A conversation about gun control

[Ranger Rick]

It sucks when you get something taken away from you because someone else broke the law. Ask any gun owner about that.

[hornycumslut91]

2 hours ago, Ranger Rick said:

It sucks when you get something taken away from you because someone else broke the law. Ask any gun owner about that.

While I get what you're saying, the situation around guns in the US is unsustainable, especially with the mass shootings that happen with increasing regularity. I do agree that we're in a tricky situation with the current bill. 

[badubydo]

8 hours ago, hornycumslut91 said:

While I get what you're saying, the situation around guns in the US is unsustainable, especially with the mass shootings that happen with increasing regularity. I do agree that we're in a tricky situation with the current bill. 

That's false. The media has increased their presence of mass shootings, but they have been on a decline. But this is not the place for it. 

[drscorpio]

Moderator's Note: Split this off to avoid derailing the other thread. 

[Guest takingdeepanal]

The only thing I'll say is that no-one who has "committed a mass shooting" has ever been a member of the NRA.

[bottombottoy]

On 3/25/2018 at 1:16 AM, takingdeepanal said:

The only thing I'll say is that no-one who has "committed a mass shooting" has ever been a member of the NRA.

But they were Marines! lol (sorry just a dig on my brothers)

 

[PhoenixGeoff]

So, a couple thoughts here.

1) The current situation is completely crazy.  There are far too many firearms out there that are far too easy for far to many people to acquire.

2) But for that very reason, any form of gun control that would have a meaningful effect on crime would entail mass-confiscation of firearms, which is politically untenable.

The half-measures that the Democrats tend to get behind will not solve the problem.  Enacting them would lead to a situation where gun advocates can say that they are ineffective and therefore more of a burden on the law-abiding than on the law breaking.  And while they may have marginal effects on the numbers of shootings, there won't be a qualitative difference to voters so long as gun violence continues.  Even if Democrats did pass their current wish list, there would still inevitably be another shooting and we'd be right back where we are now.

In other words, any solution to this problem needs to address the fact that there are so many guns already out there.  Current Democratic solutions do not address this, they only address sales transactions and new supplies.

So I'm not really in favor of assault weapon bans or bans on bump stocks or certain sized magazines or whatever, not because I think those things should be legal, but because the bans would be ineffective.

My focus would be on keeping people who shouldn't have weapons away from them.  And the current background check system is not equal to that at all.  I'd probably replace it with a licensing system, much like a driver's license.  You would not be allowed to own a weapon without having a license.  You would not be allowed to handle a weapon for training purposes without having a learner's permit.

A learner's permit would require a psychological examination, a criminal background check, and passing a written safety test, plus a fee.  That would not allow you to own your own gun, but would allow you to go to a range to borrow one under supervision for training and recreational purposes, including marksmanship classes and gun safety classes required for licensing.  Shooting enthusiasts who like to fire off rounds at a range or shoot clay pigeons or go on hunting expeditions under the supervision of a professional could borrow or rent a weapon for those purposes.  A learner's permit might be enough for many people.

If you want to own your own weapons, in addition to the learner's permit, you would need to complete a gun safety course with government-set exams and pay a fee, just like a driver's license.  This would allow you to own your own weapons, which you could use or carry at your discretion.  You would not be permitted to allow anyone else to handle it unless they were qualified.  And you could only sell or give it to someone else who was licensed.  It would qualify as a government ID and you'd be expected to carry it with you at all times, just like a driver's license.

The attainment of a special professional's license, perhaps similar to an associate's degree, which would involve training and experience, would qualify you to train and supervise others, including learners.

Conviction of any violent crime, to include domestic abuse, would result in forfeiture of your license or permit, either permanently or for a certain duration, depending on the severity.  Judges would be able to include surrender of firearms licenses and permits as part of sentencing or the issuance of things like restraining orders.  Anyone placed on a mental health hold would have their license or permit suspended as well, pending a hearing.  In short, it would work like driver's licenses for people charged with DUI.

If you lost your license permanently, you would immediately be forced to turn in your weapons to be held by a third party, who could then assist you with sales or giving them away.  If you lost it temporarily, you would be obliged to put your weapons in storage until such time as your license is restored (or you could sell them or give them away).  You might petition to have even a permanent loss of your license overturned after the passage of several years (say 10) and demonstrated good behavior.

In short, I think this kind of system would help establish both the right to own a weapon and the responsibility that goes with that right. 

[orionboy1]

2 hours ago, PhoenixGeoff said:

So, a couple thoughts here.

1) The current situation is completely crazy.  There are far too many firearms out there that are far too easy for far to many people to acquire.

2) But for that very reason, any form of gun control that would have a meaningful effect on crime would entail mass-confiscation of firearms, which is politically untenable.

The half-measures that the Democrats tend to get behind will not solve the problem.  Enacting them would lead to a situation where gun advocates can say that they are ineffective and therefore more of a burden on the law-abiding than on the law breaking.  And while they may have marginal effects on the numbers of shootings, there won't be a qualitative difference to voters so long as gun violence continues.  Even if Democrats did pass their current wish list, there would still inevitably be another shooting and we'd be right back where we are now.

In other words, any solution to this problem needs to address the fact that there are so many guns already out there.  Current Democratic solutions do not address this, they only address sales transactions and new supplies.

So I'm not really in favor of assault weapon bans or bans on bump stocks or certain sized magazines or whatever, not because I think those things should be legal, but because the bans would be ineffective.

My focus would be on keeping people who shouldn't have weapons away from them.  And the current background check system is not equal to that at all.  I'd probably replace it with a licensing system, much like a driver's license.  You would not be allowed to own a weapon without having a license.  You would not be allowed to handle a weapon for training purposes without having a learner's permit.

A learner's permit would require a psychological examination, a criminal background check, and passing a written safety test, plus a fee.  That would not allow you to own your own gun, but would allow you to go to a range to borrow one under supervision for training and recreational purposes, including marksmanship classes and gun safety classes required for licensing.  Shooting enthusiasts who like to fire off rounds at a range or shoot clay pigeons or go on hunting expeditions under the supervision of a professional could borrow or rent a weapon for those purposes.  A learner's permit might be enough for many people.

If you want to own your own weapons, in addition to the learner's permit, you would need to complete a gun safety course with government-set exams and pay a fee, just like a driver's license.  This would allow you to own your own weapons, which you could use or carry at your discretion.  You would not be permitted to allow anyone else to handle it unless they were qualified.  And you could only sell or give it to someone else who was licensed.  It would qualify as a government ID and you'd be expected to carry it with you at all times, just like a driver's license.

The attainment of a special professional's license, perhaps similar to an associate's degree, which would involve training and experience, would qualify you to train and supervise others, including learners.

Conviction of any violent crime, to include domestic abuse, would result in forfeiture of your license or permit, either permanently or for a certain duration, depending on the severity.  Judges would be able to include surrender of firearms licenses and permits as part of sentencing or the issuance of things like restraining orders.  Anyone placed on a mental health hold would have their license or permit suspended as well, pending a hearing.  In short, it would work like driver's licenses for people charged with DUI.

If you lost your license permanently, you would immediately be forced to turn in your weapons to be held by a third party, who could then assist you with sales or giving them away.  If you lost it temporarily, you would be obliged to put your weapons in storage until such time as your license is restored (or you could sell them or give them away).  You might petition to have even a permanent loss of your license overturned after the passage of several years (say 10) and demonstrated good behavior.

In short, I think this kind of system would help establish both the right to own a weapon and the responsibility that goes with that right. 

Incredibly well done, I agree on all points. I cannot stand the tangents some of my friends go on when they say "Ban all guns!" I kinda lose respect for... well, not them but more so their common sense.  Its like: Hey yeah we banned many types of drugs decades ago......How's that going? 

Im a firm believer in that, Guns or not, evil is still going to evil unfortunately. 

[Guest whoremonger]

Over here "across the pond" in the UK, we have no right to bear arms - and, living in (and being brought up in) a society that doesn't have a 'gun culture', most people simply don't ever consider the issue of buying and owning a gun. It's just not part of "normal" life.

I know a guy who's a member of a gun club (where there's a target range), and he uses the rifles that are owned (and stored) at the club. I also know a farmer who has a shotgun (used, when necessary, to put down animals). Other that that, no one I know has - or uses - guns.

I realise, of course, there's gun crime in the UK. But it's fairly minimal (knife crime is more significant). Where gun crime does exist, it's part of a sub-culture - distinct from mainstream society.

I suppose, then, it's all about what you're used to - the broader environment that exists. Making changes to society at large is never easy. For instance BREXIT (and the in/out debate) has generated endless impassioned debate. And it's the transition phase that's most difficult.

But, certainly, it's not essential to have the right to bear arms - otherwise all those countries where guns are banned would have long ago descended into chaos! In my view, if guns are to be legal - and citizens have the right to own them - then there should be definite rules, regulations and tests to acquire and maintain a license … as there is with driving a car.

It's the State's duty to ensure the well-being of its citizens. On occasion, this involves restricting the liberty of some so as to help maintain an orderly way of life for the immense majority. Often, in restricting such liberties, some unfortunate individuals - who've done nothing wrong - lose out. This is how I approach the issue of gun control. The individual may be slightly less free, but society at large is - hopefully - better off for the change. To side with 'the individual' over 'society' is - for me - too egotistic. Personally, I'm okay with a few less freedoms … so long as other people are better off for it. 

[Samanthads]

What seams wrong to me with the guns in the US is an individual can own as many weapons as they like they can be bought in super markets like grocery's (yes i know you cant take them home the same day)  also do you really need a assault weapon one step down from military grade ie AR-15's 

also the second amendment?  "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Are gun owners in a militia to protect the state from attack the amendment was written on December 15, 1791 so is it still current. its being misused to say well i can own a weapon of destruction as the constitution says i can. 

in England there is this law still in place from the middle ages "All English males over the age of 14 are to carry out two hours of longbow practice every week, supervised by the local clergy" and in Chester its legal to shoot a Welshman with a bow inside the walls of Chester do we ever do that no 

[Guest whoremonger]

9 minutes ago, Samanthads said:

in England there is this law still in place from the middle ages "All English males over the age of 14 are to carry out two hours of longbow practice every week, supervised by the local clergy" and in Chester its legal to shoot a Welshman with a bow inside the walls of Chester do we ever do that no 

Haha! Yes, such anachronistic laws do - in a sense - still pertain today. However, the European convention on human rights (and other, more current legislation) have done away with such things.

How sad I am, , not being free to use my bow against those Welshmen!!!

[Guest]

all i can say i god help the country that attacks the usa by land they dont have a chance in hell to occupy us   lol 

[Guest]

i also had a collection of legal guns but not no more now my son has them  and its alot.   some were hand me downs for 3 generations i think he has 27 guns in total. i gave him 16 that i had.  oh yeah and he sleeps on them every nite as his bed lifts up and under it is the gun safe  pretty neat thing  i use to keep them in closet lol.

[Guest SubAssNH]

On 8/17/2018 at 5:59 PM, Samanthads said:

What seams wrong to me with the guns in the US is an individual can own as many weapons as they like they can be bought in super markets like grocery's (yes i know you cant take them home the same day)  also do you really need a assault weapon one step down from military grade ie AR-15's.

What, exactly, do you mean by "one step down" from military grade?

And what are your thoughts in the difference between these rifles?

[Guest SubAssNH]

On 8/17/2018 at 5:59 PM, Samanthads said:

also the second amendment?  "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Are gun owners in a militia to protect the state from attack the amendment was written on December 15, 1791 so is it still current. its being misused to say well i can own a weapon of destruction as the constitution says i can. 

Actually,  the "militia" was considered to be the whole of the people.  So,  yes,  the individual right to keep and bear arms was the point. 

Secondly,  the right to keep and bear arms does NOT come from the 2nd Amendment.  The Bill of Rights are a prohibition of government interference with natural,  inalienable rights.  So the 2nd Amendment isn't the issue.  Repeal it tomorrow and I still have that right. 

The US system is predicated upon the idea that all power originates in the people,  and we've ceded some of that power to government to act as our agent. Or,  in other words,  the government only has the powers it has been granted.  It has no inherent power and does not "grant" rights.

Lastly,  for the sake of argument,  let's say the 2nd Amendment was about the organized militia. It still doesn't negate the individual right to kaba, because as the 9th Amendment says,  enumerating particular rights in the Bill of Rights,  does not "deny or disparage" other rights retained by the people.  In other words,  the 2A is irrelevant to the question of whether we have the right,  or whether it may be infringed.