Gun control status poll

[SkyChief]

We don’t let people drive without training!

There is no clause in the Bill of Rights that states:

The Right of the People to own and drive cars shall not be infringed.

Also, I think assault rifles are for the military. And I don’t see the need for anything semi auto. INCLUDING pistols. If I can’t get the deer in three shots the deer win. If you need a gun for home defense get a short barreled pump shotgun.

The reason(s) for owning a gun varies from person to person. however the RIGHT doesn't.

Thank goodness you aren't a position to make laws that infringe on our right to keep and bear arms.

 

[Montgomery]

An assault rifle is a selective-fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine.

Because the M16A1 is NOT capable of fully automatic fire, it (technically) is not an "assault rifle".

When most people use the term "assault rifle" what they actually mean is "something scary that looks like I think soldiers use in warfare". Thus, they would classify an AR-15 that had been permanently modified to fire ONLY single rounds and to REQUIRE re-cocking between rounds as an "assault rifle" but would not include the M-14 (because it "looks like a rifle").

Since an "assault rifle" is capable of fully automatic fire their possession is already (effectively) illegal in the US UNLESS that feature (including the ability for "burst fire") has been permanently disabled..

Something scary are the key words!
"Something Scary" is the type of weapons that have become very popular in America. The scarier the better. How's that for cutting to the short strokes?

 

[Moderate Right]

I see a lot of bi-partisan agreement on this issue, more than about any other generally partisan issue. So, just curious where we stand, with regards to gun control.

What we need is to keep dangerous people locked up and not infringe on American's right to own arms. No one should be arrested multiple times and let back out in never ending revolving doors. What the left doesn't understand is that thugs are going to get guns no matter how much gun control legislation is passed. Therefore, the solution is to keep the bad guys locked up, not let them right back out again and again and again.

 

[jakiejakester]

When my sons were 9 years old, they were just as competent at handling firearms as I am after half a lifetime in the Army. That's because I taught them.

Therefore doesn't it make sense for all gun owners to have to take a "driver's test" and get a license for the gun like we do to drive? Taking gun lessons would make me feel so much better about gun owners and their right to bear arms.

 

[brianpatrick]

I think the legal scholarship is eating away at the idiocy of Wickard v. Filburn but will not undermine " institutions-if removed would cause social upheaval" (Professor Steven Calabresi discussing the Scalia view of the unconstitutional expansion of the commerce clause)

Are you saying here that removing some gun rights would potentially cause social upheaval?

 

[brianpatrick]

What we need is to keep dangerous people locked up and not infringe on American's right to own arms. No one should be arrested multiple times and let back out in never ending revolving doors. What the left doesn't understand is that thugs are going to get guns no matter how much gun control legislation is passed. Therefore, the solution is to keep the bad guys locked up, not let them right back out again and again and again.

The problem I see with this argument is that in a capitalist system there is always incentive to increase anything that is profitable, without much regard for the actual humans involved. So, we do not spend money rehabilitating criminals, because that would reduce profits.

 

[CLAX1911]

I see a lot of bi-partisan agreement on this issue, more than about any other generally partisan issue. So, just curious where we stand, with regards to gun control.

There should be less restrictions. the people who say they want more restrictions are typically very ignorant about what restrictions already exist.

 

[TurtleDude]

Are you saying here that removing some gun rights would potentially cause social upheaval?

yes but that was not the point I was making. It was this

Scalia-according to one of his most prominent former clerks-analyzing the Obama health care plan-knew the FDR expansion of the commerce clause was unconstitutional BUT

he also realized that many social institutions based on that unconstitutional expansion-such as social security, Title VII, Medicaid, etc, were too ingrained in American society to be removed (if the commerce clause expansion was stuck down) without causing massive social upheaval. He thus predicted Scalia would oppose Obama care because it was not yet ingrained.

As to gun laws, there would be no real social upheaval if clearly unconstitutional nonsense such as the 1934 NFA or the ban on machine guns made after 1986 (May 19). As to the ban on felons owning guns-that is more ingrained. So I don't think the current justices would allow further bans or restrictions on firearms at a federal or state level. I would hope they strike down the 1934 NFA and the Hughes Amendment as well

 

[TurtleDude]

Therefore doesn't it make sense for all gun owners to have to take a "driver's test" and get a license for the gun like we do to drive? Taking gun lessons would make me feel so much better about gun owners and their right to bear arms.

99% of the harm that is caused by people using guns is NOT DUE to a lack of skill on the part of the shooter

 

[Montgomery]

In other words, you don't have a rational argument for wanting to ban something in a country you don't even live in. I use humanoid targets all the time. What's wrong with that?

No, I don't have an argument and if I did have an argument it would be to encourage even more ownership of assault style weapons.
I 'do' have an argument against them in Canada, where I live. But that isn't really all that important to me because wanting to own that type of weapon is the main issue and 'owning' the weapon is a secondary issue. That's true for the colour of the weapon too! I would much rather see a Canadian carrying a weapon with a wood stock as opposed to a black or pink stock.

You're going to have to accept that I have no fight with you turtle. If you're looking for an outlet for your anger then you'll have to find it with somebody else.

 

[CLAX1911]

If more guns and gunowners made for a safer society America would be the safest country on the planet. It's not. I like Chris Rock's idea.

Chris Rock only makes a point to ignorant people.

The idea behind gun ownership is not to make the country safe, there's no such thing as safe. The purpose behind gun ownership is so that the government is afraid to overreach with authority. An armed populace controls the government if you take away guns from the people than the government controls the people. If you don't like living in a constitutional republic move to Canada they would love to have you. Maybe try Western Europe.

 

[TurtleDude]

No, I don't have an argument and if I did have an argument it would be to encourage even more ownership of assault style weapons.
I 'do' have an argument against them in Canada, where I live. But that isn't really all that important to me because wanting to own that type of weapon is the main issue and 'owning' the weapon is a secondary issue. That's true for the colour of the weapon too! I would much rather see a Canadian carrying a weapon with a wood stock as opposed to a black or pink stock.

You're going to have to accept that I have no fight with you turtle. If you're looking for an outlet for your anger then you'll have to find it with somebody else.

No anger whatsoever. What do you have against black stocks?

 

[Moderate Right]

The problem I see with this argument is that in a capitalist system there is always incentive to increase anything that is profitable, without much regard for the actual humans involved. So, we do not spend money rehabilitating criminals, because that would reduce profits.

Criminals, for the most part, CAN'T be rehabilitated. Druggies maybe but a criminal is a criminal is a criminal. And, again, the problem is, leftists just don't understand that gun laws don't keep guns away from criminals. They are criminals. Criminals don't obey laws and they aren't going to obey gun laws either. Gun laws hurt legitimate gun owners. If you want to rehabilitate criminals then rehabilitate them and don't do gun control legislation but you don't rehabilitate anyone by just letting them right back out on the street.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Gun control or criminal control?

Have nation wide a Project Exile program.
A partnership between the state and federal government.
If you use a firearm in the commission of a crime it's an automatic 30 years plus the time for the actual crime.
The other part of this is you are sent to an out of state federal prison. No parole, no early out for good time.
You do the actual time. You would see gun crime plummet. Today gun criminals are routinely released over
and over to commit multiple gun crimes The revolving door has to stop!

Aside from the fact that your "average criminal" doesn't pay any attention to the potential penalty for the commission of their crime (since they don't believe that they will get caught the penalty is irrelevant), your solution makes sense.

Now, what is your suggestion for increasing the actual conviction rate (not just the conviction rate for those who get caught) up to the level that your "average criminal" actually believes that the odds on them getting caught makes the commission of the crime less than a "good thing" to do?

 

[CLAX1911]

Reversing the ban on full auto isn't a small tweak.



That's just unfeasible. Should violent convicted felons have gun rights? Should there be no restrictions whatsoever? If I can build a nuke it's OK?

if a violent convicted felons shouldn't be allowed to have guns they shouldn't be allowed out of jail because they can get guns anyway. If we've demons and fit to return to society then they should return to society.

You can build all the nukes you want you just can't possess any radioactive isotope that doesn't fall under the Second Amendment it falls under the nuclear regulatory commission.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

If I have that coming to get me, I've made some poor life choices.

Well said.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Yes. What part of shall not be infringed do you not understand?

So, your position is that ALL persons in the United States of America should be allowed to "keep and bear arms" at ALL times and REGARDLESS of circumstances, is it?

After all, if SOME persons in the United States of America are NOT allowed to "keep and bear arms" at ALL times and REGARDLESS of circumstances then their "constitutional right" to "keep and bear arms" HAS been infringed (regardless of how "reasonable" that infringement sounds to a normal and rational person) - right?

 

[Montgomery]

No anger whatsoever. What do you have against black stocks?

I have nothing about the colour black. Or pink.
I have something about the ones that choose the black or pink stock. Have you missed everything I've said about attitudes?
Don't bother to answer, I'm outta here now. I don't have an ax to grind on your gun issues.

 

[ASHES]

if a violent convicted felons shouldn't be allowed to have guns they shouldn't be allowed out of jail because they can get guns anyway. If we've demons and fit to return to society then they should return to society.

We punish/rehabilitate people that commit crimes for things they've actually done, not for what they might do. Just because they might use a firearm in the future even if they're prohibited does not mean we can imprison them for longer than a term commiserate with the original offense.

You can build all the nukes you want you just can't possess any radioactive isotope that doesn't fall under the Second Amendment it falls under the nuclear regulatory commission.

It is an integral part to the armament's functionality. That sounds like an infringement. I suspect if we invented the gunpowder regulatory commission and only certain people could obtain the material, you would not be in agreement.

 

[CLAX1911]

We punish/rehabilitate people that commit crimes for things they've actually done, not for what they might do. Just because they might use a firearm in the future even if they're prohibited does not mean we can imprison them for longer than a term commiserate with the original offense.

the fact that you hyphenated down punish and rehabilitate bothers me it's two words are not synonyms we do not rehabilitate anybody. we brand them as a criminal and as a criminal they will remain until the day they die.

Again if they're not fit to live in society they shouldn't be there. If we're releasing them then they paid their debt to society the debt we all agreed they owe. To punish them for the rest of their lives to me seems ridiculous.

It is an integral part to the armament's functionality. That sounds like an infringement.

well you're right to swing your fist ends at someone else's nuts and this same principle applies to a radioactive isotope. If you have one and you have neighbors you are exposing them to radiation. Forget the fact that you will probably be dead in a week your neighbors will be too you don't have that right that's not an infringement you possessing an isotope is an infringement done everyone else around you.

I suspect if we invented the gunpowder regulatory commission and only certain people could obtain the material, you would not be in agreement.

who doesn't need to be regulatory commission because gunpowder doesn't emit ionizing radiation. You can hold it in your hand you can probably even swallow it and not die.

 

[Bullseye]

I want to reduce the number of mass shootings.

I'm trying to think of ways to reduce mass shootings through legislation.

I think mass shootings are the biggest threat to gun ownership.


.

There are as many definitions of “mass shooting” as there are anti-gunners. What’s your “working” definition? Are you talking Las Vegas, or Pulse nightclub style, or “more than x number killed or wounded” criteria?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

There is no reason to disarm honest people based on the dishonest BELIEF that doing so will disarm criminals. And honest people have a constitutional right to be armed.

Ahh, I see, that "unalienable right" to "keep and bear arms" is actually a CONDITIONAL right based on the person being a "honest person" is it?

Are there any other "reasonable restrictions" that you feel apply to that "inalienable right"?

How about we apply some objective criteria and say that if an identifiable group (in a state) is more than twice as likely to commit a gun crime as the next largest identifiable group in that state, then it is a "reasonable restriction" on that group, that - as a group - it be prohibited from being able to "keep and bear arms" (outside of the organized military and/or police forces)? That would mean that, in the following states, one specific identifiable group would no longer be able to "keep and bear arms" outside of the organized military and/or police forces - California, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Massachusetts, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin (plus the District of Columbia). [NOTE - Remember that "felons" IS an "identifiable group" and that ALL members of that "identifiable group" are denied the "right to keep and bear arms" (on the basis that the members of that "identifiable group" are more likely to commit a gun crime than the members of the general population. That means that there would be nothing stopping a different "identifiable group" from being able to "keep and bear arms" simply based on their membership in an "identifiable group"

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

The supreme court is filled with illiterate boobs, who have taken it upon themselves to write law.

ACTIVIST JUDGE

"ad – tiv – ist ju – d - ge"

NOUN PHRASE

"a judicial officer who makes a decision that I do not like, regardless of how well founded that decision is in law and how closely that decision bears on the actual facts of the case"

[See also – “LEARNED JUDGE”]​

LEARNED JUDGE

"lear - ned ju – d - ge"

NOUN PHRASE

"a judicial officer who makes a decision that I do like, regardless of how poorly founded that decision is in law and how little that decision bears on the actual facts of the case"

[See also – “ACTIVIST JUDGE”]

[From the AKME Dictionary of Current American Political Usage - still in pre-press preparation]​

​

 

[CLAX1911]

I want to reduce the number of mass shootings.

then I recommend advocating for the removal and the illegalization of a such thing as a gun-free zone. If there's one thing we see in common among 99% of the mass shooting it happened in a gun free zone.

I'm trying to think of ways to reduce mass shootings through legislation.

the ability to open up the skull of a mass shooter from a distance of 30 ft would be a number one way

I think mass shootings are the biggest threat to gun ownership.

they should be the biggest support for gun ownership and possession. why would you want to turn the entire country into a shooting gallery


.

 

[CLAX1911]

Ahh, I see, that "unalienable right" to "keep and bear arms" is actually a CONDITIONAL right based on the person being a "honest person" is it?

in a manner of speaking yes. If you've been deemed to be dishonest in a credible way by a court of law you're probably incarcerated and therefore you don't have many rights therefore rights are conditional based on your behavior.

Are there any other "reasonable restrictions" that you feel apply to that "inalienable right"?

Yes.

How about we apply some objective criteria and say that if an identifiable group (in a state) is more than twice as likely to commit a gun crime as the next largest identifiable group in that state, then it is a "reasonable restriction" on that group, that - as a group - it be prohibited from being able to "keep and bear arms" (outside of the organized military and/or police forces)?

that would be sexist because the identifiable group that is most likely to commit gun crime is men. the next group that's most likely to commit gun crimes moves into racist territory I don't want to live in that world.

I'm okay with assuming people are innocent until they are proven guilty. The race and sex is not relevant