Honest and open debate on gun control

[Derideo_Te]

Reintroduce the draft!

All males either graduating from school and/or 18 years of age are required to spend 6 months in basic training.

Training will include both firearms and psychological evaluations.

Follow up training of 2 weeks every 2nd year for the next 30 years.

Gun sales will be dependent upon producing certificates of course completion.

Anyone failing either firearms or psychological evals will have to apply through the courts for an exemption if they want to obtain a firearm.

In essence this is similar to the Swiss system that works so well.

Only those who are either incompetent with firearms or who are identified as being mentally unstable will have any problem obtaining firearms.

Everyone else will be fully trained in how to use them properly.

In addition to ignoring women completely, as has been pointed out already, I would want to know more about the psychological eval.

Who will create the process and who will have the authority to change it. More than a few people would consider the desire to own a firearm as proof of mental illness.

How many women have gone around killing people in shooting sprees?

Psychological evaluations will need to be developed based upon how conscripts manage stress and FBI profiling data of those who have committed these crimes in the past.

Right now all attempts to do so have been stymied by the NRA. That obstruction needs to be removed so that genuine research can move forward.

 

[2aguy]

It can be found here in the Constitution:
'Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited....

The fact that it is not unlimited in no way means that any given limitation is constitutional.

Registration of guns is Constitutional.

Registration of gun owners is Constitutional.

Background checks are Constitutional.

So was internment of Japanese Americans, because government said so... just saying.

Well...a democrat President did it so it was obviously okay.....

 

[2aguy]

Reintroduce the draft!

All males either graduating from school and/or 18 years of age are required to spend 6 months in basic training.

Training will include both firearms and psychological evaluations.

Follow up training of 2 weeks every 2nd year for the next 30 years.

Gun sales will be dependent upon producing certificates of course completion.

Anyone failing either firearms or psychological evals will have to apply through the courts for an exemption if they want to obtain a firearm.

In essence this is similar to the Swiss system that works so well.

Only those who are either incompetent with firearms or who are identified as being mentally unstable will have any problem obtaining firearms.

Everyone else will be fully trained in how to use them properly.

In addition to ignoring women completely, as has been pointed out already, I would want to know more about the psychological eval.

Who will create the process and who will have the authority to change it. More than a few people would consider the desire to own a firearm as proof of mental illness.

How many women have gone around killing people in shooting sprees?

Psychological evaluations will need to be developed based upon how conscripts manage stress and FBI profiling data of those who have committed these crimes in the past.

Right now all attempts to do so have been stymied by the NRA. That obstruction needs to be removed so that genuine research can move forward.

Moron, the research never stopped, it was done by private research groups, the CDC was simply blocked from advocating gun control...which is well outside its purpose....

 

[Derideo_Te]

That last paragraph is nonsense, unless you care to show how the 2nd amendment is about only sporting firearms.

By now you understand why NK is DQd from any sort of honest and open discussion - right?

Ironic given how the OP has DQ'd himself from his own thread.

 

[Ame®icano]

How many women have gone around killing people in shooting sprees?

Psychological evaluations will need to be developed based upon how conscripts manage stress and FBI profiling data of those who have committed these crimes in the past.

Right now all attempts to do so have been stymied by the NRA. That obstruction needs to be removed so that genuine research can move forward.

Are results of that "genuine research" going to be reached by dictate or consensus?

 

[Derideo_Te]

It can be found here in the Constitution:
'Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited....

The fact that it is not unlimited in no way means that any given limitation is constitutional.

Registration of guns is Constitutional.

Registration of gun owners is Constitutional.

Background checks are Constitutional.

So was internment of Japanese Americans, because government said so... just saying.

Your ignorance is apparent. No, it wasn't constitutional and the fact that you don't know the difference says volumes.

 

[M14 Shooter]

347 posts, no sound responses.

 

[Ame®icano]

It can be found here in the Constitution:
'Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited....

The fact that it is not unlimited in no way means that any given limitation is constitutional.

Registration of guns is Constitutional.

Registration of gun owners is Constitutional.

Background checks are Constitutional.

So was internment of Japanese Americans, because government said so... just saying.

Your ignorance is apparent. No, it wasn't constitutional and the fact that you don't know the difference says volumes.

Please explain what makes those things you said above constitutional? Enlighten me.

 

[PratchettFan]

It can be found here in the Constitution:
'Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited....

The fact that it is not unlimited in no way means that any given limitation is constitutional.

Registration of guns is Constitutional.

Registration of gun owners is Constitutional.

Background checks are Constitutional.

But they don't do any good.

 

[Derideo_Te]

It can be found here in the Constitution:
'Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited....

The fact that it is not unlimited in no way means that any given limitation is constitutional.

Registration of guns is Constitutional.

Registration of gun owners is Constitutional.

Background checks are Constitutional.

So was internment of Japanese Americans, because government said so... just saying.

Your ignorance is apparent. No, it wasn't constitutional and the fact that you don't know the difference says volumes.

Please explain what makes those things you said above constitutional? Enlighten me.

Onus is on you to prove that it is unconstitutional to register guns since the Founding Fathers did exactly that as one of their very first acts of Congress. And yes that included registration of gun owners.

Background checks are used all the time in this nation. The onus is on you to prove that they are unconstitutional.

 

[2aguy]

The fact that it is not unlimited in no way means that any given limitation is constitutional.

Registration of guns is Constitutional.

Registration of gun owners is Constitutional.

Background checks are Constitutional.

So was internment of Japanese Americans, because government said so... just saying.

Your ignorance is apparent. No, it wasn't constitutional and the fact that you don't know the difference says volumes.

Please explain what makes those things you said above constitutional? Enlighten me.

Onus is on you to prove that it is unconstitutional to register guns since the Founding Fathers did exactly that as one of their very first acts of Congress. And yes that included registration of gun owners.

Background checks are used all the time in this nation. The onus is on you to prove that they are unconstitutional.

The right to self defense is above the Constitution. therefore any attempt to infringe on that right is UnConstitutional...moron....

 

[Liminal]

Registration of guns is Constitutional.

Registration of gun owners is Constitutional.

Background checks are Constitutional.

So was internment of Japanese Americans, because government said so... just saying.

Your ignorance is apparent. No, it wasn't constitutional and the fact that you don't know the difference says volumes.

Please explain what makes those things you said above constitutional? Enlighten me.

Onus is on you to prove that it is unconstitutional to register guns since the Founding Fathers did exactly that as one of their very first acts of Congress. And yes that included registration of gun owners.

Background checks are used all the time in this nation. The onus is on you to prove that they are unconstitutional.

The right to self defense is above the Constitution. therefore any attempt to infringe on that right is UnConstitutional...moron....

Above the Constitution? That's pretty vague. I hope you're not talking about natural rights bestowed by God, because those aren't codified in law. The Constitution is exactly what Second Amendment advocates need to rely on, we'd have nothing without it.

 

[Ame®icano]

Onus is on you to prove that it is unconstitutional to register guns since the Founding Fathers did exactly that as one of their very first acts of Congress. And yes that included registration of gun owners.

Background checks are used all the time in this nation. The onus is on you to prove that they are unconstitutional.

When founding fathers in the name of "we the people" have written The Constitution, and created the federal government, it also gave to that government enumerated powers listed in Article 1, Section 8. That's what The Constitution allows government to do. If you wondering why The Constitution is so short, it's because "we the people" don't want federal government to have too much power.

What federal government is constantly trying to do is to give themselves authority over things they simply have no rights over, and every time they do so, they're taking away more freedom that's guaranteed to us by The Constitution.

There is a proof. Now tell me, or show me, where The Constitution gives authority to Federal government to do any of what you said?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Onus is on you to prove that it is unconstitutional to register guns since the Founding Fathers did exactly that as one of their very first acts of Congress. And yes that included registration of gun owners.

Background checks are used all the time in this nation. The onus is on you to prove that they are unconstitutional.

When founding fathers in the name of "we the people" have written The Constitution, and created the federal government, it also gave to that government enumerated powers listed in Article 1, Section 8. That's what The Constitution allows government to do. If you wondering why The Constitution is so short, it's because "we the people" don't want federal government to have too much power.

What federal government is constantly trying to do is to give themselves authority over things they simply have no rights over, and every time they do so, they're taking away more freedom that's guaranteed to us by The Constitution.

There is a proof. Now tell me, or show me, where The Constitution gives authority to Federal government to do any of what you said?

There are registries of voters. Are they unconstitutional? Has anyone had their vote taken away because they are registered to vote? How is registering gun owners any different to registering voters?

Onus remains on you to prove that it is unconstitutional.

 

[M14 Shooter]

There is a proof. Now tell me, or show me, where The Constitution gives authority to Federal government to do any of what you said?

10th Amendemnt argument, Nice.

The right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right specifically protected by the constitution.
As such, restrictions placed on the right to keep and bear arms must pass a test of strict scrutiny.
Under that test, the restriction is presumed unconstitutional until the state shows the restriction serves as a means to achieve a compelling state interest, is narrowly tailored to that effect, and the least restrictive means to that end.

And so, the onus is on those who would restrict the right, not on those who would exercise it -- as it should be.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So was internment of Japanese Americans, because government said so... just saying.

Your ignorance is apparent. No, it wasn't constitutional and the fact that you don't know the difference says volumes.

Please explain what makes those things you said above constitutional? Enlighten me.

Onus is on you to prove that it is unconstitutional to register guns since the Founding Fathers did exactly that as one of their very first acts of Congress. And yes that included registration of gun owners.

Background checks are used all the time in this nation. The onus is on you to prove that they are unconstitutional.

The right to self defense is above the Constitution. therefore any attempt to infringe on that right is UnConstitutional...moron....

Above the Constitution? That's pretty vague. I hope you're not talking about natural rights bestowed by God, because those aren't codified in law. The Constitution is exactly what Second Amendment advocates need to rely on, we'd have nothing without it.

The right to self-defense is not granted by the constitution -- probably his point.

 

[2aguy]

Onus is on you to prove that it is unconstitutional to register guns since the Founding Fathers did exactly that as one of their very first acts of Congress. And yes that included registration of gun owners.

Background checks are used all the time in this nation. The onus is on you to prove that they are unconstitutional.

When founding fathers in the name of "we the people" have written The Constitution, and created the federal government, it also gave to that government enumerated powers listed in Article 1, Section 8. That's what The Constitution allows government to do. If you wondering why The Constitution is so short, it's because "we the people" don't want federal government to have too much power.

What federal government is constantly trying to do is to give themselves authority over things they simply have no rights over, and every time they do so, they're taking away more freedom that's guaranteed to us by The Constitution.

There is a proof. Now tell me, or show me, where The Constitution gives authority to Federal government to do any of what you said?

There are registries of voters. Are they unconstitutional? Has anyone had their vote taken away because they are registered to vote? How is registering gun owners any different to registering voters?

Onus remains on you to prove that it is unconstitutional.

No....it isn't. Registration of firearms is the first step to confiscation and banning....historically it has happened time and again...we are not going to let it happen......we will get more of our own justices now to tell you the way it will be...since that is now what the court is....

 

[2aguy]

Onus is on you to prove that it is unconstitutional to register guns since the Founding Fathers did exactly that as one of their very first acts of Congress. And yes that included registration of gun owners.

Background checks are used all the time in this nation. The onus is on you to prove that they are unconstitutional.

When founding fathers in the name of "we the people" have written The Constitution, and created the federal government, it also gave to that government enumerated powers listed in Article 1, Section 8. That's what The Constitution allows government to do. If you wondering why The Constitution is so short, it's because "we the people" don't want federal government to have too much power.

What federal government is constantly trying to do is to give themselves authority over things they simply have no rights over, and every time they do so, they're taking away more freedom that's guaranteed to us by The Constitution.

There is a proof. Now tell me, or show me, where The Constitution gives authority to Federal government to do any of what you said?

There are registries of voters. Are they unconstitutional? Has anyone had their vote taken away because they are registered to vote? How is registering gun owners any different to registering voters?

Onus remains on you to prove that it is unconstitutional.

Yeah...read post 355...he says it better than I could.......

 

[2aguy]

Onus is on you to prove that it is unconstitutional to register guns since the Founding Fathers did exactly that as one of their very first acts of Congress. And yes that included registration of gun owners.

Background checks are used all the time in this nation. The onus is on you to prove that they are unconstitutional.

When founding fathers in the name of "we the people" have written The Constitution, and created the federal government, it also gave to that government enumerated powers listed in Article 1, Section 8. That's what The Constitution allows government to do. If you wondering why The Constitution is so short, it's because "we the people" don't want federal government to have too much power.

What federal government is constantly trying to do is to give themselves authority over things they simply have no rights over, and every time they do so, they're taking away more freedom that's guaranteed to us by The Constitution.

There is a proof. Now tell me, or show me, where The Constitution gives authority to Federal government to do any of what you said?

There are registries of voters. Are they unconstitutional? Has anyone had their vote taken away because they are registered to vote? How is registering gun owners any different to registering voters?

Onus remains on you to prove that it is unconstitutional.

You don't keep registries of how they voted, we have a secret ballot for a reason......registration of guns would be no different than that....

 

[M14 Shooter]

No....it isn't. Registration of firearms is the first step to confiscation and banning

Registration of guns and licensing of gun owners are two sides of the same coin -- a precondition laid upon the exercise of the right not inherent to same; absent that inherent precondition, the state cannot create the plenary requirement for you to tell it when and how you will exercise your rights in order for you to then gain permission form the state to do so.

Tens of millions of gun owners and hundreds of millions of guns are NOT involved in a crime each year; that being the case it is impossible to soundly argue that it is necessary for the state to know the identity and whereabouts of either in order to protect the rights of the people -- and so, registration/licensing will not pass strict scrutiny.