Gun Control- Yes, No, Maybe so?

More Gun Control?


  • Total voters
    43
Status
Not open for further replies.
Last edited:
Gun Control is pointless to have. People will still get their guns the illegally way or the legal way. It doesn't matter.

I think, however, is that people with mental illness or some disorders (like PTSD, Bipolar, Autism, Depression, etc.). And it sounds like the test (or things to do in order to get a gun) need to be remade. The person, giving the test, should look at the person's health and disorders (if he/she has any) before giving the test to them. And they got to pass it.

I think that it should be done like the Driver License test. Answer question about the history of guns, how to put back a gun, how to fix it, and then show them your skills. And you should be able to take it when you're in your later twenties.

So in short, I am in the middle of the whole debate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: O|NoSoul
I am an absolute red, white, and blue bleeding patriot (/s, partially) who thinks stricter gun laws are not what the country needs to stop not only mass shootings perpetrated by mentally ill individuals or from gang violence or the other such myriad ways people can use guns to hurt themselves or others. Instead, I really think that a better mental healthcare system needs to be put into place and we need to find some way short of making a federal or state database to process legal, law-abiding gun owners. Rare actually puts forth some good points about the psychological testing that goes into buying a gun.

In addition to better mental healthcare and psychological tests for individuals legally buying a gun, mandatory classes on how to care for and properly use the weapon should be put in place only after the individual passes the psychological testing.

Getting rid of guns entirely? Hell no. I've never wanted to kill anyone, never wanted to break a law but I have my rights to shoot a large caliber weapon if I want. The Amendments, the Bill of Rights, the Constitution isn't the US gov't telling the people what they're allowed to do, it is the governed telling the governing what they can never take away. Forgive me for sounding like some bible-thumping YEEHAW MERRICA person, but I love this country. I love what it stands for, it just so happens that it also stands for the freedom of every single one of its citizens to own a gun.

...provided they're of sound mind, of course...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rare
I am, however, ok with certain restrictions involving how guns are sold, IE a test or some kind of license or something.
 
I am, however, ok with certain restrictions involving how guns are sold, IE a test or some kind of license or something.
If you're buying a gun without a license, you're probably breaking the law.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rare
If you're buying a gun without a license, you're probably breaking the law.
No, you're not... not in America, anyway. However, you do need a "Safety Certificate." Which costs $25, on top of the DROS fee. Used to be you only needed it for handguns, but I seem to remember hearing that they've put the "need" on rifles and shotguns, as well. Not to mention requiring you to buy a lock, even if you already have a lock. Yeah, that lock you just bought is only "good" for thirty days, so if you buy another gun after that thirty days, you have to buy another lock.

Our government at work. Anal retentive as always. Heh... you should ask me just how anal retentive California is, when it comes to "gun control."
 
Doesn't sound very anal retentive. YOu just made it out to be fairly easy and cheap to aquire a murder machine :D
 
Doesn't sound very anal retentive. You just made it out to be fairly easy and cheap to aquire a murder machine :D
Machines don't murder, people do. A gun is just a tool. Controlling a tool doesn't control violent criminal people.

Oh, and on the topic of California's anal retentiveness... yes, I know, you didn't ask... however. In California, you cannot buy a handgun (or even rifle?) that isn't on the DOJ's "approved" list. To get on this list, a gun manufacturer must submit the firearm they wish to sell in the state for "safety" testing. HOWEVER! If that gun passes, it is only that particular "version" that can be sold. Change ANYTHING, and the gun... same exact mechanicals that were already approved... must be RETESTED. Yes. Different barrel length? Retest! Different finish? Retest! Any. COSMETIC. Change. Must. Be. RETESTED!

I'd say that's ANAL RETENTIVE in spades.

By the way, I own several Murder Machines. Even though I've never murdered anyone with them. Does that still make me a murderer?
 
No, you're not... not in America, anyway. However, you do need a "Safety Certificate." Which costs $25, on top of the DROS fee. Used to be you only needed it for handguns, but I seem to remember hearing that they've put the "need" on rifles and shotguns, as well. Not to mention requiring you to buy a lock, even if you already have a lock. Yeah, that lock you just bought is only "good" for thirty days, so if you buy another gun after that thirty days, you have to buy another lock.

Our government at work. Anal retentive as always. Heh... you should ask me just how anal retentive California is, when it comes to "gun control."
Ladies and gentlemen, I think we've come to the core of the problem.

Everywhere seriously should require a license to buy and possess firearms. Seriously, this is not something that should be less controlled than driving a car.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gwazi Magnum
Ladies and gentlemen, I think we've come to the core of the problem.

Everywhere seriously should require a license to buy and possess firearms. Seriously, this is not something that should be less controlled than driving a car.
Driving a car is not a Right, but a privilege. Keeping and bearing arms WITHOUT INFRINGEMENT is a Right, guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution. What we do have "licenses" for is carrying, so those who carry for their defense have the proper training. Even that is an infringement, however, given some states refuse law-abiding people their right to bear arms by denying them a license. And arresting them if they carry without one. Even though the Constitution says nothing about the government being able to "license" ANY of our Rights.

Would you like the government to require a "license" for Free Speech or Religion? Where would you like to go, and how far?
 
The gun holds no purpose other than to harm another human being.
The car holds purpose/use in transporting people great distances.

It would make more sense for driving to be a human right than gun ownership considering that little fact.
Yet we all know better than to just let any person buy a Car and drive it right away.
 
Last I checked. Free Speach won't enable me to point a piece of metal at someone and blow their brains out.


YOu realize most other countries have changed and amended and modernized their constitutions
 
Driving a car is not a Right, but a privilege. Keeping and bearing arms WITHOUT INFRINGEMENT is a Right, guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution. What we do have "licenses" for is carrying, so those who carry for their defense have the proper training. Even that is an infringement, however, given some states refuse law-abiding people their right to bear arms by denying them a license. And arresting them if they carry without one. Even though the Constitution says nothing about the government being able to "license" ANY of our Rights.

Would you like the government to require a "license" for Free Speech or Religion? Where would you like to go, and how far?
And maybe a piece of paper written up in the late 1700s isn't the most realistic thing for judging rights by over 250 years later. The fact that people are so adamant about firearm ownership being a right instead of a privilege is a huge reason you guys have such massive issues to begin with. I don't really feel like getting into a discussion about your constitution and what not, but seriously take a look back and read what you just wrote. It would almost come across as amusing satire if it wasn't absolutely sincere and an ironclad point of view from a huge amount of the US firearms community.

And really? Because I question how valid something is because it was written in an age where women couldn't vote, cars were barely a pipline fantasy, people were just accepting that the Earth orbits the sun, and wars were fought in bright uniforms with cannons and muskets might need to be revisited? News flash; most 1st world countries have firearms licenses, and statistically, they don't have the same problems the US does with gun crime. Maybe my right to life, liberty, and security of my person shouldn't have to be infringed upon because some drunk asshole can go buy a gun out of anger with absolutely no regulation and background check and shoot somebody. At what point do rights overlap and start to contradict each other?

So really, don't pull some strawman crap and accuse me against being against civil rights because, frankly, the RIGHT to bear arms is an extremely dangerous mentality to have and it isn't practical in a modern society.
 
  • Love
Reactions: Gwazi Magnum
The gun holds no purpose other than to harm another human being.
The car holds purpose/use in transporting people great distances.

It would make more sense for driving to be a human right than gun ownership considering that little fact.
Yet we all know better than to just let any person buy a Car and drive it right away.
And yet, automobiles kill more people per year than guns, even with a license. Go fig.

And yes, we all know guns are tools that can kill. They'd be useless defending the lives of their owners if they weren't:

http://www.personaldefenseworld.com/tag/it-happened-to-me/


Last I checked. Free Speech won't enable me to point a piece of metal at someone and blow their brains out.


You realize most other countries have changed and amended and modernized their constitutions
However, it will allow you to say false things about another person, which may lead to their death:

http://www.queerty.com/bullied-to-d...ommits-suicide-because-of-classmates-20141205

Oh... and pray tell, how has that helped you retain your Freedoms? America won its Freedom by means of arms... any country that wishes to remain free must retain the Freedom to Keep and Bear Arms. Or there is nothing that can KEEP them free.

And even with our "old fashioned" Constitution still "protecting" us, we have this:

http://dailyreckoning.com/how-gun-control-laws-waste-time-and-destroy-freedom/


So really, don't pull some strawman crap and accuse me against being against civil rights because, frankly, the RIGHT to bear arms is an extremely dangerous mentality to have and it isn't practical in a modern society.
See the last link, above.
 
YOu realize most other countries have changed and amended and modernized their constitutions
The US constitution has also been amended thirty three times, ten of which were sequestered off into a second document called the Bill of Rights. So the idea that any "right" is infallible is blind worship of a document created by fallible humans back in a time when they also thought enslaving black people was okay. This was also a time when firearms had one shot and were about as accurate as pissing in the wind so they had to be fired in volleys to be effective.

I know, it's sacrilegious to question a 200 year old document, same as it is a 2,000 year old document. Do I care about your feelings? No. Things change as societies advance, grow, and learn new and better theories of the universe, as well as becoming more efficient. We now have death sticks that can reliably murder people with up to 18 shots, which can be hidden in some gangster's pants. As the technology advances, so too should the laws which affect it. Nobody credible has questioned Freedom of Speech, because it's not tied to a technology: It's tied to a fundamental element of human existence.

If you seriously attempt to make guns out to be a fundamental part of your existence, then I must put forth the question of your sanity when an inanimate object is considered so valuable, that you would give your life protecting it.
 
  • Thank You
Reactions: Dervish
And yet, automobiles kill more people per year than guns, even with a license. Go fig.
It still comes with a valid/useful purpose though.

Guns though? Kill another person in the case of danger?
That's really it, sounds like a big deal, but it's a rare occurrence.
Plus remember I'm not advocating for guns to be banned, just that people need know that the hell they're doing with said fire arm first & be mentally sane/stable.
 
If you seriously attempt to make guns out to be a fundamental part of your existence, then I must put forth the question of your sanity when an inanimate object is considered so valuable, that you would give your life protecting it.
The whole point of using a firearm for self-defense is so you don't have to give your life in the face of evil. Without the right to self-defense (the whole point of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms), then you have no means to preserve your life. If that is insanity, then I embrace it.

"Tied to a technology?" Does a right need to "float" on its own just to be a Right? I'd say no. And remember this: Your Freedom of Speech is indeed tied to a technology in this "modern" world, a tech the Founding Fathers had no conception of. It's called a "cell phone."


...just that people need to know what the hell they're doing with said firearm first & be mentally sane/stable.
I can't disagree with this.
 
Just an FYI, ignoring somebody's points in favour of replying with a link to a political pundit editorial piece is extremely poor discussion ability. Glad we had this chat, it was enlightening to both parties, I'm sure.
 
Just an FYI, ignoring somebody's points in favour of replying with a link to a political pundit editorial piece is extremely poor discussion ability. Glad we had this chat, it was enlightening to both parties, I'm sure.
I didn't ignore them, I simply chose to provide info in refutation through a different source... the words of others.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.