Agnostic.com

23 17

As a gun owner myself, I feel we need intelligent gun regulations. I passed a test to drive a car and pilot my plane. My doctor passed a test to practice medicine ect. I would like rational gun laws passed in the same way to stop the mentally ill, folks on a terrorist list or people determined to be a threat to themselves or others from legally purchasing guns. I think you should have to explain why you need an assault rifle. Why is this so controversial? Why does the NRA get a pass?

rogueflyer 8 Apr 11
Share

Post a comment Author doesn't reply Reply Author doesn't reply Add Photo

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

23 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

7

I am also a gun owner, and was rated "expert" with the M-1 rifle in the Army. Still, I believe that NO ONE needs a pistol, an automatic or semi-automatic weapon of any kind, or an assault rifle as a private citizen. The same does for large capacity magazines or armor piercing bullets.

The NRA of today is a corrupt organization dominated by greed. It receives tens of millions of dollars from gun manufacturers. It has the clout that it does due to the influence of money in our politics today, and due to a cozy relationship with Republican politicians.

I agree completely. Thank you.

Well said.

i was in the armed forces & took up target practice with an olympic type hand gun. are you saying that i shouldn't be allowed to fire at targets a few times/yr?

@callmedubious No. An Olympic style rifle is not an automatic or semi=automatic weapon. I approve of private ownership of bolt action and lever action rifles, as well as full length shotguns. They have valid uses in hunting, varmint control, etc.

@wordywalt ,
you are so anxious you didn't even comprehend my post..
a said i own am olympic type HANDGUN.

@callmedubious Sorry that missed that. I have no problem with such a target pistol, so long as the gun is stored and used within the confines of a gun club-- as is done in Germany and in competition between gun clubs.

@Biptu One can defend one's home and self with a rifle or shotgun. Open carry actually increases gun violence.

"I am also a gun owner, and was rated "expert" with the M-1 rifle in the Army." No one cares. I have been breathing for 75 years and that does not make me an authority on the respiratory system.

@wordywalt "One can defend one's home and self with a rifle or shotgun. Open carry actually increases gun violence." Show us the data that indicates open carry increases gun violence.

@dahermit As an American citizen, I have the right to express my reasoned opinion, whether you like it or not. If you disagree, I challenge you to give valid and reasoned rebuttals instead of an inane attempt to slam.

@dahermit If you listen to the news, you have all the data you need.

@wordywalt How can you expect me not to "slam" you when make a ridiculous pronouncement and then do not provide any evidence for what you say. If you think "...listen(ing) to the news, you have all the data you need." is a link/reference to actual data, you are a complete idiot. "reasoned opinion"...my ass. Defend your "reasoned" statement: "...Open carry actually increases gun violence." Show the proof.

@dahermit Enough of your silly games. You know damned well that thanks to the NRA and a Republican congress, it is forbidden for the federal government to collect data on gun violence.

@wordywalt "You know damned well that thanks to the NRA and a Republican congress, it is forbidden for the federal government to collect data on gun violence."
yet, here it is...a quick google search showed many links. I will just post three:
[en.wikipedia.org]
[nytimes.com]
[vox.com]
For God's sake (an Idiom), go to your local community college and take English Comp...they will likely teach you to do a research paper wherein you will learn to cite sources. It would also benefit you to take a logic class. Your lack of logic and incompetence relative to intelligent debate is too difficult to deal with. While I am giving advice, you may as well look up "The Dunning-Kruger Effect", also.

7

I think there's a false dichotomy being pushed by commenters. It's true that there's a perceived constitutional protection for gun ownership (about which we could have a separate debate as to whether it's actually a right given that it was stated in the context of state militias, not private ownership per se).

But even if we grant for the sake of argument that citizens have a right to arm themselves for private purposes, it's a separate issue whether they are capable of safely using them. That separate question is whether they should undergo safety training and vetting, licensing, mental health screening, whether this freedom includes AK47s and bazookas and Howitzers, etc.

Nothing about declaring gun ownership a constitutional right makes gun ownership free of accountability or responsibility or sensibly restricted usage. But gun advocates constantly conflate the two, as if any sort of rules is either tantamount to prohibition, or a prelude to prohibition.

"(about which we could have a separate debate as to whether it's actually a right given that it was stated in the context of state militias, not private ownership per se)." "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." There are only three entities recognized in the Constitution as having rights. The Federal Government, the state Government, and the "People"...a "Militia" is not one of them.

"But even if we grant for the sake of argument that citizens have a right to arm themselves for private purposes,..." The Second Amendment does not state there there is a right to arm themselves for "private purposes". "A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It states that the people can keep and bear arms for the security of a free state...however, you may point out where it states otherwise if you wish.

Agreed. People like to pretend like the bill of rights are absolute. Perhaps some are more than others, but even something so preciously defended as freedom of speech is not absolute. One cannot threaten people, yell fire in a theater or lie to people in certain scenarios.

The second amendment has it’s limits in the same way.

@dahermit That was my point ... people have a right to keep and bear arms for a very specific purpose, that being the common defense via "well regulated" militias. We haven't even HAD militias in a long time, and todays automatic weapons are a far cry from the muskets the framers had in mind.

@mordant "...todays automatic weapons are a far cry from the muskets the framers had in mind." A common anti-gun platitude. However, consider the meaning of the Second Amendment (and Artical One, Section eight of the Constitution), was to assure that the militia (civilians) could prevail in combat against an enemy equipped with the common infantry weapons of the day. How then does the Second Amendment not refer to the common weapons of today's modern militaries (automatic weapons, detachable, large capacity magazines), when it is completely accepted the the First Amendment is not limited to quill pens and paper, printed words, but internet and cell phone communications. In that light, saying that militias (people) should be restricted to Brown Bess Muskets and spontoons is ridiculous. Modern weapons are implied, just as are cell phones relative to the First Amendment.

@dahermit We don't have militias anymore.

@mordant Are you really that unaware? There several in my home state of Michigan alone.
[en.wikipedia.org]

Article one, Section eight of the Constitution establishes the militia...where in the Constitution does it eliminate the militia?

@dahermit Some ragtag bunch of conspiracy theorists who are a self-proclaimed militia is not "well regulated" or organized to the end of national "security". Come on now. Seriously? Thats your argument?

Militia were conceived as an adjunct to the military in an era when communication and travel were arduous and slow and funds for a standing army scarce. The idea was that the government could call on locals to pick up arms and defend the country when called upon -- not that individuals could pick up arms against the government at personal whim.

@mordant "The idea was that the government could call on locals to pick up arms and defend the country when called upon --" To pick up their arms...
"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms." would seem to give the people the right to form those "self-proclaimed militias". As for "well regulated" it only means "well practiced", and people and militias today do a lot of practicing. Furthermore, if no Amendment is made to the Constitution, the Second Amendment still stands...or are the other Amendments candidates for just being ignored?

5

For me it's not even the regulations. It's this bizarre obsession they have with the Second Amendment. There's this strange mentality they have that if somehow any regulation is passed, they be conquered by Liburil Communist Socialsts who will take away the MAGA hats and make their kids gay. Those are the people that shouldn't have guns, and yet they're the ones that are stockpiling them.

@Biptu: Case in point.

5

Why does the NRA get a pass? Because the lawmakers in Washington, D.C. like to auction off their votes to the highest bidders, and the NRA is the highest bidder.

Deb57 Level 8 Apr 11, 2019
5

MONEY! In the U.S., no matter the question, 99% of the time, the answer is money.

4

Greed is the answer.

4

Whenever the subject of gun ownership in the USA comes up I just shake my head in utter disbelief and stay schtum.

I think the rest of the world feels the same.

4

Some things are rational, other things are part of the national identity.
In the US every mentally disturbed person can buy a gun, here in Germany every idiot can drive 150 mph on the highway if he likes to do so.
A few weeks ago, a national commission (they should come up with suggestions to reduce carbon dioxide in the atmosphere) proposed to reduce the speeding limit to 90 mph, which caused an uproar.
In the US bearing arms is a human right; in Germany it is driving as fast as you can on the autobahn

@Allamanda demagoguery...and also disingenuous. Your apparent concern with gun deaths is not proportionate to the the major threats to American lives. Do the damned research. If you wanted to decry needless deaths, you would concern yourself with the 250,000 deaths due to medical mistakes and the opioid overdose epidemic.

@Allamanda My apologies.

You make a great point about cultural differences, though I must point out that mental health is part of the background check. It may not be very strict, but it is there.

@Allamanda "the difference being the potential for deadliness is a bit lower..." Nevertheless, there are far more deaths due to automobiles in the U.S. than there are due to guns. As a matter of fact, guns are not in the top ten of the causes of death.

3

After the massacre in New Zealand it took them just a few days to tighten their guns laws. It went 191 - 1 to fix it. Why is it so difficult in the US to do the same, after all it seems to the rest of the world like not a day goes by without someone being shot by someone else, even toddlers shoot people there.

Yes, it does. I'm assuming it's here in the US you're referring to that toddlers have shot their mothers and vice versa. But look at the craziness that the voters elected.

Having never been to New Zealand, I can only guess that their culture with regards to guns is very different than the culture in the US.

@indirect76 The culture in regards to guns is very different all around the world. Only in the US does this insanity happen every day.

@indirect76, @rogueflyer Yes but it seems to me like no matter if you vote Republican or Democrat they still let NRA get away with murder, literally.

@Jolanta The Republicans seem to be more cozy with the NRA.

@Jolanta Un fortunately, you are absolutely correct.

@Biptu You honestly need to educate yourself about gun crime in New Zealand. This is not only stupid but also misleading what you are saying. New Zealand don’t have gun crimes, this was a person from Australia going to New Zealand for the single purpose to take advantage of the lax gun laws, spouting how he admires Donald ending up with killing 50 people at a mosque.

@Biptu oh yeah because so many shootings have been stopped by law abiding gun toting people.

3

Be careful about what you say. NRA may have you "taken" care of, you make too much sense.

2

I took a class , passed both the written portion and the physical portion , then I applied for my license , I paid a fee , to have the police / FBI run a back ground check , which I also passed , and the LTC was drawn up using my driver's license including my description , address , etc. All of which are required by law . How did you manage to get a license , without taking and passing a test ? I do think the test would be more significant if it included more about your mental health / attitude . However the background check should eliminate those with a known violent history . Three men broke into a home in the richer , gated community , next to mine . They tied the homeowners up in chairs , then shot both of them through their heads . I do not hunt defenceless animals . I live alone . I have not fired a gun , since I completed the course . I also am not a defenceless animal .

Source:

LTC stands for License to Carry .

That's great Cast1es! That's exactly what I advocate for. I don't have an LTC. I just bought a gun. It was too easy and some loopholes (gun shows, private transfer) require nothing at all. I think we may be on the same platform unless you think there should be absolutely no regulation.

2

Many mentally ill people never get formally diagnosed. Many terrorists don't get on watch lists. I think we need to make guns that are not traditionally used in hunting illegal. It works in other countries & it can work here.

Carin Level 8 Apr 12, 2019

Within the last year , three men broke into a house in the sub division next to mine . It was in a much richer , gated community . They tied the home owners up in chairs , then shot both of them through the head . I have never gone hunting , and never plan to . I live alone . I have not fired my gun since I bought . Mine is self defense , only , not for killing defenseless animals .

@Biptu You might find that "these idiots" aren't all snowflakes Biptu. We just don't need to be packin when buying groceries.

2

If you’ve bought a gun, then you know there is a already background check to preclude the mentally ill or terrorists. Perhaps this check can be improved?

With assault rifles, I think that the bar must be much higher, but I don’t think the bar necessarily has to involve a reason to have one.

Yes the last time I purchased a handgun I gave them my name and possible my SSN, I'm not sure, but I remember it just took a couple of minutes to be approved. No questions, no training. BTW I keep guns unloaded, clip out and locked in a safe.

@rogueflyer I have a common name, so I have to wait about a week any time I purchase a gun. It’s not a problem.

I live alone and keep mine loaded & chambered in a safe. I live in a good neighborhood, but occasionally get odd folks drifting in. Being a smaller fella, owning a gun makes the difference between confidently telling someone to get out of my back yard instead of sitting there & hoping they leave.

@rogueflyer ,
must be a lot safer where you live than Phoenix. if i were an american i would have loaded hanguns within reach.

@callmedubious Hmm, I'm not paranoid.

@Biptu Yes, you could say any gun is an ‘assault’ weapon, but usually it means a semi-automatic rifle that takes certain kinds of high power ammunition.

@indirect76 "...semi-automatic rifle that takes certain kinds of high power ammunition." Actually, the ammunition used in modern semi-automatic rifles are are erroneously identified as "assault weapons" are much less powerful than traditional deer rifles and former (WWII), military rifles. Statements to the contrary are the ignorant rhetoric of the anti-gun faction trying to evoke demagoguery as a weapon. But don't let the facts change your mind.

2

I believe in responsible gun ownership. The key is responsible. FYI - In 2016 avg day 96.2 Americans killed by guns. 37% homicides 59% suicides. Same year avg day 115 opioid related deaths.

Thanks but I'm not sure what you mean. Opioids are restricted. Interesting point though.

So are you saying just because opiates are restricted it has some kind of bearing on gun ownership?

@Jolanta Perhaps he's trying to point out , that even though opioids are restricted , by law , they still cause more deaths , daily , than guns .

@Cast1es possibly but it has nothing to do with gun violence. Saying that is only trying to justify gun deaths.

2

Why is this topic debated so much. It's really simple and affective.

2

I agree!

2

I have to agree with you. But if you haven't noticed common sense in this country has become very uncommon indeed.
And I really see no reason why I can't own an A-10 warthog. Of course it wouldn't make much of a daily driver. ?

You'd have to get licensed to fly an A10.

@rogueflyer yeah ?

2

But, but, but, the Right to keep and bear Arms, Shall Not be infringed is a Constitution Right. Driving cars, flying planes and becoming a MD are privileges.

1

I somewhat agree with you. Since conservatives are for lower taxes there should be a tax break for taking and passing a yearly firearms training class as well as for not having any incidents with your firearms kind of like how car insurance works.

1

How do we know you won't be mentally ill tomorrow?

1

Do you think your lack of belief is a foundational premise resulting in your reasoning?

Jacar Level 8 Apr 11, 2019
1

How about a competency test for all persons running for public office. How about putting it up as a referendum vote to be decided by the people, and for the people and not the benefit of the NRA who fuels money and bullets into the argument while paying off lobbyist and greedy politicians for their own greed. Military Grade Assault Weapons belong in the Military under lock and key where they are stored and not out in the public. No one ever said anything about your hunting rifle

1

Apples and oranges. There is no Constitutional Right to drive a car, fly a plane, or practice medicine. Have you considered the inherent danger of reinterpreting the rights in the Constitution De Jour as did Bush/Chaney by redefining "...cruel and unusual punishment..." as "enhanced interrogation techniques"? With that "rational" and "common sense" populist interpretation, we became a nation of torturers. If one cannot abide by the Constitution, there is a Constitutional means of changing it just as it has been done 27 times before. Or, do you think it smarter to just ignore its original intent?

Maybe the 'well regulated' part means nothing

@Count_Viceroy What do YOU think it means in the context of the performance of the militias in the American revolution?

@Novelty Change it you twit.

@dahermit so we're talking context? Muskets only then.

You do realize that the 2nd Amendment used to be interpreted completely differently and only came to its current interpretation after a change in leadership at the NRA and a series of well funded campaigns to change its meaning (funded by the gun manufacturers and carried out by the NRA)?

[npr.org]

@icolan Ron Elving's editorial/opinion notwithstanding, you do realize that the only entity that can "interpret" the Constitution (Second Amendment) is the U.S. Supreme Court do you not? Given that, how could the NRA "change its meaning"? The authors of the Second Amendment were quite clear as to its meaning. It is the anti-gun people who are trying to make an end-run around the original intent of those who authored the amendment. Its intent was to insure that the citizens right to keep arms to allow those citizens to prevail in battle against foreign invaders and possible internal threats. Until the Second Amendment, the federal government was charged with providing military arms to the militias (citizens).

@dahermit The NRA can and has changed the interpretation of the second amendment by spending millions of dollars each year lobbying Congress, funding Congressional campaigns for favorable candidates, lobbying for favorable judicial candidates to receive promotions or confirmation, challenging common sense restrictions, doing everything they can do to ensure that there are more guns in this country than people.

And where does the NRA get these millions of dollars each year?? It isn't from their membership dues, it is from gun manufacturers that want to boost gun sales, and make those sales easier.

"The authors of the Second Amendment were quite clear as to its meaning. It is the anti-gun people who are trying to make an end-run around the original intent of those who authored the amendment. Its intent was to insure that the citizens right to keep arms to allow those citizens to prevail in battle against foreign invaders and possible internal threats. Until the Second Amendment, the federal government was charged with providing military arms to the militias (citizens)." <-- So what is the justification for maintaining that amendment today? Do you support repealing the amendment since we have the most powerful military in the world and our citizens no longer need guns to fight off foreign invaders? Since we also have police at every level of government there is no reason for citizens to need guns to fight off "possible internal threats" either.

In case you are thinking about answering those questions above with some nebulous crap about protecting citizens from unspecified tyranny of the government, forget about it. That has already been tried and failed, it was called the Civil War. The duly elected leadership of this country have already made it clear that succession on a state level is not allowed, even if multiple states attempt it. More recently, how many break away groups got shutdown by the federal authorities in the 80s and 90s, many with loss of life on both sides. So any argument that starts with guns protect us from the tyranny of the government, is complete BS.

I don't want to take anyone's guns away, I used to own several myself. They are useful for hunting, sport shooting, and if necessary personal defense. None of those uses require or even call for a weapon that can unload dozens of bullets with a single trigger pull. Weapons that can do that are only useful for killing or maiming large numbers of people as quickly as possible.

Look, it is really simple, the gun lobby wants guns to be easily accessible to ensure the profits of the gun manufacturers, but it is past time for sensible controls on guns, What is going to happen is that either the gun lobby backs down and starts seriously talking about rational restrictions on guns, or people like me who don't really care about them one way or the other are going to get pissed about all the violence, mass shootings, etc. and we are going to vote in people who will seriously go after the guns.

You can respond to this or not as you choose, I will not be responding to any further replies as I am reasonably confident that we will not agree on this issue and I am really not interested in uselessly debating it.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:329022
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.