The Gun Debate

If the OP wants solutions, here's one that I have always endorsed.

Make it a capital offense for anyone that uses a firearm in the commission of a crime.

Simple.

reply to post by Idiosonic

Idiosonic
This is my first thread and it is bound to be a controversial one.

Welcome to ATS

I believe that owning a gun should be earned. Earned in such a way as to show you are mature enough to own one. There are far, far to many immature and reckless people who should not own one yet still do. And it is getting worse, with the new "Smart Rifle" out that is so easy a 12 year old girl can hit a 3 inch disc at 500 yards


I think restrictions on people are in place. A crazy person should have no place around guns, yet it keeps happening Something needs to change. But it likely never will, the NRA and gun nuts wont budge, they bully people into making decisions and it needs to stop.

There are already laws in place restricting Crazy people, those suffering from clinical depression and felons from legally obtaining guns. It is already a felony to use a gun in the commission of a crime. enforce those laws and leave the rest of us alone.

For your edification I present these two vids to show why we have the 2nd amendment, what it was intended for and why we will never willingly give up our right to bear arms and never should.

Penn and Teller on the 2nd amendment


Dr Susan Gratia-Hupp - Survivor of the 1991 Kileen TX Lubys Shooting Massacre

I love(hate) when anti-gun people try to throw Sandy Hoax and really, any mass shooting into the debate. You really should stop, In my opinion, it makes you look so simple minded. Here are a few solutions. 1. Life in prison for committing crime with a gun. 2. Instant Universal background checks for mental illness and past crimes. 3. Mandatory weapon safety training. If I have to take a test to drive a car, then it seems reasonable to take a test to get a gun. 4. Everyone school should have at least 1 person on campus at ALL times with a CCW. Be It cop or private security.
I bet a lot of people would still be alive if just one single person had a gun to stop them. And police are not required to help any citizen in distress. What cop do you know that would rush to confront someone with a gun? I know a few who would wait around. Restricting guns on law abiding citizens is in fact a crime of Treason. If it we're up to me, any lawmakers or law signers who have already placed such restrictions should be tried in court. If found guilty, firing squad.
Frexmil2

I blame the progressive gun grabbers for Sandy Hook.

If the teachers were armed, it would have been a non event.

reply to post by Idiosonic


leave it to an anti-gunner to misrepresent things, to suit their bias....

the system you are so afraid of is not cheap....the cheapest one i could find was about ten grand....bolt action systems, like the one in the video, cost between $9,995 and $27,500...not exactly cheap...and as far as i can tell, you can't buy them at gun stores....you need to apply to tracking point, to get one, and they'll build it for you, and then transfer it to an FFL dealer, who will then run all the necessary legal checks...THEN you can have it....

so it's not cheap, and it's not as easy to get as a normal rifle.....you really hafta want one...it's a specialty weapon, that i seriously doubt is going to be the weapon of choice for school shooters, and random wingnuts on SSRI's..

nice try though....

EDIT: what's more, wtf does being "insane" have to do with anything? you say "if a 12 year old girl can do this, imagine what an insane person can do" ...does being insane suddenly make you a better shot? are you implying that with the added skill you magically attain by being "insane", combined with a the networked scope/fire control system of the TrackingPoint system, you would be some sort of super godlike figure, who could shoot a pimple off kim jong un's arse from kansas?

the assertion is ridiculous.(end edit)

and i'll repost here, what i said in the OTHER thread, regarding your silly assertion about muskets..

Idiosonic
But this was before America had an actual army. It is irrelevant today.

Incorrect. At the time of the adoption of the 2nd amendment(1791), the United States Army had already been officially created by the congress of the confederation(predecessor of the 1st U.S. Congress), and before that, there was the Continential Army, which was disbanded, following the conclusion of the revolutionary war.

so we had an "actual army", at the time the 2nd amendment was adopted...obviously, the right of the citizens to be armed, and to be able to come together for the common defense was still seen as relevant, and a thing of value. it is no less relevant today, than it was in 1791.

and i find it highly annoying that you feel the need to use terms like "actual army", as if a militia can't be just as capable of providing defense as a standing federal army regiment would be. you need to let go of programmed misconceptions that only the government is allowed to do certain things, and that everyone else is illegal, or "wannabes"

It doesn't cover "Steve's" (generic name) Right to own AR-15's with 100 round magazines and 3 shotguns and 12 handguns (Basically an excess of guns) as Steve would have you believe.

incorrect again.....muskets were the 18th century's AR-15....it was the most common long gun in use....the assertion that somehow a musket is any less dangerous than an AR-15(i'm sure there are many thousands of dead continental soldiers that would argue with that assessment), and is what people should be using, simply because that was state of the art in 1791, is laughable....perhaps we should ban cars, and go back to horses, because that was state of the art when our right to travel/freedom of movement was established in 1781, or perhaps we should ban television, because newspapers and books were state of the art at the time....discriminating against advances in technology, simply because you don't like them, is..well, it's just plain dumb...technological advancement is part of the evolution of society..

furthermore, what you consider "excessive", someone else might consider as either "enough", or "not enough"....maybe he's collecting them, or maybe he customizes them as a hobby, or maybe he enjoys shooting, or just bought some of them because they looked cool....show me where it doesn't cover those things...

would you restrict theoretical steve's ability to purchase what you consider to be an excess amount of fried chicken, or cars, or hammers, or whatever else?

you have an obvious bias, dislike, and perhaps even fear of guns....it is irrational, and unwarranted, and causes your arguments to be completely bereft of logic...

It gives Steve the right to grab a musket and defend "Kentucky" (random state) from the enemy

as explained above....this is incorrect...this is what happens when people with a bias, or deficient language comprehension skills, decide the constitution needs to be "interpreted"

minkmouse
I always think that the idea of the constitution was correct in it's day but now, to throw the government you'd need some pretty exotic hardware and software, muskets just wouldn't cut it. Bottom line....If Americans are using the constitution as an argument to own firearms to oust a malformed government, a serious amendment is in order!

what in the hell are you even talking about?

reply to post by Idiosonic


Shall not be infringed.

Evidently you are incapable of understanding those words.

Should the right to free speech be earned?

How about the right to buy a book?

Practice a religion?

Why not just end the agreement now once and for all and put it to congress to change the constitution.

If the gun control supporters don't get the 2/3 vote needed and congress shoot a change to the 2nd amendment down which they likely will then that's its it the 2nd there to stay. No point debating any further.

You get a legal and pretty much firm answer then.

LightningStrikesHere
Umm i am a gun owner , and i live in CA ,i don't know about other states but CA is one of the hardest states to get a gun..

Firstly Any domestic charges or violent charges .. Be it felonious or misdemeanor .
YOUR NOT GETTING A GUN.
also if you have ANY psychological issues YOUR NOT GETTING A GUN ..

It's not about restricting guns , a psycho is going to kill regardless , many options kife,gun,bomb, Poison.. Ect ect ..

But guess what i would feel safer knowing that teacher or store owner ,or my neighbor was packing heat!

ETA: any" Responsible " person could SNAP
At any time ... Just saying.

On the contrary we need lessor restriction !


Humbly

LSH

edit on 047121230447412th by LightningStrikesHere because: (no reason given)

edit on 054121230454412th by LightningStrikesHere because: (no reason given)

and therein lies the entirety of the problem with the anti-gun people, and their argument....

they completely ignore, or refuse to acknowledge that the problem is not the guns themselves, but the PEOPLE using them....

at the time the constitution was written, the sentiment was that "no free man shall be disbarred the use of arms"...this was in a time when if you were a violent criminal, you were locked away, or executed..none of this soft "rehabilitate, and release", or "probation", or "parole" crap....if you killed people, you were tried, convicted, and executed for that....now people sit on death row, or get life sentences...and violent offenders are often granted parole, or sentences that actually allow them to be released back into society, so they can do MORE damage...

now, we have a situation where a violent convict is released back into society, and is now considered a "free man" again..granted, there are provisions that disallow that man to purchase a firearm through conventional channels, but as long as the black market is a thing, this man will be able to get a gun......

the anti-gun folks would have us believe that the answer to this is to take away everyone's guns....that doesn't work, because the black market is still a thing, and criminals will still get guns. so now, all you've done is create a whole lot of defenseless targets...

banning guns will do nothing....locking up bad people, or executing them, WILL do something...it'll save us tons of money on housing these animals, AND it will ensure that we have less bad people walking around to potentially hurt or kill good people...

a gun, sitting on a table, is no more dangerous than a hammer....yet, in the hands of a man or woman will ill-intent, they are equally lethal..this is what must be acknowledged, before any real progress can happen...the problem is not the tool, it's the user..

crazyewok
Why not just end the agreement now once and for all and put it to congress to change the constitution.

If the gun control supporters don't get the 2/3 vote needed and congress shoot a change to the 2nd amendment down which they likely will then that's its it the 2nd there to stay. No point debating any further.

You get a legal and pretty much firm answer then.

You answered your own question.

It'll never be brought forward for a Constitutional amendment because they don't have the support.

Oh, the anti-gun folks are very loud and vocal, but they are a very small minority.

reply to post by diggindirt


maybe it's a nitpick...but the "self-evident", in that context, would equate in today's english to "obvious", or "common sense"...they are readily apparent...

your statement is correct though...

Idiosonic
Alot of retards on here. I am saying stop Mentally ill people from having guns yet all anyone can see is a gungrab (which is NOT my point)
"You shall not take my guns" i agree with you, i want unstable people to not have guns

yes, but you would violate people's rights, to achieve that end....sacrificing one right, to protect another is unacceptable...

the solutions are simple, but will never happen, because as long as industrial and corporate interests hold a leash of dollars on our government, the correct steps to remedy the "mental" issue cannot be implemented...

what needs to happen is strict regulations on psychiatric drugs...ones with severe side effects should only be used as a last resort, and only AFTER the patient has been informed of those side effects....any patient on those drugs should be under 24-hours supervision for perhaps the first month of their use, to ensure that any harmful side effects are caught early, before they create a dangerous situation. psychiatric drugs should only be perscribed, if more conventional treatments (counseling, support groups, etc) are ineffective, mental health professionals shouldn't just be handing out pharmaceuticals like they're candy on halloween. seriously dangerous, or criminally insane people should be permanently separated from society, and monitored at all times....and we should stop increasing the sensitivity, with respect to what constitutes a "mental health issue", or a "mental defective"...if we don't it will reach a point where if you get sad for ANY reason, you'll be considered dangerous, and disallowed a gun....being able to arbitrarily classify someone as "f**ked in the head" really is a very disingenuous backdoor way to violate the law..

as i said, as long as the people making the laws are bought, this will never happen, and things will never get better..

Idiosonic
People suffering from depression and things like that, ill let the pro's decide that. But not people who fail to read stuff online then rant about gun grabs, missing the point

i think YOU'RE missing the point.....

it IS a gun grab, because you would trust people who might not have your best interests in mind, to decide who is mentally fit to own a gun.....

you come on here, and bang on about "crazy people shouldn't have guns", without even an idea of what constitutes "crazy", then you say that depressed people shouldn't have guns, and then you say that you don't even have a goddamn IDEA of a plan, and that you'd just trust "professionals" to decide for you?

holy s**t....if everyone thinks like you, no wonder we're in so much trouble...

There is no debate, the 2nd amendment guarantees that....

Idiosonic
I give up. I'll just let you continue to gun down kids at school. That is the problem with America, no one wants to change, you all think it's perfect. Let me tell you something, having people gun down kids at school is not perfect and needs to change yet no one will. "were number one" cut the crap and open your eyes

This whole world is a mess, gotta have a goddamn vest on your chest and a Glock just to go watch Batman. But why? because no one will change

obviously, gunning down kids is a problem....gunning down ANYONE is a problem. that's the issue, gunning down people...don't try to elevate the morality of the argument by augmenting with an appeal to emotion....

obviously we want to do something to make sure that this sort of thing doesn't happen, but you see, as i explained before, as long as pharmaceutical companies (that make psychiatric drugs) can bribe politicians to kill bills that would regulate their products, we won't see any change in those pills being handed out like candy, and we'll continue to see a rise in the lethal expression of their side effects....

the problem isn't the tool, it's the user...and in almost every case, the chemicals that user is ingesting..

thus far, you have suggested no viable solution.

reply to post by Frexmil2


That is what i am saying. not grab all the guns

Idiosonic
reply to post by Frexmil2

 

That is what i am saying. not grab all the guns

I know you want gun ownership to be a privilege.

It's actually your right (1st Amendment) to claim that you want the 2nd Amendment gone.

But what I don't understand is why you would prefer to live in a society where only criminals and police had guns. I guess I can't understand people who want to sacrifice freedom for the illusion of security.

reply to post by Signals


And that is why it is a out of date law. "ANYONE can have a gun, any gun. Crazy people, terrorists all of them." you can't stop them, that is illegal. If you can't infringe on this then why aren't all you guys arguing that guys like James Eagan Holmes, the aurora guy, should be able to buy an AK-47. STOP INFRINGING PEOPLE LIKE JAMES EAGAN HOLMES RIGHTS TO OWN ANY GUN HE WANTS. Why don't you say that, that infringes on your precious rights, but it is not convenient

Idiosonic
reply to post by Signals

 

And that is why it is a out of date law. "ANYONE can have a gun, any gun. Crazy people, terrorists all of them." you can't stop them, that is illegal. If you can't infringe on this then why aren't all you guys arguing that guys like James Eagan Holmes, the aurora guy, should be able to buy an AK-47. STOP INFRINGING PEOPLE LIKE JAMES EAGAN HOLMES RIGHTS TO OWN ANY GUN HE WANTS. Why don't you say that, that infringes on your precious rights, but it is not convenient

Freedom has risks.

Freedom is also free to be crazy and cause damage and terror. Freedom is a double-edged sword.

You can't just remove the bad parts of freedom without removing the good parts of freedom.

reply to post by beezzer


I live in a foreign country. It works here, no monthly mass shootings. i don't live in constant fear, i actually own guns, but not for protection. we eliminated the threat, the government hasn't become tyrannical. we have less than 10 gun murders a year. you have over 11,000

I also like you point about the first amendment. It seems that it only applies if i agree with what you are saying though. Weird .