they have the potential of being broken?

I don't support the complete banning of all guns in the United States, and I grew up learning how to handle firearms. However, I'm tired of the pro-gun arguments that rest solely on the Second Amendment without taking many other factors into consideration. Laws are frequently revised in this country, and the Constitution has amendments for a reason.