And yet another Unconstitutional Push against the 2nd Amendment

reply to post by Urantia1111


you will find a vast minority do not want to ban guns

most people want to make it harder to get them however.

not all people are mature enough to own a gun.

intrepid
I'll tell you what. If y'all say, "You're right. I don't care about the dead as long as I have my rights..."

Isn't that basically what the American government says when they send Americans off to fight wars?

Here's my beef with what you're arguing here, Trep. Who decides who's nuts and who's sane? Remember, 40 years ago homosexuality was considered a mental disorder BY THE DOCTORS. Right now there's a wide spread movement to list conspiracy theorists and anti-government beliefs as being mental illnesses.

I've made the argument in the past that it has little to nothing to do with actual mental illness and a lot more to do with manufactured mental illnesses in the form of the poisonous antidepressants and other bullcrap drugs the pharmaceutical corporations keep pumping people full of. There are reams of evidence that point towards the mental illness argument about spree-killers actually eing a cover-up to distract folks from the real thread linking them all together: virtually all of them are on some form of chemical cocktail.

The regulations and monitorizations shouldn't be on the firearm side, they should be on the drug companies and the doctors who get kickbacks for over-prescription of so-called "anti psychotic" medicinea which do far more harm than good.

Furthermore, why new laws regarding gun control? The existing laws are sufficient, if properly enforced. There's the other coverup... half-assed enforcement leads to attempts by politicians to cover the asses of law enforcement and "the system", rather than just telling them to do their damn job and enforce the existing law. The Laughtner dude in Tucson is a prime example... Pima County knew he was not stable enough to purchase a firearm legally, yet they stamped him right on through and approved his purchase. HALF ASSED ENFORCEMENT. Instead of taking the coward's way out and passing more laws deleterious to everyone, why not take responsibility and just enforce what is already on the books?

Back to the beginning... I quote Benajmin Franklin:

They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Source: My office quote board
Yeah, I'm pretty much willing to say that the security of the few doesn't outweigh the RIGHTS of the many. The fact that I feel many of the people who have been victimized by spree killers would be alive today if there had been responsible armed citizens in their presence when those sprees began tempers my belief here. One .357 hollow point, fired from a school employee with a CCW, between Adam Lanza's eyes seconds after he shot at the front door of SandyHook elementary school would have reduced the overall body count to one... one dead jackass who didn't deserve any tears shed in the first place. You can pretty much take every one of these spree shooting incidents and pick a point at their beginning in which the perp had made their intent clear enough to be read as a public intent to vacate their right to live. The only ingredient missing was an armed citizen capable of making that statement of intent a reality.

reply to post by macman


so you want NO restrictions on guns at all?
convicted felons can have guns? mentally disabled can have guns?

i don't see anywhere in the constitution they are limited from owning guns.

reply to post by burdman30ott6


sorry, but existing laws are NOT sufficient.

anyone in my state, and most states, can open a newspaper and buy a gun. no questions asked.


there are so many loopholes, it is easy for anyone to get a gun. no questions asked.

rickm
reply to post by burdman30ott6

 

sorry, but existing laws are NOT sufficient.

anyone in my state, and most states, can open a newspaper and buy a gun. no questions asked.


there are so many loopholes, it is easy for anyone to get a gun. no questions asked.

...yet almost all spree killings are done with dealer purchased firearms that were involved with background checks?

Hmmmm....

Most people who buy firearms in private party transactions are more knowledgeable and exhibit more qualifications to own them than the folks who purchase from dealers, my friend. The federal government should have no say and no involvement in private party transactions of any nature (and yes, I am including any and all so-called "vice" transactions in that) so long as no one's rights are violated in the transaction.

rickm
reply to post by macman

 

so you want NO restrictions on guns at all?
convicted felons can have guns? mentally disabled can have guns?

i don't see anywhere in the constitution they are limited from owning guns.

Why limit that to firearms, though? Words are as dangerous as a shotgun in many cases, so let's also pull their First Amendment rights. The vote has long been heralded as a better tool for revolution than a fully armed resistance movement, so let's also pull their right to vote. See where I am going here? If an individual is considered "rehabilitated", then set them FREE, restoring their freedoms. If they aren't rehabilitated enough to warrant reinstatement of their freedoms, then leave them locked up. If they are crazy and possession of a firearm poses a threat to society, then lock them up because they also are a clear threat with a knife, a car, or a board with nails hammered into it.

Again, new infringing laws seemingly passed to cover the asses of a shoddy job by the justice system of America.

reply to post by burdman30ott6


how many 'words' have gone into a school, theater or mall and killed 20 people in a span of a few minutes?

reply to post by rickm


How many of those incidents have occurred in the first place?

reply to post by burdman30ott6


that just proves how weak the current laws are and how many loopholes there currently are.

and you want zero oversight on any private deals?
so nobody to regulate if uranium 235 is purchased? if sarin gas is bought or sold? if ricin is sold to people?

reply to post by rickm


Since when are chemical agents part of the Arms protected by the 2nd Amendment?

You and every other Anti-Gun rights person pitch the same tired old crap.

rickm
reply to post by macman

 

so you want NO restrictions on guns at all?
convicted felons can have guns? mentally disabled can have guns?

i don't see anywhere in the constitution they are limited from owning guns.

As how it was created, yes.

If people want it changed, the correct process of Amending it should be worked.

reply to post by rickm


I don't see a problem with that.

Oh wait, there are laws that govern private sales as well.

SO...........more laws do what again??????

reply to post by macman


and you and every gun nut who wants to do away with all gun laws are using the same old talking points

reply to post by macman


only in a few states are their laws restricting private gun sales.
in my state i can open a paper and buy a gun from an ad. no questions asked.
only 13 states require any checks on who purchases guns in private sales.

in most states you can walk up to a person on the street and sell a gun. no questions asked.

rickm
and you want zero oversight on any private deals?
so nobody to regulate if uranium 235 is purchased? if sarin gas is bought or sold? if ricin is sold to people?

Really? You just made the leap from a firearm conversation to chemical and radiological weapons of mass destruction? OK, let's play. A firearm isn't dangerous just sitting in it's corner, neither is a box of ammunition dangerous sitting on a shelf. Uranium and sarin gas is deadly regardless of what's being done with it.

Ricin was a very poor example by you, as the substance is easily refined from castor oil seeds and federal law provides no restrictions or regulatory registration on researchers in possession of less than 100 mg of the chemical. (which is enough to kill more people than any spree killer has ever killed with their firearm)

1. There ARE a ton of loopholes. Almost anyone, even convicted felons, can easily get a firearm if they please, regardless of the legality of such actions. Don't even get me started on the transactions that take place on Tor internet. Please show me US statistics that strongly correlate firearm accessibility with gun crime. You can't find them because the correlation is very very low. There are much much stronger drivers and metrics of violent and gun related crime. The three strongest are demographic diversity, average IQ (non learned intelligence), and economic demographics. This also applies in other countries, too.

2. Why the focus on firearms? Arms are described as any man portable personal weapon. Firearms are just one of many. Would you consider an energy weapon a firearm? We're getting pretty close to that kind of stuff if you keep up with military industry news. What if it wasn't in gun form but still man portable and a personal weapon? Knives, kitchen pots, spears, crossbows, handguns, regular bows, shovels, rocks, rifles, beer mugs, shotguns. Any and all objects used as a personal weapon is a legally defined arm.

3. I've said this MANY times on these forums, and I'll say it again. There is a now, just as there was when the bill of rights was authored, a recognized and legal difference between arms and ordnance. The 2nd Amendment only covers arms, and since there is some overlap with ordinance there are two subcategories called destructive devices and machine guns, It does not cover any chemical weapons, biological weapons, or nuclear weapons because those are beyond even ordnance (not necessarily in destructive power, but in nature).

RickM I'm sorry, but you come off as very ignorant to the laws involved here. By the way, don't call your fellow citizens "gun nuts" it's dismissive and divisive. It also makes you come across as hateful of your fellow citizen. They are reasonable people just like you and me. They're also on your side whether you like it or not because they're standing up for your rights whether or not you chose to exercise them.

The firearm ownership in the US is staggering. But considering that ownership rate, if you look at the actual violent crime committed with guns, it's very very low given that rate. The census bureau says there are about 800,000 violent crimes a years are deterred by the brandishing of and not firing of a firearm on average. That's 1.5 a minute. Those are only incidents that were reported to police. The estimate that includes incidents not reported is as high as 2.5 million a year. The DOJ states that out of ~12000 deaths by firearm a year in the US, 8900 are due to gang violence. That's typically criminals killing criminals with almost exclusively illegally purchased firearms. That's 3100 non organized crime deaths by firearm. That 3100 also includes death by cop as well as legitimate self defense. Take those out and you're in the 2000 range. Lets stick with 3100 though. Using that the US, despite having relatively free access to firearms is one of the safest countries on the planet if taken as a ratio per 100,000. If you were to significantly decrease gang violence and remove or diminish the two main drivers of violent firearm crime (which access to firearms isn't one of them), then you'd really be doing something.

As tragic as the school and movie theater shootings were, they are paltry statistical outliers of the smallest order. I'm not willing to ignore any portion of the constitution for the sake of expediency when the reason for such expediency is a statistic of null value.

There are three reasons why I am a proponent of firearm ownership. I have twice in my life defended myself by brandishing a firearm at home in the US. Once was an attempted car jacking in a CVS parking lot in a nice area of town. The other was an attempted mugging by a knife late at night outside of a club while I was with my girlfriend at the time. In both instances the moment I brandished the weapon the perpetrator was gone before I could say anything. The second reason is that I use firearms as part of my job and am very familiar with them, their operation, and their associated laws both domestically and internationally. My job often requires the international bit. Three, I hate being wrong. If I were on the wrong side, I'd be the first to admit it as much as I hated it. I would immediately join the right camp. There isn't a shred of any meaningful statistical trends that supports further control of firearms beyond what is already in place. In fact quite the opposite. There is only supposition, the projection of emotion, and the use of opinion and ignorance as though it were fact.

reply to post by jrod


and yet you have to show an ID to get booze.
but in most places you can open a newspaper and buy a gun

reply to post by rickm


You have to be over a certain age to buy alcohol. You have to be over a certain age to purchase a firearm. Both instances require ID to prove age. What are you on about?

Edit: Selling to underage individuals is very illegal.

reply to post by Galvatron


yes there are legal loopholes. in which people can legally get guns.
there is nothing stopping me from selling a hand gun to anyone off the street with no checks and balances what so ever. that person could be a felon or mentally unstable.
only 13 states have laws which could stop that.

and yes, i use the term gun nuts. just like some on here say every liberal wants to outlaw guns or labels every liberal as a gun grabber.
no difference what so ever.
and i call it ignorance for anyone to quote the 2nd amendment verbatim and yet then say it's ok to keep felons and mentally unbalanced from owning guns. they don't see that they are saying it's ok for some limitations but not others.


i am not anti gun. i just want to make it harder for everyone to get a gun. not everyone is mature enough to handle the destructive nature of a gun.

reply to post by burdman30ott6


actually uranium and other toxins are not dangerous if they are handled and used correctly


just like a gun