Gun Control Yes or No

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776

Originally posted by Expat888
Have neither a need nor use for a firearm. For those who do feel such a need then they should undergo the followin..
1. Mandatory annual psyche evaluation.
2. Proper training and certification in firearms handling / safety.
3. Annual range training certification showing proper shooting skill / ability including low light , normal light , adverse conditions etc.
4. Training on the consequences of having to use / using a firearm on another human being.
5. Annual criminal background check. No ownership to those convicted of violent crimes .

And how does that jibe with "shall not be infringed"?

Considering that 1. Theres a vast difference between the flintlock muzzloading weapons of 300 years ago and even a basic pistol / rifle today - even more so for military weapons.
2. Theres people today who cant even find their way down the street without using gps to navigate..
Its fitting that to own a firearm they should have proper training in firearms handling / safety along with be able to shoot said firearm.
I dont see training to be an infringement on an individuals right to own a firearm.
For the ones that view firearms as a compensation for lack of manhood they make viagra that solves that..
Better to have people know and be able to properly use a firearm- too many village idiots these days not to have training in place to ensure that those who carry know and understand the weapons they carry..

Originally posted by Expat888
Have neither a need nor use for a firearm. For those who do feel such a need then they should undergo the followin..

Ok, let me try a different tack here then

1. Mandatory annual psyche evaluation.

Done by whom? Considering that big sis has already come out and called veterans potential terrorists, how long until you think the examiner decides that anybody who believes in the 2nd amendment has psychological issues and should not handle a weapon?

2. Proper training and certification in firearms handling / safety.

Great in theory, however as part of a gun ownership requirement it automatically presupposes registration which I oppose as the first step towards confiscation. Anyone with military training should be automatically qualified if it were implemented.

3. Annual range training certification showing proper shooting skill / ability including low light , normal light , adverse conditions etc.

See 2 above

4. Training on the consequences of having to use / using a firearm on another human being.

I am sorry my friend, but is this a joke? Do you believe that people think guns tickle people or blow kisses at them?

5. Annual criminal background check. No ownership to those convicted of violent crimes .

This I could almost agree with except for 3 issues. 1) A criminal is going to tell you to "get bent" and get one anyway
2) I do not believe in "perpetual punishment". If the person has finished his sentence, he/she should once again be a full citizen with all the rights and duties thereof. Creating a lower class of people who have made a mistake and now cannot get decent jobs, cannot vote, and in general enjoy the benefits of citizenship means that these people no longer have a stake in our society and I believe leads to high rates of recidivism. So for one stupid bar fight? Or a domestic dispute that "got out of hand"? or some other stupid mistake? Are you telling me you have never done anything stupid?
3) and last but not least, this would again presuppose registration, which I oppose.

I dont see the point in gun control, here in GB we are not allowed to carry guns but that doesnt actually stop or deter criminals from doing just that. I'm guessing thats the same where ever in the world one might be? So honest folks who just want to protect there own can't do it legally but any dodgy dealer can pick up a gun without to much hassle. Worlds gone mental.

Let me interject a little historical perspective into this discussion:

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country." --Adolf Hitler, dinner talk on April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitler's Table Talk 1941-44: His Private Conversations, Second Edition (1973), Pg. 425-426. Translated by Norman Cameron and R. H. Stevens. Introduced and with a new preface by H. R. Trevor-Roper. The original German papers were known as Bormann-Vermerke.

It's kind of funny that some of the progressives who hate "that pesky second amendment" believe essentially the same thing as Adolf Hitler. Yet, they have followers who fall lock step in with their gun control crap.

Um, no to gun control.
The only gun control I want to see, is people using two hands to fire a weapon.

Reply to post by serenecalamityz

That's the trouble with using force of law as social engineering.

If any law has to exist at all it should simply be an assault/murder law. Anything else is just piling on more useless legislation that costs more every year and continually makes felons out of people who have not committed and crime.

People pile on law after law after law and none o the problems they claim to be addressing ever get any better. And their answer when somebody points that out is, you guessed it, more laws!

Yet the problem remains despite any laws. Over time the statistics never change. There is a rough equalibrium where they stay. Arm everybody in one state, disarm everybody in another and over 50 years the crime rates of both will remain comparable. If anything affects crime it certainly isn't "law."

Laws are like over the counter symptom medications that make idiots feel good but do nothing at all for the problem.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Good to know that this managed to stay rational and the arguing was kept to a minimum. That said, there are reasons that make no gun control bad, like say letting complete idiots get their hands on rpgs/smgs some weapons should be restricted, including nukes, biological and chemical weapons. That said anyone should be able to own a pistol, rifle, shotgun, even some assault rifles. The current system is definately to restrictive, but thinking logically, how can you change it?

reply to post by CosmicCitizen


I agree with the trigger safety and the magazine release.
I want to add to that thought,a well trained, responsible
owner to this type of "gun control".

I do not want to be controlled in any way,

Gun control

population control

property control

This does not mean punish the bad guy or girl.

But know one is going to be protected if the Government has all of the Control.

We are to have the right to Bare Arms for use of protection and entertainment, to me that means any kind of Arm the Government has we should have; As we are supposed to be the Government.

reply to post by sonofliberty1776


Where else to you expect me to buy my firearms from,
the trunk of some guys car?

Originally posted by schuyler
What he said. Gun control means hitting your target. And just for giggles, "a well regulated militia" means the same as a "well regulated clock." It keeps the time properly the same way you and your neighbors, who compose the militia, are capable of working in a coordinated fashion between yourselves to accomplish your goals.

The idea that "militia" means "National Guard" is pure poppy cock. There was no such thing as a "National Guard" when the second amendment was formulated. The idea would have seemed nonsensical. People didn't even want a standing army for fear it would take over. To have the "militia" under the control of government was anathema; it was for the opposite purpose.

Actually at the time,regulated also meant equipped . You are correct that the militia was never designed to be a standing army. Each state could form a militia.I can still remember when our state had the Tennessee State Guard and Militia. When the federal gov. started handing down equipment to the State Guard it soon became the Tennessee National Guard....An arm of the federal military. Each state has the constitutional right to form a Militia.....They need to do just that.

reply to post by Expat888


Have already passed all this in order to
get my C.C.W.!
Proud member of the U.S.C.C.A.

20 million exterminated for lack of self-defense. In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. '1, '2, '3.

1.5 million exterminated for lack of self-defense. In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. '4.

13 million exterminated for lack of self-defense. Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated. '5.

20 million exterminated for lack of self-defense. China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. '6

100 thousand exterminated for lack of self-defense. Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. '7.

300 thousand exterminated for lack of self-defense. Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. '8, '9.

1 million exterminated for lack of self-defense. Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated." '10.

56 million total, exterminated for lack of self-defense.Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.

The next time someone talks in favor of Anti Self Defense (gun control), ask them "Who do YOU want to round up and EXTERMINATE?" Please pause and reflect on the MASSIVE AMOUNT of lives lost because the means of self defense were deprived these people.

End notes
Lethal Laws. By Jay Simkin, Aaron Zelman, & Alan M. Rice. Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, P.O. Box 270143, Hartford, WI 53027 (262) 673-9745 et al. '1. Simkin et al., supra note 2, at 98. '2. Decree of the Council of People's Commissars, 10 December 1918, reprinted in 4 Decrees of Soviet Power 123 (Moscow 1968), reprinted in Simkin et al., supra note 2, at 123 '3. Id. at 100-04. '4. Id. at 83. '5. Raul Hilberg, The Destruction of the European Jews 318-20 (1985). '6. Id. at 190. '7. Id. at 229. '8. Id. at 276. '9. Id. at 278. '10. Simkin et al., supra note 2, at 315. For more in depth detail visit: www.jpfo.org..., www.jpfo.org...

reply to post by mamabeth

Altho "assumed", I will second that thought: only responsible, safety-conscious, and law abiding citizens.....

reply to post by ACTS 2:38

I have mixed thoughts as we do have traffic controls. prescription drug controls, etc....but then again the language of the second amendment refers to the right to "bear" (carry not "bare or naked) arms (firearms not forearms). Altho it says shall not be "infringed" it does imply "regulated" altho that language is more like the regulation of a clock (ie "clockwork") than regulations or restrictions per se. I dont want everyone in the county to have fully automatic weapons, grenade launchers, etc as some of those will fall into the wrong hands but if one does want to exercise his right to have a class 3 weapon it can be obtained with the proper paperwork and approval (albeit at a great price [~10x] for grandfathered weapons compared to the newer ones available to LE). Balance.

reply to post by hawkiye

Ultimately, this rationale presented (history of extermination/genocide post gun control) is the bottom line or line in the sand. Some gun control is sane but when it gets to the point of gun confiscation then the government will have broken its covenant or social contract with the people.

reply to post by CosmicCitizen

Some gun control is sane but when it gets to the point of gun confiscation then the government will have broken its covenant or social contract with the people.

Sorry friend but you are wrong no gun control is sane because it does not and cannot prevent some idiots from abusing guns. It is nobodies business what guns anyone owns unless they are harming others! Criminals can always get guns despite laws. Gun control laws are just a means of control and revenues for police state governments period. They have never ever stopped anyone who desires from getting a gun and committing crimes with them. They only serve to punish and disarm honest citizens who follow them out of a misguided sense of obligation.

Originally posted by mamabeth
reply to post by sonofliberty1776

 

Where else to you expect me to buy my firearms from,
the trunk of some guys car?

I bought my very first gun at a flea market almost 30 years ago. Over the years I have bought from other private owners. I will never buy from a gun store.

Originally posted by ACTS 2:38
..... As we are supposed to be the Government.

This is what so many people forget, or maybe just do not know anymore. We The People are the government. We delegate powers to our chosen representatives and we have the right, no we have the duty to take those powers back when the person to whom we have delegated them abuse them. That is what the second amendment is all about folks.

reply to post by sonofliberty1776


I prefer private buys myself


But I always make sure to run the numbers on the gun. I don't want stolen property.