[Serious] Can we have a discussion about anti-gun control laws? Educate me.

To me the second admandment is as relevant today as the day it was created. A well armed populous is a good deterrent against an oppressive government. The SCOTUS has affirmed rightly that the rights to bare arms is the right of the people.

Guns themselves is really not an epidemic that the media makes it seems in the US. We have over 360 million firearms in this country, how many of those are used in crime any given year? 5%, 2% 1%? Also violent crimes and gun crimes in the US have been declining for decades even when firearms themselves increases year over year. The problem we do have in the US is less gun related than most think, we have more problems with kids who grows up without structure, mental illness system that do not filter out those that needs help and cities and states who do not have the resources or will to punish the criminals.

Oh by the way, the percent of guns used in murder each year 0.00003%.

originally posted by: eriktheawful
a reply to: fencesitter85

1) The majority of your suggestions require us to have complete confidence and trust in our government, who would never, ever abuse the system.

We don't.

2) Gun owners here in the US have been compromising since the 1930s, the result of which has ended up with stricter and stricter gun laws. We have enough gun laws. They just need to be enforced.

3) Being that you're from the UK, why is it that people there are so worried about what rights we have here? Not seeing a lot of threads from US citizens wanting to change gun laws in the UK.

Hi Erik - understood re the Govt trust issue. But to counter that, with respect, what harm can it do having them run more background checks?

Interesting second point also - does sound like an issue they need to work on for sure.

And as for your third point, with all due respect, this is entirely moot. I'm not worried; ATS is a discussion forum where anyone from anywhere in the world can come and join in with a wide range of discussions, including global politics. I take an interest in this because it's often in the news, and is very much a left vs right debate more often than not. If you started a thread about guns in the UK, I wouldn't dream of saying "Oi mate, you ain't English so mind your own business." Me being English is completely irrelevant, in the context of my question. To suggest that I shouldn't ask questions about US politics because I'm not an American is, frankly, bizarre.

thanks
FS85

Were it not for the 2d Amendment, I would not be here to post in your thread.

- The 2nd amendment was created in a time where current weapons didn't exist, so my thoughts are that the right to bear arms, as written then, is not automatically applicable today

During the time of the writing of the second Amendment every weapon was an 'assualt' weapon.

The pinnacle of the technology of the time.

The REASON the second was created was because King George DENIED colonials access to arms.

When the revolution came around colonials those rebels had to beg,borrow,steal, and kill to get them to fight the revolution

The second was created to preserve the RIGHT to self determination.

There are more RIGHTS in the Bill of Rights at play.

The RIGHT to trial by jury preserved in several amendments. Where crimes be proven in courts of law. Where people are INNOCENT until Proven Guilty.

The RIGHT of a person NOT being held for a capital or other wise infamous crime.

The RIGHT NOT to be cruel or unusually punished.

The Right to life,LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness.

Where NO state SHALL make or enforce any laws that INFRINGES the RIGHT of ALL people to have liberty.

a reply to: Hazardous1408

That's ridiculous on its face that's like saying the Taliban in Afghanistan couldn't fight against the US military might or the Russian military might in the eighties.

Large numerical superiority with small arms can absolutely fight against a tyrannical government that has a mighty military you don't know anything about War if you think otherwise.

Jaden

P.s. besides that's an argument to allow the citizenry to have greater armament not less

originally posted by: fencesitter85

- Also it's an amendment - of which there are many. So why does it cause such indignation to suggest a further amendment could be issued to bring it more up to date? That's the point of an amendment.

- Surely background checks could only ever be a good thing?

- Having a central register of gun owners would surely fall into the same category?

- The 2nd Amendment is part of something called The Bill of Rights. To Americans, those are incredibly important, I guess I'm not surprised a foreigner doesn't understand the importance. And there's a reason why it's #2, right behind #1 Freedom of Speech, it's that important.

- We have background checks.

- The first step of confiscation is to create a registry. That's why we oppose it. Maybe your British government is good and trustworthy, our corrupt US politicians aren't. Everything they touch they abuse, and a gun registry would be no different.

a reply to: DBCowboy

As for the age of the 2nd Amendment? Computers weren't around, so should we "re-do" the 1st Amendment as well?

Right!

If they treated the first like the second.

We would still be using smoke signals.Pencils and papers.

Forget about computers.smart phones, and the 'internets'.

a reply to: fencesitter85

It can do a great deal of harm by allowing them to have a registry of US citizens because when it does get to the point where they want to collect all firearms it gives them ease of doing so which prevents themail citizenry from having the ability to fight back because government can use overwhelming Force to collect those firearms from the individuals that have them

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: fencesitter85

Background checks can be dangerous. Especially with the conditions being arbitrary.

Imagine background checks for any other right.

"Sorry sir, we must do a background check to ensure you are not a Trump supporter in order to qualify for free speech"

The more you control guns the more criminals win.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
Most people have no issue with gun regulations to some degree or another.
But as with any restrictions they can be taken to far.
Say a man that went through a nasty divorce was on antidepressants for a while. Will he be on a list of unstable people now and forever?
Maybe you get arrested at a protest while in college.
That's another list.

The original second amendment was to ensure the existence of a free state. That has never changed.

I have to fill out loads of paperwork to buy a handgun.
But can we ask for photo ID at the voting booth? Ehhh,

I didn't like to pick and choose which rights need to be restricted.

Fair response, thank you. I agree photo ID should be required for voting - same as in the UK. Pretty much everyone has it anyway, and it's not hard to get. And perhaps in the case of the previously depressed guy, it could just be a case of a doctor signing you off as ok to buy guns again? It would be a tricky one to manage, for sure.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: fencesitter85

Background checks can be dangerous. Especially with the conditions being arbitrary.

Imagine background checks for any other right.

I had to go through heaps of checks to get my new mortgage to ensure that I was an appropriate candidate for the quantity that I wanted to borrow. Makes sense to me.

originally posted by: TruMcCarthy

originally posted by: fencesitter85

- Also it's an amendment - of which there are many. So why does it cause such indignation to suggest a further amendment could be issued to bring it more up to date? That's the point of an amendment.

- Surely background checks could only ever be a good thing?

- Having a central register of gun owners would surely fall into the same category?

- The 2nd Amendment is part of something called The Bill of Rights. To Americans, those are incredibly important, I guess I'm not surprised a foreigner doesn't understand the importance. And there's a reason why it's #2, right behind #1 Freedom of Speech, it's that important.

- We have background checks.

- The first step of confiscation is to create a registry. That's why we oppose it. Maybe your British government is good and trustworthy, our corrupt US politicians aren't. Everything they touch they abuse, and a gun registry would be no different.

Thanks for your reply - I'm well aware of the Bill of Rights thanks, and I'm also aware of how many amendments it's seen. Amendments are introduced as situations change and evolve. It's not set in stone; that's the point. And no, the British Govt is no better than yours - we too are in bed with the Saudis and anyone else who will buy our weapons. It's a shame. But gun licensing here works very well. What's wrong with a registry?

There are other replies I want to address, but there are just too many so I can't!

I must fall back to this point which everyone seems to be sidestepping so far: 'Well regulated militia.' Mr Average having an AR16 at home is not a well regulated militia, surely?

Don't get me wrong. I'm so genuinely terrified of someone breaking into my home and harming my wife/dog, I have a crowbar, a telescopic wheel brace and a huge knife under my bed. If I could have a glock, I probably would. If someone breaks into my home and tries to harm those I love, I wouldn't hesitate to kill them and worry about the consequences later. As I say, I'm not anti-gun. I'm just trying to understand the aggressive opposition to better background checks for military grade weaponry, that's all.

FS85

I can't fully reply on this internal touch screen, but I didn't see anyone point out the number one reason behind not having a central registry of people with fire arms.
Registration is the first step towards confiscation.
The powers that be don't want the average person being armed, as it prevents them from overthrowing our freedoms. That's why the 2nd was written, and giving them a database of everyone who is armed gives them a list of people to Target.

a reply to: TruMcCarthy

We have background checks.

Which did not exist for over two centuries.

Thanks to effing Bill Clinton.

When a RIGHT became no longer a right.

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: fencesitter85

Background checks can be dangerous. Especially with the conditions being arbitrary.

Imagine background checks for any other right.

"Sorry sir, we must do a background check to ensure you are not a Trump supporter in order to qualify for free speech"

Can you keep this kind of incendiary baiting for the mud pit please - it's not that kind of thread. Thank you

FS85

originally posted by: fencesitter85

I had to go through heaps of checks to get my new mortgage to ensure that I was an appropriate candidate for the quantity that I wanted to borrow. Makes sense to me.

So no one ever defaults on a home mortgage because of background checks?

a reply to: Deaf Alien

wrong. Germany is the best example.

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: fencesitter85

It can do a great deal of harm by allowing them to have a registry of US citizens because when it does get to the point where they want to collect all firearms it gives them ease of doing so which prevents themail citizenry from having the ability to fight back because government can use overwhelming Force to collect those firearms from the individuals that have them

Excuse the question, but isn't this just paranoia? For 8 years these forums were full of "Obama is going to take our guns!" - which never happened. I've never seen anything to suggest they want to take your guns. You're basically forming your opinions on the assumption that 'at some point' 'they' will come to take your guns. But there's zero evidence of that even being a remote possibility at this point...

FS85

a reply to: verschickter

We aren't talking about Germany are we?

a reply to: fencesitter85

Excuse the question, but isn't this just paranoia? For 8 years these forums were full of "Obama is going to take our guns!" - which never happened

That's because congress blocked the over 100 plus attempts.

www.cbsnews.com...

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: fencesitter85

I had to go through heaps of checks to get my new mortgage to ensure that I was an appropriate candidate for the quantity that I wanted to borrow. Makes sense to me.

So no one ever defaults on a home mortgage because of background checks?

Of course they do - if their circumstances change beyond their control; which in hindsight means it was a poor analogy. But I could counter it by suggesting that far far more people would be likely to default without those initial checks. I even had a financial advisor scrutinising my savings, my monthly outgoings, my direct debits etc. It's intrusive, but ultimately there to protect me and everyone else holding a mortgage. This is how I see background checks for gun ownership. You have to jump through a lot of hoops in the UK to own a rifle or a shotgun, and for good reason.