• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Dangers of Gun Control

Tothian

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 30, 2013
Messages
553
Reaction score
103
Location
New Jersey, United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Tothian, Speaketh!: The Dangers of Gun Control

In the Constitution of the United States, the 2nd Amendment clearly states:

"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."

Which means, that the United States Government is not allowed to infringe upon that right. In fact, the oath of office for the President of the United States, is:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. So help me God."

The oath of office for the Vice President, as well as members of the United States Senate, is:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."

Which means that any member of any of the 3 branches of government, be it Executive, Legislative, or Judicial, who actively supports gun control, is in violation of their oath of office.

There are 3 main reasons that the rights of Americans to carry a gun should not be infringed upon. We need guns to protect ourselves from the following 3 things.

1- Tyranny from our government.

2- Invasion from foreign governments.

3- Crime.

Now you gotta look at the statistics. Look at places where there are very strict gun laws. Chicago for example. Some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. And also one of the most dangerous cities. Now look at countries like Sweden. 1 in 2 citizens carries a gun. Lowest crime rate in the world.

If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. Not only is violating those rights of law abiding citizens exactly the kind of thing that our Founding Fathers warned us about, but it also disarms them and gives them no means of self-defense from those who will carry regardless of any such law, and in fact, empowers them against those who won't carry.

If someone with a gun wants to rob a bank, they're going to have a lot more luck in a place with strict gun laws, because you most likely wouldn't find anyone else there with a gun. So therefore it empowers them against everyone else. But, if they want to rob a bank in a place where there aren't any strict gun laws, and everyone else in that bank has a gun, 1 gun won't get them far against 30 other people if all 30 of those people have a gun.

It's sad that after certain tragic shootings, that the government and media wants to use such unfortunate events as an excuse to further push their gun control agendas, which will only make the situation worse. The problem isn't guns themselves. It's what bad people do with them. And the fact that so many potential heroes are disarmed from being able to as effectively defend themselves and others from those who will use them for malicious intentions.

There are some things which could sound good in theory. However, the facts and statistics have proven time and time again that gun control is a dangerous agenda.

Should I ever be killed in the line of duty by an armed gunman, and any politician or who ever tries to push stricter gun laws on my behalf, know that it wasn't the guns that were the problem. It's the fact that I live in a state with strict gun laws, and that I likely didn't have a gun to be able to defend myself as easily without a gun. And we live in a nation where the current President of the United States and the liberal members of the Senate, House of Representatives, and other members of government want to violate our 2nd Amendment rights that have been granted to us by the Founding Fathers of the United States.

No, Americans don't need background checks. While that would sound nice in theory to some, in practice it's unconstitutional. It violates the 4th Amendment of the United States Constitution, which protects "against warantless searches and seizures" due to the need that our Founding Fathers recognized, that people should have the right to privacy. I fail to see how such a concept isn't unconstitutional.

And illegalizing automatic weapons? What about those who aren't as skilled with a hand gun, and only have 10 rounds, but needs to protect against an armed thief who breaks in to their home armed with an AK-47? A handgun wouldn't be as effective.

When you see politicians start to misinterpret the Constitution, violate it, and deceive America about why what they're doing is alright, give bull$#&% lies that they "respect the constitution" while it's clearly evident that they don't respect it at all, you set us back to where we started back before the Declaration of Independence on July 4th, 1776. The very reason that the United States of America was formed was so that we could have freedom from such forms of tyranny.

Back to the Gun Control issue. Gun Safety and Gun Control AREN'T the same thing. Gun Safety has nothing to do with the laws. It has to do with common sense. Gun Control is a flawed concept.

Adolph Hitler once said: "If you want to conquer a nation, you must first disarm it's citizens."

Not only would allowing people to access and carry guns more easily decease crime, and thus help the economy and government budget more by reducing the high cost that crime has on society, but having more gun stores open in more places would also help give more jobs to more people and thus help the economy more that way too.

No, gun control doesn't keep police safer, neither. It just makes their jobs more dangerous. And when their communities suffer because of the crime, so does the economy there, and stores begin to close down, which means (high taxes are never good, but since a certain percentage of any business' earnings go to the government, and more businesses would closing down, they have less amounts of businesses there to help out with that, so then the government's budget suffers, and thus they start having to lay off more officers. Which then makes it harder for them to combat crime.

Here's a link with has some facts and statistics about gun control:

Gun Control - Just Facts

7 Gun Control Facts That Are Actually Myths
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
66,884
Reaction score
37,981
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Tothian, Speaketh!: The Dangers of Gun Control

In the Constitution of the United States, the 2nd Amendment clearly states:

"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."

Which means, that the United States Government is not allowed to infringe upon that right. In fact, the oath of office for the President of the United States, is:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. So help me God."

The oath of office for the Vice President, as well as members of the United States Senate, is:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."

Which means that any member of any of the 3 branches of government, be it Executive, Legislative, or Judicial, who actively supports gun control, is in violation of their oath of office.

There are 3 main reasons that the rights of Americans to carry a gun should not be infringed upon. We need guns to protect ourselves from the following 3 things.

1- Tyranny from our government.

2- Invasion from foreign governments.

3- Crime.

Now you gotta look at the statistics. Look at places where there are very strict gun laws. Chicago for example. Some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. And also one of the most dangerous cities. Now look at countries like Sweden. 1 in 2 citizens carries a gun. Lowest crime rate in the world.

If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. Not only is violating those rights of law abiding citizens exactly the kind of thing that our Founding Fathers warned us about, but it also disarms them and gives them no means of self-defense from those who will carry regardless of any such law, and in fact, empowers them against those who won't carry.

If someone with a gun wants to rob a bank, they're going to have a lot more luck in a place with strict gun laws, because you most likely wouldn't find anyone else there with a gun. So therefore it empowers them against everyone else. But, if they want to rob a bank in a place where there aren't any strict gun laws, and everyone else in that bank has a gun, 1 gun won't get them far against 30 other people if all 30 of those people have a gun.

It's sad that after certain tragic shootings, that the government and media wants to use such unfortunate events as an excuse to further push their gun control agendas, which will only make the situation worse. The problem isn't guns themselves. It's what bad people do with them. And the fact that so many potential heroes are disarmed from being able to as effectively defend themselves and others from those who will use them for malicious intentions.

There are some things which could sound good in theory. However, the facts and statistics have proven time and time again that gun control is a dangerous agenda.

Should I ever be killed in the line of duty by an armed gunman, and any politician or who ever tries to push stricter gun laws on my behalf, know that it wasn't the guns that were the problem. It's the fact that I live in a state with strict gun laws, and that I likely didn't have a gun to be able to defend myself as easily without a gun. And we live in a nation where the current President of the United States and the liberal members of the Senate, House of Representatives, and other members of government want to violate our 2nd Amendment rights that have been granted to us by the Founding Fathers of the United States.

No, Americans don't need background checks. While that would sound nice in theory to some, in practice it's unconstitutional. It violates the 4th Amendment of the United States Constitution, which protects "against warantless searches and seizures" due to the need that our Founding Fathers recognized, that people should have the right to privacy. I fail to see how such a concept isn't unconstitutional.

And illegalizing automatic weapons? What about those who aren't as skilled with a hand gun, and only have 10 rounds, but needs to protect against an armed thief who breaks in to their home armed with an AK-47? A handgun wouldn't be as effective.

When you see politicians start to misinterpret the Constitution, violate it, and deceive America about why what they're doing is alright, give bull$#&% lies that they "respect the constitution" while it's clearly evident that they don't respect it at all, you set us back to where we started back before the Declaration of Independence on July 4th, 1776. The very reason that the United States of America was formed was so that we could have freedom from such forms of tyranny.

Back to the Gun Control issue. Gun Safety and Gun Control AREN'T the same thing. Gun Safety has nothing to do with the laws. It has to do with common sense. Gun Control is a flawed concept.

Adolph Hitler once said: "If you want to conquer a nation, you must first disarm it's citizens."

Not only would allowing people to access and carry guns more easily decease crime, and thus help the economy and government budget more by reducing the high cost that crime has on society, but having more gun stores open in more places would also help give more jobs to more people and thus help the economy more that way too.

No, gun control doesn't keep police safer, neither. It just makes their jobs more dangerous. And when their communities suffer because of the crime, so does the economy there, and stores begin to close down, which means (high taxes are never good, but since a certain percentage of any business' earnings go to the government, and more businesses would closing down, they have less amounts of businesses there to help out with that, so then the government's budget suffers, and thus they start having to lay off more officers. Which then makes it harder for them to combat crime.

Here's a link with has some facts and statistics about gun control:

Gun Control - Just Facts

7 Gun Control Facts That Are Actually Myths
Yep. I'd certainly feel safer if the babbling moron, with a pant load of poop, sitiing just outside the convenince store, asking for my money, had a fully automatic AK-47 at the ready. ;)
 

Tothian

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 30, 2013
Messages
553
Reaction score
103
Location
New Jersey, United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Yep. I'd certainly feel safer if the babbling moron, with a pant load of poop, sitiing just outside the convenince store, asking for my money, had a fully automatic AK-47 at the ready. ;)
1- It says you're a Libertarian, so how would you not be in support of freedom in this regard?

2- It isn't that people are enthusiastic about people like that having guns, but we also understand that no law will stop them. And that gun control creates more loopholes for law-abiding citizens, and empowers the bad guy against more people who do obey the law. So at least if the crazy guy like that is allowed to have an AK-47 at the ready, then so are we. That makes me feel a LOT safer than knowing that nobody is "legally allowed" to carry such a weapon like that.

"Those who would give up a little freedom for a little security, deserve neither, and will lose both." -Benjamin Franklin
 

Gaugingcatenate

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2013
Messages
12,331
Reaction score
1,939
Location
Formerly of the Southern USA, now permanently in t
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Yep. I'd certainly feel safer if the babbling moron, with a pant load of poop, sitiing just outside the convenince store, asking for my money, had a fully automatic AK-47 at the ready. ;)
That is going to happen in any event, the criminal is not worried about any gun laws, hence the label of a criminal. I would rather have a chance, or have some good Samaritan walking by that may have a gun be able to act for the good. What if you had your daughter with you and the perp wanted to take her as well... you would not want at least some sort of "equalizer" on your side to try to stop him?

Asking "pretty please" is probably not gonna do it in most instances.
 

Grand Mal

Question authority
DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2013
Messages
35,852
Reaction score
18,325
Location
on an island off the left coast of Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Tothian, Speaketh!: The Dangers of Gun Control

In the Constitution of the United States, the 2nd Amendment clearly states:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear blah blah blah...
Thanks for the same old regurgitated pap that gets spewed at least once a week here (though not many have had the nerve to quote Adolph Hitler in support of their position).
Bet I can guess your position on abortion and gay marriage.
 

CalGun

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 7, 2012
Messages
7,039
Reaction score
3,268
Location
Denio Junction
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Best info is Univ. of Hawaii's study on Demicide (death by govt) which suggests 260 or so million in the last 113 years alone.....most unarmed.
 

Starbuck

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 28, 2013
Messages
881
Reaction score
255
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I'm all for gun ownership and feel that most of the laws made to curb the ownership/ carry of legal firearms are pointless. However, I hate that most of the people trying to promote gun ownership often cite poor information or use backwards justifications, thereby furthering the stereotypes.

Now look at countries like Sweden. 1 in 2 citizens carries a gun. Lowest crime rate in the world.
No one in Sweden carries a gun. Sure most of them own guns, but those are used for hunting and sport only. There is a distinct difference between someone who owns guns for sporting and someone who carries a gun for defense/ crime prevention, totally misusing the data.


Not only would allowing people to access and carry guns more easily decease crime, and thus help the economy and government budget more by reducing the high cost that crime has on society, but having more gun stores open in more places would also help give more jobs to more people and thus help the economy more that way too.
Most people can't shoot at a range. Never mind under pressure, I'm quite sure that most people would be better off throwing their guns at the perpetrators than trying to shoot anyone.

Now, I'm not about to promote any law that further regulates firearms (for sport or defense), but I'll be the first to admit that I don't actually want to see a bunch of random civilians trying to use their personal firearms while I'm around. I think that gun ownership is at a healthy level in this country, as is.

Practically speaking, I'd like to see that people carrying firearms for defense/ crime prevention have some good experience prior to being turned out on the street, but I couldn't support any laws that require that.
 

Buck Ewer

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
5,729
Reaction score
2,853
Location
Colorado mountains
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
"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."
That is all one sentence. One complete thought. If it were written as two sentences the meaning would be entirely different and more like what the OP is trying to say. But it isn't ...it's one sentence
The right of the people to "keep and bear arms" is for the purpose of keeping a well regulated militia.
That made sense when it was written as we had just won a populist guerrilla war against a colonial oppressor. That "well regulated militia" is now called the National Guard and they supply the weapons.
 

Starbuck

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 28, 2013
Messages
881
Reaction score
255
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
That "well regulated militia" is now called the National Guard and they supply the weapons.
A lot of people overlook that notion. I guess it's easy to do, the lower 48 haven't seen much action in the past 150 years.
 

Tothian

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 30, 2013
Messages
553
Reaction score
103
Location
New Jersey, United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
That is all one sentence. One complete thought. If it were written as two sentences the meaning would be entirely different and more like what the OP is trying to say. But it isn't ...it's one sentence
The right of the people to "keep and bear arms" is for the purpose of keeping a well regulated militia.
That made sense when it was written as we had just won a populist guerrilla war against a colonial oppressor. That "well regulated militia" is now called the National Guard and they supply the weapons.
The National Guard isn't the type of Militia they were referring to. The National Guard is part of the United States Army, or the Air National Guard being part of the United States Air Force, but with the Governor as their Commander-in-Chief of the national guard, unless activated by the President, with the approval of Congress, during time of war.

They mentioned the phrase "the people" in there. Not "members of the armed forces".
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
66,884
Reaction score
37,981
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
That is going to happen in any event, the criminal is not worried about any gun laws, hence the label of a criminal. I would rather have a chance, or have some good Samaritan walking by that may have a gun be able to act for the good. What if you had your daughter with you and the perp wanted to take her as well... you would not want at least some sort of "equalizer" on your side to try to stop him?

Asking "pretty please" is probably not gonna do it in most instances.
I was not trying to portray that fine citizen as being a known criminal, but as one that is in need of treatment for a mental problem. He would likely assert, after spraying lead in all directions, that it was not because he was upset that he could not get money, but because he was under attack by a hoard of miniature dragons that caused him to discharge the full magazine in self defense. ;)
 

Gaugingcatenate

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2013
Messages
12,331
Reaction score
1,939
Location
Formerly of the Southern USA, now permanently in t
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I was not trying to portray that fine citizen as being a known criminal, but as one that is in need of treatment for a mental problem. He would likely assert, after spraying lead in all directions, that it was not because he was upset that he could not get money, but because he was under attack by a hoard of miniature dragons that caused him to discharge the full magazine in self defense. ;)
Thats cool, but you are saying the rest of us, if we want to stop said nut, we have to try to get close enough through the hail of lead to throw our unarmed bodies against this guy. How about a sane person with a concealed weapons permit plunks one shot in the right direction when we have an out of control person doing as you describe? Problem solved. Less innocents endangered or killed that way. Not a perfect system of course, because there is really no way to figure out beforehand who is that crazy and who might lose it at any given moment. But the sane should be more in a position to deal with it than letting the crazies rule.

At least that makes more sense to me. :)
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
66,884
Reaction score
37,981
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Thats cool, but you are saying the rest of us, if we want to stop said nut, we have to try to get close enough through the hail of lead to throw our unarmed bodies against this guy. How about a sane person with a concealed weapons permit plunks one shot in the right direction when we have an out of control person doing as you describe? Problem solved. Less innocents endangered or killed that way. Not a perfect system of course, because there is really no way to figure out beforehand who is that crazy and who might lose it at any given moment. But the sane should be more in a position to deal with it than letting the crazies rule.

At least that makes more sense to me. :)
:lol: :doh OK, Skippy, why does one need a 2A rights rental agreement to stop an insane moron from committing mass murder? :roll:

I am advocating a system of universal BG checks but not using point of sale checks via FFL dealers to do so. When your state issued, photo ID is initially granted, updated or renewed then a BG check is done as part of that process; if you pass the NICS BG check, and are an adult U.S. citizen, then your ID is stamped "GUN OK" and that allows you to buy guns, ammo and to carry a gun. If you are later convicted of a felony, adjudged to be mentally incompetent or placed under a judicial protective order then you must surrender your "GUN OK" ID and the NICS database is updated.
 

Gaugingcatenate

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2013
Messages
12,331
Reaction score
1,939
Location
Formerly of the Southern USA, now permanently in t
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
:lol: :doh OK, Skippy, why does one need a 2A rights rental agreement to stop an insane moron from committing mass murder? :roll:

I am advocating a system of universal BG checks but not using point of sale checks via FFL dealers to do so. When your state issued, photo ID is initially granted, updated or renewed then a BG check is done as part of that process; if you pass the NICS BG check, and are an adult U.S. citizen, then your ID is stamped "GUN OK" and that allows you to buy guns, ammo and to carry a gun. If you are later convicted of a felony, adjudged to be mentally incompetent or placed under a judicial protective order then you must surrender your "GUN OK" ID and the NICS database is updated.
First...The name is not Skippy, there Tweetie. Might that be short for Tweetie-bird? Just asking. :confused::lamo

Second, that might just take a load of your mind [ in theory], but what will that really do except add another layer of government intervention into our lives. Criminals are going to get guns anyhow, just about no matter what laws/systems you put in place. They are criminals and are habitually used to breaking laws, thus the term criminal. An authoritarian style government "might" be able to do it, but who is willing to give up all those rights just so we can potentially accomplish that for which you are striving? Crazies are going to often have access to guns anyhow [ see: Sandyhook crazie whose mother had guns; his mother was not a felon nor adjudged a mentally unstable person and she had guns ]. Just a lot of money and wasted effort that could be put to better use...known in economics as opportunity costs and trade offs.

Simply not an effective tool, surely not cost effective. Besides ALL Americans are due their Second Amendment rights.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
66,884
Reaction score
37,981
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
First...The name is not Skippy, there Tweetie. Might that be short for Tweetie-bird? Just asking. :confused::lamo

Second, that might just take a load of your mind [ in theory], but what will that really do except add another layer of government intervention into our lives. Criminals are going to get guns anyhow, just about no matter what laws/systems you put in place. They are criminals and are habitually used to breaking laws, thus the term criminal. An authoritarian style government "might" be able to do it, but who is willing to give up all those rights just so we can potentially accomplish that for which you are striving? Crazies are going to often have access to guns anyhow [ see: Sandyhook crazie whose mother had guns; his mother was not a felon nor adjudged a mentally unstable person and she had guns ]. Just a lot of money and wasted effort that could be put to better use...known in economics as opportunity costs and trade offs.

Simply not an effective tool, surely not cost effective. Besides ALL Americans are due their Second Amendment rights.
ttwtt78640 = Totally Texas White Trailer Trash & zip code, but if your prefer tweety that's fine by me. ;)

You were the one advocating CCW permit/CHL use which is far more gov't control and expense than a simply doing an NICS BG check when issuing an ID card. With a "GUN OK" ID system it is far easier to know who is legally able to buy/possess guns and ammo. As you say, guns and ammo are very easy to get w/o ever visiting a FFL dealer and there is now basically no way for the average citizen to determine if one wishing to buy guns/ammo is legally allowed to have them.
 

Gaugingcatenate

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2013
Messages
12,331
Reaction score
1,939
Location
Formerly of the Southern USA, now permanently in t
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
ttwtt78640 = Totally Texas White Trailer Trash & zip code, but if your prefer tweety that's fine by me. ;)

You were the one advocating CCW permit/CHL use which is far more gov't control and expense than a simply doing an NICS BG check when issuing an ID card. With a "GUN OK" ID system it is far easier to know who is legally able to buy/possess guns and ammo. As you say, guns and ammo are very easy to get w/o ever visiting a FFL dealer and there is now basically no way for the average citizen to determine if one wishing to buy guns/ammo is legally allowed to have them.
The only reason I used the concealed weapons permit in my example is to obviate dealing with those who want some form of gun controls...me, I am willing for everyone have the right to carry. Anybody who really wants a gun is going to get one anyhow. Why give the government the hard earned dollars of productive people when the criminals surely will avoid that and the law itself. It is absurd to have a system that penalizes the law abiding. That is just unreasonable in an inefficient manner. ;)
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
66,884
Reaction score
37,981
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
The only reason I used the concealed weapons permit in my example is to obviate dealing with those who want some form of gun controls...me, I am willing for everyone have the right to carry. Anybody who really wants a gun is going to get one anyhow. Why give the government the hard earned dollars of productive people when the criminals surely will avoid that and the law itself. It is absurd to have a system that penalizes the law abiding. That is just unreasonable in an inefficient manner. ;)
:lol: :doh Are you kidding me? You pretend to support gun control (in the strictest form possible - expensive, state issued, temporary CCW permits, making all others into felons if they simly carry "free") but really don't mean it? How does a system that simply adds "GUN OK" to 95% of all adult U.S. citizen's ID cards penalize the law abiding citizen? :roll:
 

Gaugingcatenate

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2013
Messages
12,331
Reaction score
1,939
Location
Formerly of the Southern USA, now permanently in t
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
:lol: :doh Are you kidding me? You pretend to support gun control (in the strictest form possible - expensive, state issued, temporary CCW permits, making all others into felons if they simly carry "free") but really don't mean it? How does a system that simply adds "GUN OK" to 95% of all adult U.S. citizen's ID cards penalize the law abiding citizen? :roll:
Lets not go down the prevaricator's path, now. Keep it accurate and therefore we can keep it civil. Didn't pretend anything, just used someone who has, under the current system where we all are not allowed to carry, a concealed weapons permit in one example. I do not advocate for this nor other restrictions on gun rights.

Tell you what, all you folks who want that background check...ante up your dollars beforehand and YOU and people who believe like you can pay for all those. Deal? I DO NOT want to be paying for your, my or anybody else to be able to get a gun... or to restrict them from getting a gun.

Are we all clear on that now, Tweetie?
 

CalGun

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 7, 2012
Messages
7,039
Reaction score
3,268
Location
Denio Junction
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Just curious. Why mark 95% of them "gun ok" when you could mark "5%" of them NO GUNS?


:lol: :doh Are you kidding me? You pretend to support gun control (in the strictest form possible - expensive, state issued, temporary CCW permits, making all others into felons if they simly carry "free") but really don't mean it? How does a system that simply adds "GUN OK" to 95% of all adult U.S. citizen's ID cards penalize the law abiding citizen? :roll:
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
66,884
Reaction score
37,981
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Lets not go down the prevaricator's path, now. Keep it accurate and therefore we can keep it civil. Didn't pretend anything, just used someone who has, under the current system where we all are not allowed to carry, a concealed weapons permit in one example. I do not advocate for this nor other restrictions on gun rights.

Tell you what, all you folks who want that background check...ante up your dollars beforehand and YOU and people who believe like you can pay for all those. Deal? I DO NOT want to be paying for your, my or anybody else to be able to get a gun... or to restrict them from getting a gun.

Are we all clear on that now, Tweetie?
So, am I to take that as a back door, apology for accidentally including a requirement for a CCW permit in your initial post? ;)

Guns for eveyone then, kids, crazy folks, gang bangers and felons upon release from jail/prison/asylum. Everyone best carry now because the "bad guys" are legally allowed to do so as well. No more imagining that the guy convicted of assault last month, or just released from jail/insane asylum might be up to no good as they bop through the mall carrying that Uzi, they are simply trying to be able to properly defend themselves.
 

Gaugingcatenate

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2013
Messages
12,331
Reaction score
1,939
Location
Formerly of the Southern USA, now permanently in t
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
So, am I to take that as a back door, apology for accidentally including a requirement for a CCW permit in your initial post? ;)

Guns for eveyone then, kids, crazy folks, gang bangers and felons upon release from jail/prison/asylum. Everyone best carry now because the "bad guys" are legally allowed to do so as well. No more imagining that the guy convicted of assault last month, or just released from jail/insane asylum might be up to no good as they bop through the mall carrying that Uzi, they are simply trying to be able to properly defend themselves.
Nope, just setting the record straight.

Yup. Up to the adults whether their children have guns. My father had a rifle when he was like 10... Everybody is taught in school how to use a machete where I live in Panama...nobody is asking for IDs etc... anyone that wants one carries them around...seems dangerous, but its not. Just not.
 

Starbuck

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 28, 2013
Messages
881
Reaction score
255
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
:lol: :doh Are you kidding me? You pretend to support gun control (in the strictest form possible - expensive, state issued, temporary CCW permits, making all others into felons if they simly carry "free") but really don't mean it? How does a system that simply adds "GUN OK" to 95% of all adult U.S. citizen's ID cards penalize the law abiding citizen? :roll:
I've heard a lot of different approaches to gun control, personally I might not mind seeing guns treated like fireworks. . . you want them, you buy them.

However, if we are going to have any amount of gun control, your idea makes a lot of sense. Looking at my state issued ID, it clearly states that I am an organ donor, perhaps the gun endorsement could be stamped next to that. Seems like a relatively reasonable and/ or fiscally prudent move.

Like I've said, I'm more in line with just allowing people to own guns without the stipulations. . . but other than that I actually like the ID endorsement.

-nice
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
66,884
Reaction score
37,981
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Just curious. Why mark 95% of them "gun ok" when you could mark "5%" of them NO GUNS?
You cannot compel a felon to self-incriminate, thus absense of a "NO GUN" ID is no guarantee that they are not in the "NO GUN" group. Think of it as starting a good citizen's club, would it be best to confirm membership and then issue them a club member card or to assume hat all are members unless they carry a special non-membership certificate?
 

Starbuck

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 28, 2013
Messages
881
Reaction score
255
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Guns for eveyone then, kids, crazy folks, gang bangers and felons upon release from jail/prison/asylum.
I get where you are coming from here, but I argue that the lines around 'gang bangers,' 'kids' and 'crazy folks' are pretty blurry':
  • In a state where access to firearms is restricted around mental state/ capacity, who gets to decide what the threshold is?
  • When it comes to age, how does one determine the time at which someone can rightfully own a gun? I was in the military, but some hotels wouldn't let me rent a room. . . or buy a drink.
  • 'Gang Bangers' is a term that's used very liberally. I'm not much a fan of the whole guilty by association theory. Who get's to decide what 'gang banger' means?
 

Starbuck

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 28, 2013
Messages
881
Reaction score
255
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
However, criminal history is a good indicator as to who might not be suitable for gun ownership. . . that might be the only straight forward statistic that the government could actually use when determining an individuals suitability for firearms.

The problem is, many people who would fit that criteria are simply going to ignore the law anyway. . . the old 'laws don't apply to criminals complex.'
 
Top Bottom