Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 48): What I do think would work: Safe storage (helps prevent access by kids and helps reduce them from making their way to the black market.) This is a no brainer in being a responsible gun owner but I can't tell you how many people I know that don't have their guns locked up

  

Anyone who doesn't safely store/secure their firearms is begging for trouble.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 48): Background checks for all--duh. Require it for private sales. Won't stop everything but no one is talking about stopping 100% of gun deaths, and something that doesn't stop everything isn't just a bad measure

  

I fail to see where this is a problem for anyone, except someone who knows they'd fail a background check. And that's exactly why they're a good idea.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 48): Require gun safety classes--again, should be the responsible thing. Hardly anyone does it, and trust me, many people need it based of what you see

          

Do it yesterday. Require it public schools, by junior high at the very latest.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 48): Psych evals--again, won't stop everything, would stop some. I wouldn't require this for everything, just the more capable weapons. A lot of my proposals would be dependent on what you are buying, from a black powder gun (pretty ineffective) to a semi auto rifle that can take large magazines

  

Not sure I agree with this, but only because the "more capable" distinction isn't clearly defined. Perhaps limit this to magazines or drums higher than a 10 or 15 round capacity and/or when buying more than 2 of them in a 90 day period, etc?

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 48): Gun registry--I know, the dreaded R word. This is where the paranoia really kicks in unfortunately. I think the benefits are pretty evident. I'd put measures in place to combat it from being public knowledge or for excessive harassment by law enforcement

  

I have no problem with my firearms being registered; I don't understand why other law-abiding citizens do or would.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 48): Dumb/questionable ideas: Banning bulk ammo purchases. People ask "who needs 10,000 rounds of ammo?" Not mass shooters, the ammo carried by them is usually lower than any ammo ban would be. I doubt anyone is talking about banning a 100 round box (which can be shot really quickly at the range) but that is more than enough for a mass shooter. This would only punish people that want to save money and do nothing to stop mass shooters Biometric handguns--I think it's a dumb idea or many reasons but I'd have to look into it more. Guns are actually pretty simple devices and I doubt you could make a gun that is completely reliant on some piece you could replace. And what about a day at the range? Do you have to reprogram it every time or add a shooter? I don't know, it just sounds like one of those "awesome idea bro" things that won't work Ban gun shows--seriously? What will that do? Serializing ammo--again, guns are low tech, so is ammo. How do you serialize a piece of brass? Will you just be able to scratch it out? Not that that's a deal breaker, but what about reloading ammo? Can I just go to the range, grab some brass, reload it, shoot up some folks, and then condemn Jim Bob for murder because I used his brass? Banning guns based on looks--this is what I was talking about, people, educate yourselves on guns. While I get mad at gun owners who correct people on the term "assault weapon" (I get it, it's technically incorrect but we are well beyond the point where anyone cares and the term took on a new meaning, it's just a distraction to correct,) some people go off on automatic weapons or how the military uses X or Y when legal automatics are extremely hard to get, automatic is much different than semi auto, and the military only uses weapons that look like their civilian counterparts.

Agree with you on all of the above, especially the "black gun!" issue. Ooh, it's eeeeevil-looking!

Please...   

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 35): The NRA is probably the most visible pro-terror organization that is permitted to exist, leaving aside the GOP as a whole. I mean, there are Islamist clerics telling Jihadis in the US to go out and buy firearms because they're so easy to buy.

Very, very well said, their influence has corrupted politics for too long.



They are not representative of the population, in fact most gun owners don't even endorse
their extreme views which are the polar opposite of true patriotism.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 33): Where do all these shooters get their guns? Angels? They've mostly been legally purchased. The republicans/NRA are *literally* arming the terrorists.

You need a shrink. You have hatred issues.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 48): My thoughts on the issue... no offense to a lot of the well intentioned people in this thread, but doing some research on guns and having casual conversations with gun owners would come up with much better proposals. And to the gun owners: stop being difficult. I used to be in the super pro gun mentality, we all know the US has a problem and we are so intent in lazily finding excuses for why it won't work or use deceptive/dumb reasoning to sink any idea.

Thanks Delta for providing a bit more sanity to this thread. While I don't agree with all your points (mostly I do), it is certainly a solid starting point and I'm sure we could come to a solid solution that would go a long way towards addressing the issues (if we were in charge  )

But when the opposition just spews hatred, you just can't talk with them.

[Edited 2015-12-03 23:47:53]

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 52): But when the opposition just spews hatred, you just can't talk with them.

Anyway I'll put this mirror down now.

Quoting Mir (Reply 10): I'm not completely sold on magazine capacity limits, though I do think that the 7 round limit enacted by some states is definitely too small.

Over here long guns capacity is limited to 3. Try to get your head around that.

So yes, you can buy an AR-15 or AK-47 clone, as long as the magazine contains just 3 rounds.

The rationale being: high-powered cartridges for civilians should only be used for hunting or precision target shooting. You don't need 20, 30 or 100 round magazine for that.

Quoting JJJ (Reply 54): Over here long guns capacity is limited to 3. Try to get your head around that.So yes, you can buy an AR-15 or AK-47 clone, as long as the magazine contains just 3 rounds.The rationale being: high-powered cartridges for civilians should only be used for hunting or precision target shooting. You don't need 20, 30 or 100 round magazine for that.

Hopefully you never suffer a home invasion by more than 3 people. Unless they line up single-file, anyway.

And say you're hunting a bear; you accidentally make a noise that startles it, and it charges.

Would you want to be able to place just three shots on target, or would you be ok with more at that point?

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 55): Hopefully you never suffer a home invasion by more than 3 people. Unless they line up single-file, anyway.

Long guns are not for home defence. Only issued for hunting or target license holders.

The self-defence licence is only for handguns (which are way easier to maneuver on close confines anyway).

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 55): And say you're hunting a bear; you accidentally make a noise that startles it, and it charges.

I usually hunt with bow an arrow. Having 3 shots spoils the fun.

Quoting JJJ (Reply 56): Long guns are not for home defence.

I don't agree with that statement. Frankly I would go with a shotgun first, there are shot loads that are designed not to have enough energy to penetrate two layers of sheetrock.

Quoting JJJ (Reply 54): Over here long guns capacity is limited to 3. Try to get your head around that.

There are some large bore rifles that can only hold that many shots. But that limit is absolutely ridiculous.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 57): I don't agree with that statement.

It's irrelevant whether one agrees or not. Over here it's just the law.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 57): But that limit is absolutely ridiculous.

It has proven useful, though. No legally purchased long gun has been used on a mass shooting since 1990, when 9 people where shot dead over a long-running feud among two families in a small village.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Hurraco_massacre

And, honestly, for legitimate users it just means you have to reload more often. If anything it makes you concentrate even more to be a better shot.

Quoting JJJ (Reply 58): Quoting L-188 (Reply 57):I don't agree with that statement. It's irrelevant whether one agrees or not. Over here it's just the law.

Irrelevant or not it is a stupid law.

Quoting JJJ (Reply 58): And, honestly, for legitimate users it just means you have to reload more often

It wouldn't have done my dad a lot of good when he got charged by a bear. He went through four rounds to convince the bear to change directions.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 59): Irrelevant or not it is a stupid law.

As opposed to the free-for-all gun-fest you guys have?

We've seen which one works best, thank you very much.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 59): It wouldn't have done my dad a lot of good when he got charged by a bear. He went through four rounds to convince the bear to change directions.

Over the last 25 years, 5 hunters have been killed by bears. Let's say a 3-round restriction trebles that.

15 people.

That's just another day on some American city.

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 55): Hopefully you never suffer a home invasion by more than 3 people. Unless they line up single-file, anyway. And say you're hunting a bear; you accidentally make a noise that startles it, and it charges. Would you want to be able to place just three shots on target, or would you be ok with more at that point?

You know what all gun nuts have in common ?



Fear, they are terrified of incredibly rare events (or they pretend to be)



This is their rationale for unlimited guns for everyone, no matter how crazy they are or the threat they represent.


In their minds 'the more guns the better' even if looneys are getting them.


Because after all, if you're not increasing the number of guns you're decreasing and we can't have that can we ?   

Quoting L-188 (Reply 37): Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 32): I propose this scenario: First, a terrorist shoots around. Law-abiding citizens then draw their concealed weapons, kill the terrorist. Then, three or five terrorists, after blending in with scared people, draw their guns and kill those "heroes", and go on finishing off the unarmed people. And then the aliens could land and take over the world. This scenario is comedy of the absurd.

You only need to look at the shooting in San Bernardino to realize that a shooter can blend in with the crowd. And they don't have to be foreigners. The ones in that shooting were home grown. So why would it be comic to suggest that a terrorist can't blend in, posing as a victim, and then shoot the "hero(es)" when they think things have calmed down?

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 48): Gun registry--I know, the dreaded R word. This is where the paranoia really kicks in unfortunately. I think the benefits are pretty evident. I'd put measures in place to combat it from being public knowledge or for excessive harassment by law enforcement

I don't get why anyone would be against gun registry. If you're sure you're a responsible gun owner and that the 2nd amendment will always be there to protect your right to own guns (something that states and the feds can't take away unless the amendment is repealed), then you should have no problem with registering your weapons.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 35): It's not rocket surgery.

Has anybody performed surgery on a liquid oxygen tank? Did the surgeons freeze in astonishment?

Quoting seb146 (Reply 42): No. Not for self-defense. For a militia. There is a huge difference. Where in the Constitution does it say self defense? My copy of the Constitution says "A well regulated militia..."

Right. Every word of a law carries some meaning. You NEVER enact a law with superfluous words that can be ignored at will. If they intended the 2nd Amendment as a right to private weapons, they would have omitted these few nasty words.

And then, drafts of the 2nd Amendment shows that people can be exempted from keeping and bearing arms on religious grounds, which means that every able-bodied man must otherwise be part of a militia. The individual right in the 2nd Amendment was being exempted from having a gun. There was no right to own a gun. There was a duty to have one, and a duty to join the militia and be trained in combat.

So, no Sunday heroes who think they can stop a terrorist just based on "I have a gun, I'm ready to fight the outlaws!" bravado.


David

[Edited 2015-12-04 04:50:41]

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 62): You only need to look at the shooting in San Bernardino to realize that a shooter can blend in with the crowd. And they don't have to be foreigners. The ones in that shooting were home grown. So why would it be comic to suggest that a terrorist can't blend in, posing as a victim, and then shoot the "hero(es)" when they think things have calmed down?

I forgot to mention that this very tactic is already employed in car bombings, for example. First, a smaller bomb injures a dozen or so of people, which draws rescue personnel, police and first aid volunteers to the scene. Then, a second bomb blast makes a bigger carnage. The same is done in US drone strikes, euphemistically called "double tap".

This is the real terror - for fear of their lives, rescue personnel won't help you. And using the ensuing confusion to their advantage is something attackers will happily do. Paris was an example of that, with several diversionary attacks aside from the Bataclan. Commanders have to make split-second decisions on where to send their forces.

Armed, lawful citizen are just going to be slaughtered by any well-trained attacker.


David

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 63): Right. Every word of a law carries some meaning. You NEVER enact a law with superfluous words that can be ignored at will. If they intended the 2nd Amendment as a right to private weapons, they would have omitted these few nasty words. And then, drafts of the 2nd Amendment shows that people can be exempted from keeping and bearing arms on religious grounds, which means that every able-bodied man must otherwise be part of a militia. The individual right in the 2nd Amendment was being exempted from having a gun. There was no right to own a gun. There was a duty to have one, and a duty to join the militia and be trained in combat.

You are not American, so there is little reason for you to have studied the Federalist Papers, which gives a lot of background to the Constitution. In Federalist 28, Alexander Hamilton (as Publius) claims that the people’s right of self-defense (including defending oneself against unlawful infringement by his government) is “original.” That the right of self-defense is “original” means that it existed before the formation of the state - i.e. it is a natural right, on the same level of life, liberty and property, and thus cannot be taken from them.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 65): You are not American, so there is little reason for you to have studied the Federalist Papers, which gives a lot of background to the Constitution. In Federalist 28, Alexander Hamilton (as Publius) claims that the people’s right of self-defense (including defending oneself against unlawful infringement by his government) is “original.” That the right of self-defense is “original” means that it existed before the formation of the state - i.e. it is a natural right, on the same level of life, liberty and property, and thus cannot be taken from them.

Actually, there is no dispute between my and your position.

The right to self-defense exists independent of the 2nd Amendment, and the right to self-defense existed already before the constitution.

It's just that the 2nd Amendment says zero, zilch, nada, nothing, nichts, niente about private weapon possession. It just says the government can't take your weapons away if they're owned/used for militia purposes.


David

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 66): It's just that the 2nd Amendment says zero, zilch, nada, nothing, nichts, niente about private weapon possession. It just says the government can't take your weapons away if they're owned/used for militia purposes.

I'd barricade your door, and dare I say it, you may need more than a few guns for what's coming! I'd never really considered it like that... it does make more sense given the context. Which would suggest that the law is being twisted to suit an agenda. Who'd have thunk it?

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 67):

Well, I have a penchant for wasps, hornets and their nests... I actually prefer them to bees. 

I've read a lot about the 2nd Amendment, and did related translation work on Wikipedia. That the 2nd Amendment says nothing about private weapon possession is, after my knowledge, the best interpretation.

Private gun possession can be guaranteed/regulated/banned/whatever by a new amendment, or by federal or state laws. But not by the 2nd Amendment. And I see legitimate reasons for private gun possession. It's just that it takes a lot to make guns part of a security solution. Much training is required until a gun owner can take on a San Bernardino or a Sandy Hook shooter. Until now, guns are rather a security problem. In another thread, we're discussing Oscar Pistorius who accidentally shot his girlfriend...

Pistols, revolvers, hunting rifles and every other kind of weapons have their purpose. But they become a problem if they don't fulfill (or even destroy) their purpose. I'm fascinated by how guns work, or how sharpshooters hit a target more than a mile away. And the Eargesplitten Loudenboomer is cool, made by a true nerd.


David

[Edited 2015-12-04 06:28:31]

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 55): Hopefully you never suffer a home invasion by more than 3 people. Unless they line up single-file, anyway.

Oh jesus christ. You're far more likely to blow your own a$$ away then any of these looney tunes situations the NRA is so afraid of.

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 47): Pro-terror? Really?

Yes really. They're literally arming the terrorists on the no fly list. And they've killed FAR more Americans than actual terrorists could ever dream of. You're an idiot if you're an American worried about Islamic terrorism, which kills about as many Americans as bathtubs, and not worried about Americans with guns, which kill 100-1000x more.

[Edited 2015-12-04 07:59:02]

Quoting JJJ (Reply 54): high-powered cartridges for civilians should only be used for hunting or precision target shooting. You don't need 20, 30 or 100 round magazine for that.

If you do, maybe you should take up gardening.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 43): Actually the USSC has confirmed that there is an individual right to own firearms.....

Missed the point.

For some reason, you read "ban all guns" while I was talking about high capacity weapons.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 70): Missed the point. For some reason, you read "ban all guns" while I was talking about high capacity weapons.

No he didn't, you want to ban all guns, like everyone of the anti gunner liberal, destroy the constitution types want to. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it, you just don't like to be pressed.

-DiamondFlyer

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 66): It's just that the 2nd Amendment says zero, zilch, nada, nothing, nichts, niente about private weapon possession. It just says the government can't take your weapons away if they're owned/used for militia purposes.

No it does not. It provides a passing, non-exclusive justification, followed by the meat of the sentence: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." I agree it should have been better stated and could stand updating. But strictly speaking the Constitution does not limit arms ownership at all because one of the founding ideas of the country is that the People should have the military muscle (as a militia) to overthrow the government if the government became oppressive. Granted Washington, Madison, Adams, Franklin and Company had no concept of tanks and stinger missiles, but I think they would be uncomfortable with the idea of government limiting the rights of citizens to own effective military-style weapons, as it would limit their ability to march on the Capitol, if needed.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 72): I agree it should have been better stated and could stand updating.

Why didn't they formulate it that way, then, if they meant to protect private ownership of weapons? It's not like that such an Amendment is easily penned down at 6:45 PM after a long day of work while sipping cup a tea. "Oh, great, that's the wording I want to have!". The draft of the 2nd has been shoved back and forth between the House and the Senate until they agreed on a formulation. "A well regulated militia" defines the environment in which the rest of the sentence unfolds its meaning. A law contains zero rhetoric and zero superfluous words. A law is not a novel, it can't be read like a poem with a vague meaning. Every word is important and carries weight.

We can use both the wording and the intention of the 2nd to clear up matters. The intention of the framers was to protect the states from a federal army, or an overreaching federal government. And the wording clearly refers to the readiness of the militia which should be preserved by letting "the people" have weapons at their homes. Saying that the 2nd Amendment's intention is to protect private ownership detached from any militia purpose is a big stretch.


David

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 71): No he didn't, you want to ban all guns, like everyone of the anti gunner liberal, destroy the constitution types want to. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it, you just don't like to be pressed.

And then those Gay Mexican Muslim Bears will eat you in your sleep!

Come on mate, most people are advocating more control rather than an outright ban. Because there are probably very few countries that have an outright ban. In most places there are just restrictions so that the only people who have guns have really proved that they need them, and can use them safely. You're so paranoid, I think if we put a moustache on you, you'd make an excellent Joseph Stalin!

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 72): No it does not. It provides a passing, non-exclusive justification, followed by the meat of the sentence: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I think flyingturtle has made an excellent point on this, wen taken very literally, and bearing in mind the context at the time, it seems to be a very strong argument.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 72): I agree it should have been better stated and could stand updating. But strictly speaking the Constitution does not limit arms ownership at all because one of the founding ideas of the country is that the People should have the military muscle (as a militia) to overthrow the government if the government became oppressive. Granted Washington, Madison, Adams, Franklin and Company had no concept of tanks and stinger missiles, but I think they would be uncomfortable with the idea of government limiting the rights of citizens to own effective military-style weapons, as it would limit their ability to march on the Capitol, if needed.

But the idea that the people should have military muscle is completely outdated: a large proportion of Americans won't have the fitness, very few will have the required mindset/skillset, and even then I doubt many people would hold their own in a gunfight against properly trained soldiers. And then you consider the aircraft, tanks, mortars, cruise missiles etc... and nukes! if the government wants someone dead, rest assured, they will be dead. But if the whole point of the 2nd amendment was to arm people against federal government (and I think you know that is at least partially the motive behind it), then why shouldn't it be called into serious question? Why shouldn't it be criticised, and possibly updated? Because if there is no longer justification for a public army, then surely there's no need for a right to bear arms? It can be amended so that you have to meet requirements and submit some control to the authorities.

Quoting hh65man (Thread starter): 2. I would serialise ammunition. Round casings could be quickly matched to a persons name.

Nope. The government has no business collecting information in the hopes that it might be evidence someday.

I have no issue with background checks, but the bottom line for me is that no citizen should be deprived of their right to bear arms without a court ruling. That could be a felony conviction or a domestic violence restraining order, but if the government proposes to remove someone's weapons or deny a background check, the applicant should have the right to a hearing with a judge.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 3): A little more complicated to regulate but I do think every gun sold should have it's fire pattern (its fingerprint) saved a data-based so when ammo in a shooting is found we know what gun it was shot from and who owned it last.

The government should not be able to collect that information unless the gun is evidence or they get a warrant.

Quoting Mir (Reply 10): 2. Ban open carry.

Carrying is carrying, it doesn't matter.

Quoting Mir (Reply 10): It does not entitle you to parade around with your gun out to intimidate other people with.

There are already laws against threatening someone with a gun. That said, there must be some overt act of threat and simply carrying a weapon is not a crime. You being uncomfortable with seeing someone with a weapon in public is your problem.

And for what it's worth, I would find someone walking into a restaurant with an AR-15 jarring but that doesn't give me the right to demand they not do so.

Quoting Mir (Reply 10): I don't see the need for an assault weapons ban

This was a very dumb piece of legislation. If you can't be trusted with a bazooka then you can't be trusted with a revolver either. The criteria for determining an assault weapon are arbitrary and superficial anyway. Furthermore, the ban on fully automatic is moronic policy too. Hell, these mass shooters wouldn't kill more people and might well kill fewer if they had full auto.

Quoting caoimhin (Reply 15): Sweet merciful crap. Where does this happen?

Places where the owner doesn't bother or doesn't want to demand they leave the gun behind or go elsewhere. Any property or business owner should be perfectly free to ask anyone carrying a gun to leave, but then they should also be free to ask any gays, Westboro Baptists or people in ugly shirts to leave also.

Quoting na (Reply 20): But a gun is no harmless hobby like building airplane models or collecting Breitling watches. Its the apparent obsession of possessing guns and the intellectually limited awareness of it that far too many US citizens have that needs to be addressed.

Then take up hobbies that you approve of and mind your own business.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 35): Multiple high-ranking executives from firearms manufacturers and firearms sales outlets have said that mass shootings are good for their business.

...but not because they're concerned about terrorists or criminals. It's because they're concerned about people like you.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 30): For christ sakes we have a No Fly List because we're worried these people will harm civilians, but hallelujah praise the lord the NRA wants them to buy guns

Citizens on the No Fly List should only get their through a court ruling also.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 48): Require gun safety classes--again, should be the responsible thing. Hardly anyone does it, and trust me, many people need it based of what you see

Not to own a gun, but it would be permissible as a requirement to hunt on public land.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 48): Gun registry--I know, the dreaded R word.

Absolutely not. The government will only use such a registry to do things they shouldn't be doing. Any judge should throw out any evidence from a gun registry.

Furthermore, even if the government does not do bad things with this information, what on God's green earth makes you think that the government is remotely capable of keeping that information out of the hands of people who would?

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 50): I have no problem with my firearms being registered; I don't understand why other law-abiding citizens do or would.

So how about the NSA then? What information should the government not be allowed to have? I mean, you're a law abiding citizen so there's nothing to fear right?

That said, as a citizen, you're free to provide whatever information you want and consent to whatever searches you want. You just can't make it policy that everyone has to.

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 62): I don't get why anyone would be against gun registry.

Why would anyone be against the NSA listening to everything you say? Why would anyone be against the government tracking their movements?

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 62): If you're sure you're a responsible gun owner and that the 2nd amendment will always be there to protect your right to own guns (something that states and the feds can't take away unless the amendment is repealed), then you should have no problem with registering your weapons.

If the government is never going to infringe on the right to own guns, then they should have no problem not knowing who has what where.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 31): By the way, did you know that one of the main purposes of the NRA, was to train in self defense black people - especially former slaves - in the south from roving gangs of KKK and other racists?

Politifact rates this "pants on fire".

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/...unded-fight-kkk-black-leader-says/

Quoting raventech (Reply 36): I really don't see it as an issue because the guy with the 1/4" dick is no more or less dangerous whether he is open carrying or concealed it.

He is more threatening openly carrying than concealed carrying. People have a right to go about their lives without worrying about whether the guy who just walked into the restaurant they're in with a AR-15 in hand is about to shoot up the place (and you could hardly be blamed for wondering that these days). If he's carrying concealed, then they don't know, and it's not a problem.

Quoting raventech (Reply 36): Put simply it is a Feel Good move that does nothing to solve actual gun violence.

I'd disagree that it doesn't do anything to solve gun violence. It reinforces the mentality that guns are tools and not status symbols. It's the same principle by which we ban cigarette advertising, which has, over time, been effective at reducing the number of kids who start smoking.

If there were a purpose to open carrying other than to intimidate others, then I might feel differently. But there isn't. Concealed carry is still an option if people want the ability to defend themselves away from their home or business.

Quoting raventech (Reply 36): If that is True then 100% agree, but this seems like one of those too good to be true fact that really oversimplifies or misrepresents what it acutally going on in order to be a great "fact" from probably an extreme anti-gun group.

The CDC is prohibited by Congress from using their federal funding to fund studies that could advocate or promote gun control

Quoting seb146 (Reply 42): No. Not for self-defense. For a militia. There is a huge difference. Where in the Constitution does it say self defense?

That's the way the Supreme Court interpreted it.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 72): But strictly speaking the Constitution does not limit arms ownership at all because one of the founding ideas of the country is that the People should have the military muscle (as a militia) to overthrow the government if the government became oppressive. Granted Washington, Madison, Adams, Franklin and Company had no concept of tanks and stinger missiles, but I think they would be uncomfortable with the idea of government limiting the rights of citizens to own effective military-style weapons, as it would limit their ability to march on the Capitol, if needed.

   The Second Amendment was never intended to allow citizens for forcibly overthrow the government. The Amendment says "being necessary to the security of a free State", meaning that the citizens should be able to defend their state from invasion. Remember that the Constitution was drafted at a time when the US was quite large in relation to it's military's ability to respond to threats, and thus it was deemed necessary for the citizens to form militias to quickly respond to outside invasions. And to do that they'd need guns. That's the sole purpose of the amendment. You can reasonably extend from that the implied right to defend oneself and one's property from invasion in the event that the police and/or military cannot, but you cannot extend that to mean that one of the militia's potential jobs would be to conduct an insurrection against the government. Were that the case, it is unlikely that one of Congress' specified powers (Article 1, Section 8) would be to call forth the militia in order to suppress insurrections.

"Happy for us, that when we find our constitutions defective and insufficient to secure the happiness of our people, we can assemble with all the coolness of philosophers and set it to rights, while every other nation on earth must have recourse to arms to amend or to restore their constitutions."

That was Thomas Jefferson, not sounding at all like a guy who was interested in resolving constitutional problems by armed insurrection. (Edited to add link: http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-12-02-0108 )

-Mir

[Edited 2015-12-04 22:16:36]

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 74): most people are advocating more control rather than an outright ban

In this country, the Christian right believes that "gun control" means "ban all guns period."

Case in point:

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 71): No he didn't, you want to ban all guns, like everyone of the anti gunner liberal, destroy the constitution types want to. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it, you just don't like to be pressed.

Where has ANYONE on this board EVER said ANYTHING about a total gun ban?

Give me exact quotes of Americans on this board DEMANDING an outright gun ban.

Go on... I'll wait...

Pheww.... I don't know where to start... Take a look at this if you have the time: www.shootingtracker.com All I know is some thing needs to be done. No doubt it's massively complicated, a huge uphill battle but I think it's obvious (or should be) that you can't keep banging on as per the normal.

Looking at this from the other side of the world,

I see the biggest issue is the all or nothing rhetoric of the argument.
Looks to me that the gun control side want just that, some measure of control.
The Pro gun lobby interpret that as "ban and collect all guns", they need to get over that!

There is no answer to the gun issue, but like eating an elephant, you have to start with one small bite.

I don't think anyone disagrees that there are many unregistered weapons in the US, in basements and attics, not needed, not maintained, owners not trained in their use.. just sitting there.
Why not have an amnesty where anyone in possession of any type of weapon can turn it in to be destroyed(hey even offer to buy them).

Will it get all the guns out of the hands of those that shouldn't have them?
Not by a long shot, will it take possibly millions of guns out of circulation.. certainly

Maybe worth a try

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 75): Why would anyone be against the NSA listening to everything you say? Why would anyone be against the government tracking their movements?

I couldn't care less what the NSA does with what I say or how they track me. I have nothing to hide (and being cleared with the government already means they're tracking you anyway).

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 75): If the government is never going to infringe on the right to own guns, then they should have no problem not knowing who has what where.

Except this mentality has led to shootings and later finding out "oh yeah, they displayed some kind of behavior that could have tipped others off about their intentions, but oh well...we can't spy on them and they have a right to weapons. Go Murca! *eagle cry, jets soaring, fireworks display*"

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 80): I couldn't care less what the NSA does with what I say or how they track me. I have nothing to hide (and being cleared with the government already means they're tracking you anyway).

Your mindset concerning surveillance is problematic. Anything the government registers and stores about you can only say how likely you are a criminal. E.g., googling for "jihad" for several times raises the chance that you're regarded as a jihadist by the algorithms. But a lack of a "jihadist" googling history doesn't prove you are not a jihadist. Data collection only serves to incriminate people, but it can never absolve anybody of suspicion.

And the second issue is: When you're ever in court for terrorism-related charges, I wish you and your lawyer much luck accessing the data which led the FBI looking for you.

I rather like a government that treats me based on facts, evidence and data I have full access to. Due process.

And the "I have nothing to hide" is baloney, as the people who say that never publicly share their financial data, their sex life, their medical history and other more or less private things.


David

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 75): I have no issue with background checks, but the bottom line for me is that no citizen should be deprived of their right to bear arms without a court ruling. That could be a felony conviction or a domestic violence restraining order, but if the government proposes to remove someone's weapons or deny a background check, the applicant should have the right to a hearing with a judge.

That was the number one concern I had about the proposal to ban anyone on the terrorism watch list or no fly list from owning a firearm. It sounded like a no brainer to many people and I so wanted to support it but . . .There is no oversight or accountability for who gets put on those lists or why. Every American should have the right to appeal being on those lists and yet we do not. Without oversight in place there would be no accountability for why someone was denied the right to purchase a firearm even if they could demonstrate their life was in danger from say an abusive former spouse. In fact you might be more likely to be banned in that situation as your abusive ex probably had no scruples in filing baseless legal complaints against you already.

[Edited 2015-12-05 09:31:40]

[Edited 2015-12-05 09:39:37]

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 80): I couldn't care less what the NSA does with what I say or how they track me. I have nothing to hide (and being cleared with the government already means they're tracking you anyway).

This is a dangerous way of thinking. I know the government tracks us all. I know I am low on the list because of what sites I do not go to. Sure, I look at pictures of North Korea when they are offered to me on a FB travel site, and I watch train and airplane POV videos on Youtube. That is about the worst thing I do.

I also know that legal sites could be used against a person. In the wrong set of circumstances, your Porn Hub searches could be trouble or gun videos and sites. No matter how legal.

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 80): I couldn't care less what the NSA does with what I say or how they track me.

Then you can consent to whatever search the government wants to perform on you, but you don't get to waive everyone else's rights too.

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 80): Except this mentality has led to shootings and later finding out "oh yeah, they displayed some kind of behavior that could have tipped others off about their intentions,

If you have that sort of information then you can take it to a hearing with a judge.

The Second Amendment was written at a time when only wealthy White men owned guns. And people. Women did not have the right to vote. Also, the only guns available were single shot muskets. Not multiple round clips.

Maybe it is time we update the entire Constitution to fit the times.

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 22): So who do you propose to take them? The FBI and ATF, which are so well known for dealing with potentially hostile situations? The military (which is sworn to protect and uphold the very constitution you are trying to destroy).

Ah.. the favorite missconception of some pro-gun folks. The constitution doesn't mean what you think it means, it means what the supreme Court says it means.
If anyone ever comes to your door to take your guns in an official capacity, it is going to be because a) the is a law giving then authority to do it and b) it passen the hurdle supreme court, aka it is constitutional.
If anyone ever kicks down your door to take your guns, it is going to be because you are a criminal. Period.

But that is not going to happen, because gun owners are law abiding citizens and, when that time comes, will turn over their guns with a smile on their face.

I wouldn't be surprised if one or more supreme Court judges end up admitting in their biographies later on that they only voted against stricter gun laws because the fear for their lives in the face of all those gun owners that insist that their guns will only be taken from their dead hands.
Let's face it, if just few of them are serious about it, that fraction of gun owners probably forms the biggest terrorist group in being on this planet.
If just one in 1000 gun owners is that crazy, they would make IS look like a neigbourhood bully.

Best regards
Thomas

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 86): Ah.. the favorite missconception of some pro-gun folks. The constitution doesn't mean what you think it means, it means what the supreme Court says it means.

Might wanna stay home on this one sparky.

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 86): Let's face it, if just few of them are serious about it, that fraction of gun owners probably forms the biggest terrorist group in being on this planet.

It's astonishing the things people are willing to post on the Internet.

[Edited 2015-12-06 05:24:28]

Quoting seb146 (Reply 85): The Second Amendment was written at a time when only wealthy White men owned guns. And people. Women did not have the right to vote. Also, the only guns available were single shot muskets. Not multiple round clips.Maybe it is time we update the entire Constitution to fit the times.

Okay, then there goes freedom of speech. Back then, a person could only talk to those within earshot. Now, you can use the internet and talk to millions. Freedom of the press is gone, too. Back then, there were only limited presses and all the words were hand set. Now, we have computers, radios, TV's, etc.

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 87): Might wanna stay home on this one

Are ypu saying a) the supreme Court isn't in charge of what the constitution means or b) the supreme Court never overruled previous decisions?

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 87): It's astonishing the things people are willing to post on the Internet.

How would you call 100k plus people willing to commit murder if anyone ever comes to, legally, collect their guns?

Patriots perhaps?

Best regards
Thomas

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 86): Let's face it, if just few of them are serious about it, that fraction of gun owners probably forms the biggest terrorist group in being on this planet.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. In today's world, the founding fathers would be seen as terrorists, I'm afraid.

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 89): How would you call 100k plus people willing to commit murder if anyone ever comes to, legally, collect their guns? Patriots perhaps?

Patriot or revolutionary, either one works for me. And if you think that the majority of the red state, gun owning people aren't going to fall in that category, you're wrong.

-DiamondFlyer

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 90): One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

Well, few terrorists call themselves terrorists. In a constitutional democracy that dualism doesn't really work.

They'd be freedom fighters just as much as drug dealers, they only make sure you have freedom of choice when it comes to drugs after all.
All those narco subs only bring freedom to your country.

Best regards
Thomas

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 90): In today's world, the founding fathers would be seen as terrorists, I'm afraid.

From its inception until some time in 2008 pretty much anyone belonging to the South African government was on the no fly list. I've often wondered if we had a no fly list in the 60's if Martin Luther King Jr. would have been on it   Mahatma Gandhi would be on the no train list for sure for interference with a crew member. Thinking he could sit in first class just because he had a first class ticket! Rosa Parks would be on the no bus list for sure. It seems ridiculous by our standards today but if there were such a thing back then there would have been very loud voices from otherwise respected establishment figures to add those names. A bus or train ride is not the place for a civil rights stunt! I think I've seen variations on those words attacking people who opted out of the body scanner at the airport.

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 89): Are ypu saying a) the supreme Court isn't in charge of what the constitution means or b) the supreme Court never overruled previous decisions?

I'm saying that there's nothing more annoying someone from another country trying to tell us what our laws say or don't say or what we should or shouldn't do. You call us Cowboys and nut jobs, which makes you come off like a pretentious snob.

Do you even get that or are you that insular?

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 93): I'm saying that there's nothing more annoying someone from another country trying to tell us what our laws say or don't say or what we should or shouldn't do.

So in other words, you don't like people doing to you what you're quite happy for others to have done to them? I mean democracy is not always desired, but a huge part of US foreign policy drive since WWII has always been to dictate to others how they should be run (as a democracy), and if you've ever voted, then you at least somewhat agree with them.

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 94): So in other words, you don't like people doing to you what you're quite happy for others to have done to them? I mean democracy is not always desired, but a huge part of US foreign policy drive since WWII has always been to dictate to others how they should be run (as a democracy), and if you've ever voted, then you at least somewhat agree with them.

This is rich. Care to discuss British foreign policy for the 300 years before WWII? Jesus you're pretentious. You still spend copious amounts of time trying to tell us what we should and shouldn't do and we're the bad guys?

This forum needs an ignore function.

[Edited 2015-12-06 07:44:29]

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 80): I couldn't care less what the NSA does with what I say or how they track me. I have nothing to hide (and being cleared with the government already means they're tracking you anyway).

So would you also say the same thing regarding freedom of speech? Who cares, so long as your opinion isn't different from theirs.

It's a very dangerous road to go down.

Quoting diverted (Reply 96): So would you also say the same thing regarding freedom of speech?

Surveillance is an attack on freedom of speech.

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 95): This is rich. Care to discuss British foreign policy for the 300 years before WWII?

Well, at that time your country man where still busy stealing from and slaughtering the natives you pretty much stole your country from, the brits where done with that bit of nation building before that. So, they had the time and the power to mess up other places.
But hey, if they had managed to put down the insurgency in your country, you wouldn´t have 30k+ gun death every year.

Times are changing, what used to be a bleeding hard liberal 200 years ago would make most die hard conservatives cringe today, and that process has been pretty steady all throughout recorded history.
People don´t become more conservative with age, just the society around them gets more liberal.

Look at the conservative movement in some muslim countries, IS: Just a couple of hundred years ago they would not have been extremists, today they pretty much are.

Give it a couple of 100 years and people will look at pretty much unlimited gun ownership with its side effects pretty much the same way we look at public torture and execution today. Only question pretty much is if there will be a Balkanization and/or civil war in the USA between now and then.

best regards
Thomas

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 95): This is rich. Care to discuss British foreign policy for the 300 years before WWII?

Not terribly pleasant, a lot of abusing and pillaging punctuated by occasionally useful things. It's also not really applicable to me: I wasn't alive until 1993. I didn't live in the UK until 2011, and I've never voted for a government. A fair amount of my family are Irish as well, so my ancestry is full of abusers just as much as abused. People generally didn't vote for governments at the time though, only the most privileged, and not women. Not the same for the USA since 1944: you've probably voted since then.

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 95): Jesus you're pretentious. You still spend copious amounts of time trying to tell us what we should and shouldn't do and we're the bad guys?

You're not bad as such, but you're definitely not aware, and despite seeing respect of human life as important in this debate, you don't really have much if you think that a tenuous right to own guns is more important than 10,000+ deaths.

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 95): This forum needs an ignore function.

Then you'd be infringing on my right to free speech, and we can't have that happen can we? First amendment and all.  

I'll probably stop lecturing you eventually, I enjoy debating, on top of having an opinion. But at the end of the day, you're right. Your country, your rules. But equally, your citizens dying needlessly.

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 98): Then you'd be infringing on my right to free speech, and we can't have that happen can we? First amendment and all.

No, you'd still be talking to anyone who will listen. I'd just be ignoring.