Discussion: The Second Amendment

[SuperFerret]

I'm for gun control. I hate guns, and would like them banned, but I'm aware that that's impossible, so I favor as many limits on them as are reasonable.

 

[hippie_hunter]

I'm for gun control. I hate guns, and would like them banned, but I'm aware that that's impossible, so I favor as many limits on them as are reasonable.

I favor as many limits on free speech as are reasonable

 

[SuperFerret]

I favor as many limits on free speech as are reasonable

What you say is difficult to regulate, not so much with firearms. But while we're on it, I feel that the press has too much freedom sometimes.

 

[hippie_hunter]

What you say is difficult to regulate, not so much with firearms. But while we're on it, I feel that the press has too much freedom sometimes.

Firearms can be just as difficult to regulate. If a person wants a gun, they will get it one way or another. And it can be easy to regulate free speech. Just ask China.

And the press has the perfect amount of freedom. As long as no harm or damage is caused or intended, or if national security isn't violated, the press should be able to do as they please.

 

[hammerhedd11]

I'm for reasonable gun control. Background checks, certain types of restrictions, and whatnot are necessary, but over all I'm a firm supporter of the Second Amendment and the efforts of the NRA.

I'm gonna have to agree with you. While I don't think it should be impossible to get a gun, I think some background checks are very warranted. The reason I bring this subject up is that there is a rise in gang violence in my city and much of it taking place in my neighborhood. It has gotten to the point where it is too dangerous to go walk at night. My family is now looking to buy a gun and we have started to attend shooting ranges. While I think it would be horrible to have to take a life, I am prepared to do what's necessary to protect my family and myself.

 

[souvlaki]

I believe that anything which fires more than one bullet per shot has no place in our society other than as an ammunition-less display piece.

I agree. What I'm curious about is why don't they just outlaw the sale of ammunition? I couldn't care less if someone wants a gun to put on display (as long as they undergo the same background checks that are required now), but it seems like going after the sale of ammunition would be a reasonable way to bypass the second amendment.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Where do you live hammerhedd?

 

[SuperFerret]

Firearms can be just as difficult to regulate. If a person wants a gun, they will get it one way or another. And it can be easy to regulate free speech. Just ask China.

Yeah, and if they go around the controls on guns, then they are doing something illegal. I don't feel that anyone who wants to legally have a gun should take measures that go beyond the limits of gun control. If you want it that badly, go through the motions.

And the press has the perfect amount of freedom. As long as no harm or damage is caused or intended, or if national security isn't violated, the press should be able to do as they please.

The press has too much freedom when they are legally able to go to people's houses and intrude on their privacy immediately after a tragedy. If you're in public office, then that's your problem for being in that position. The press should be more respectful of the privacy of private citizens, and limiting the freedom of the press in that respect would be ideal.

 

[Handsome Rob]

I agree. What I'm curious about is why don't they just outlaw the sale of ammunition? I couldn't care less if someone wants a gun to put on display (as long as they undergo the same background checks that are required now), but it seems like going after the sale of ammunition would be a reasonable way to bypass the second amendment.

And why would you want to "bypass" the second amendment? What if gov't decided it wanted to "bypass" the first amendment? Would you want them to have that ability?

The 10 Amendments are a Bill of Rights. Each of the 10 is just as important as any other.

 

[redfirebird2008]

And why would you want to "bypass" the second amendment? What if gov't decided it wanted to "bypass" the first amendment? Would you want them to have that ability?

The 10 Amendments are a Bill of Rights. Each of the 10 is just as important as any other.

So you're saying the first 10 amendments are unequivocally more important than later amendments? I think that's a ridiculous argument. I think civil rights are more important than gun rights, and I'll stand by that all damn day. Just because our country started out with slavery being legal doesn't mean that the first 10 amendments are automatically more important than later amendments. Just because it takes us a while to figure out how wrong we really are doesn't mean that an earlier act is more important.

Having said that, I fully support the 10 amendments including the 2nd amendment. People have a right to own guns and I fully support it.

 

[souvlaki]

And why would you want to "bypass" the second amendment? What if gov't decided it wanted to "bypass" the first amendment? Would you want them to have that ability?

The 10 Amendments are a Bill of Rights. Each of the 10 is just as important as any other.

Bypass was a wrong choice of words, but I see absolutely no reason why the right to bear arms means you have the right to own ammunition. Given the amount of gun violence in this country, I don't see any reason why someone can go down to their local Big 5 and get ammunition for a gun that can take another person's life. You can have your gun for all I care. That's fine and dandy. But I don't see why you should need to fire that gun.

 

[Addendum]

My view on gun control is this:

When one becomes of legal age to drive, one must first obtain a driver's license. This is done to protect society from the harm that can be done by a person who doesn't know how to safely operate their vehicle and who also lacks a basic grasp of the rules of the road.

How does that relate to owning and using a firearm? A firearm by itself is not a deadly device. In the hands of a person with no regard for the safety of others, it is deadly.

Therefore, I suggest mandatory firearm training for law-abiding citizens before the purchase of a firearm. Such training will demonstrate the damage a firearm can inflict, show the proper means of storing a firearm in the home to help reduce accidental shootings, and proper training in the use of a firearm including understanding the basic firearm safety rules. To show that those attending the course have a firm grasp of firearm safety, only those who pass the written test with a score of a 100% will graduate the course and will then be issued their permit. Anyone who doesn't pass the test will fail the course and will have to retake the test again. First timers and those who are retaking the course will have to pay a registration fee, which will be reasonably priced. Permits will be good for 1 year, and will then have to be renewed.

 

[Handsome Rob]

So you're saying the first 10 amendments are unequivocally more important than later amendments? I think that's a ridiculous argument. I think civil rights are more important than gun rights, and I'll stand by that all damn day. Just because our country started out with slavery being legal doesn't mean that the first 10 amendments are automatically more important than later amendments. Just because it takes us a while to figure out how wrong we really are doesn't mean that an earlier act is more important.

Having said that, I fully support the 10 amendments including the 2nd amendment. People have a right to own guns and I fully support it.

First the second oath of office, now this? How are you reading way too far into what I say to come up with assumptions that are blatantly incorrect? I was only talking about the Bill of Rights--I wasn't talking about any other amendments. I never said anything about amendments being less important than others. I was ONLY talking about the Bill of Rights and how I consider each of THOSE as important as the others.

Heck, why don't you also accuse me of disregarding the Articles of the Constitution and saying they weren't as important as the Bill of Rights, too, while you're at it? They're as much a part of the Constitution as the other amendments are.

 

[Handsome Rob]

Bypass was a wrong choice of words, but I see absolutely no reason why the right to bear arms means you have the right to own ammunition. Given the amount of gun violence in this country, I don't see any reason why someone can go down to their local Big 5 and get ammunition for a gun that can take another person's life. You can have your gun for all I care. That's fine and dandy. But I don't see why you should need to fire that gun.

But by banning the use of bullets you render firearms useless and in effect enact a ban on the usage of firearms. Imagine if government didn't like what you were saying in your pamphlets (put yourself back in the late 1700s). But, they knew you had a first amendment right to the freedom of the press. So, they decided to ban printing presses, instead. It's essentially the same thing as what you are suggesting. I don't agree with it.

 

[SuperFerret]

My view on gun control is this:

When one becomes of legal age to drive, one must first obtain a driver's license. This is done to protect society from the harm that can be done by a person who doesn't know how to safely operate their vehicle and who also lacks a basic grasp of the rules of the road.

How does that relate to owning and using a firearm? A firearm by itself is not a deadly device. In the hands of a person with no regard for the safety of others, it is deadly.

Therefore, I suggest mandatory firearm training for law-abiding citizens before the purchase of a firearm. Such training will demonstrate the damage a firearm can inflict, show the proper means of storing a firearm in the home to help reduce accidental shootings, and proper training in the use of a firearm including understanding the basic firearm safety rules. To show that those attending the course have a firm grasp of firearm safety, only those who pass the written test with a score of a 100% will graduate the course and will then be issued their permit. Anyone who doesn't pass the test will fail the course and will have to retake the test again. First timers and those who are retaking the course will have to pay a registration fee, which will be reasonably priced. Permits will be good for 1 year, and will then have to be renewed.

You do realize the harm that is caused by those who don't "know how to safely operate their vehicle and who also lacks a basic grasp of the rules of the road" yet still have a driver's license.

A firearm is a weapon, an easily misused weapon, especially considering the general stupidity of the human race. If there are a large number of people who can irresponsibly turn a vehicle into a deadly object, how many can turn a weapon into one?

 

[Addendum]

You do realize the harm that is caused by those who don't "know how to safely operate their vehicle and who also lacks a basic grasp of the rules of the road" yet still have a driver's license.

A firearm is a weapon, an easily misused weapon, especially considering the general stupidity of the human race. If there are a large number of people who can irresponsibly turn a vehicle into a deadly object, how many can turn a weapon into one?

That's why I'm in favor of mandatory driver's ed courses for those who make a habit of getting various driving and parking offense, and permanent suspension of licenses for those with a DUI, DWI, and/or vehicular homicide conviction

 

[SuperFerret]

That's why I'm in favor of mandatory driver's ed courses for those who make a habit of getting various driving and parking offenses

I'm in favor of making the requirements for driving much more strict. I'm not sure what needs to be done exactly, but something does.

Humans are stupid, dangerous animals, and each year, that opinion is justified.

 

[souvlaki]

But by banning the use of bullets you render firearms useless and in effect enact a ban on the usage of firearms. Imagine if government didn't like what you were saying in your pamphlets (put yourself back in the late 1700s). But, they knew you had a first amendment right to the freedom of the press. So, they decided to ban printing presses, instead. It's essentially the same thing as what you are suggesting. I don't agree with it.

If you can find me a printing press that is capable of taking another person's life I would see your point. That being said I'm sure I'm in the minority on this. One of my friends was the victim of gun violence so my opinion is probably more radical than most. Honestly, I'd be pretty happy with what Addendum proposed.

 

[Bill]

Bypass was a wrong choice of words, but I see absolutely no reason why the right to bear arms means you have the right to own ammunition. Given the amount of gun violence in this country, I don't see any reason why someone can go down to their local Big 5 and get ammunition for a gun that can take another person's life. You can have your gun for all I care. That's fine and dandy. But I don't see why you should need to fire that gun.

The problem is that very little gun violence in committed by those who own legally obtained guns or ammunition since both are brought in on the black market. So, your strategy will be extremely effective at disarming or rendering the arms of honest citizens useless, but very little effect on gun violence. And since the prospect of getting shot might keep the average criminal out of a person's home or business if there is knowledge of guns present, rendering them useless may actually increase gun violence.

No, thank you.

 

[Bill]

My view on gun control is this:

When one becomes of legal age to drive, one must first obtain a driver's license. This is done to protect society from the harm that can be done by a person who doesn't know how to safely operate their vehicle and who also lacks a basic grasp of the rules of the road.

How does that relate to owning and using a firearm? A firearm by itself is not a deadly device. In the hands of a person with no regard for the safety of others, it is deadly.

Therefore, I suggest mandatory firearm training for law-abiding citizens before the purchase of a firearm. Such training will demonstrate the damage a firearm can inflict, show the proper means of storing a firearm in the home to help reduce accidental shootings, and proper training in the use of a firearm including understanding the basic firearm safety rules. To show that those attending the course have a firm grasp of firearm safety, only those who pass the written test with a score of a 100% will graduate the course and will then be issued their permit. Anyone who doesn't pass the test will fail the course and will have to retake the test again. First timers and those who are retaking the course will have to pay a registration fee, which will be reasonably priced. Permits will be good for 1 year, and will then have to be renewed.

New York state has such a program in place, other than the renew after a year, which I think is too restrictive and could get expensive if the state politicians decide they need a raise.

I agree that a licensing program should be in place, but instead of a renewal there is a yearly qualification. IOW, you have to demonstrate you can properly use the firearm. But I also think that if you jump through the hoops, you should be able to own firearms unrestricted. Most of this is turning what should be a right into a well-regulated privilege.

 

[Malice]

I am for gun control if it can take out a tank, if it can blow a tank up, it can be banned.
Other than that, its legal to me.

 

[Nitehawk013]

I am in agreement with Malice.

Guns do not kill people. Therefore banning guns is a nonsense move. It is trying to treat a symptom instead of treating a disease.

Further, to quote Freud (who I otherwise feel was a loon and pervert) " fear of weapons is a sign of ******ed sexual and emotional maturity".

Guns are tools. No different than a hammer or a screwdriver. They are good in the hands of the responsible, and dangerous in the hands of fools.

 

[Malice]

bingo....

The only people hurt but gun bans, are those that want to stay legal.
The illegals will get guns illegally

 

[SuperT]

I'm one of the members of the camp that wouldn't care if they just banned guns all together.

What's the point?! There's been too many kids die from getting ahold of parents guns and shooting themselves because they think it's a toy or children taking them to school and shooting up half of the student body.

 

[Malice]

I'm one of the members of the camp that wouldn't care if they just banned guns all together.

What's the point?! There's been too many kids die from getting ahold of parents guns and shooting themselves because they think it's a toy or children taking them to school and shooting up half of the student body.

The moment you ban ALL guns..you will see a fundamental change in govt policy.