Honest and open debate on gun control

[danielpalos]

The class of property called Arms is always subject to the "Police Power".

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

[MikeK]

Fine gun makers if they produce any of the banned weapons. Grant gun makers national charters to provide military weaponry, but not sale to civilians. If we stop them at the source, the supply will dry up.

What specifically do you mean by "military weaponry?"

Anti-gun interests are fond of saying one does not need a military-type firearm for hunting or target shooting. But the words hunting and target-shooting are not used in the Second Amendment -- the purpose of which is to enable the citizen to defend himself. So what if the occasion arises when the citizen needs to defend himself against an oppressor who is armed with "military weaponry?"

I am strongly in favor of the citizens' right to own guns. But there should be a requirement that each gun owner knows how to safely handle and to use the guns he owns.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I am strongly in favor of the citizens' right to own guns. But there should be a requirement that each gun owner knows how to safely handle and to use the guns he owns.

A requirement that is no more constitutional than requiring voters to prove they can read before allowing them to vote or that journalists are fluent in the subject matter before the can report the news.

 

[danielpalos]

Fine gun makers if they produce any of the banned weapons. Grant gun makers national charters to provide military weaponry, but not sale to civilians. If we stop them at the source, the supply will dry up.

What specifically do you mean by "military weaponry?"

Anti-gun interests are fond of saying one does not need a military-type firearm for hunting or target shooting. But the words hunting and target-shooting are not used in the Second Amendment -- the purpose of which is to enable the citizen to defend himself. So what if the occasion arises when the citizen needs to defend himself against an oppressor who is armed with "military weaponry?"

I am strongly in favor of the citizens' right to own guns. But there should be a requirement that each gun owner knows how to safely handle and to use the guns he owns.

I believe we merely need a class of Arms meant for Persons of the People who are considered specifically unconnected with Militia service, well regulated.

 

[Nosmo King]

Fine gun makers if they produce any of the banned weapons. Grant gun makers national charters to provide military weaponry, but not sale to civilians. If we stop them at the source, the supply will dry up.

What specifically do you mean by "military weaponry?"

Anti-gun interests are fond of saying one does not need a military-type firearm for hunting or target shooting. But the words hunting and target-shooting are not used in the Second Amendment -- the purpose of which is to enable the citizen to defend himself. So what if the occasion arises when the citizen needs to defend himself against an oppressor who is armed with "military weaponry?"

I am strongly in favor of the citizens' right to own guns. But there should be a requirement that each gun owner knows how to safely handle and to use the guns he owns.

I agree that there should be a responsibility/competence requirement. It must be understood that the misuse of guns through violence and malice as well as incompetence and irresponsibility. As these shootings tragically extend into the innocent population, the misuse of guns represents a public health and safety problem. The rights of the gun owner, as the rights of a man of the cloth or a journalist (the only profession mentioned in the constitution) or a farmer have to respect the havoc guns play in modern American society.

Now, as to "military weaponry", in my first post on this thread I laid out what civilian weaponry should be and what weans more properly belong in the hands of a "well regulated militia".

all long barrel weapons with either a bolt action in rifled guns or a pump action for shotguns. Revolvers and single shot action firing mechanism in pistols would be examples of hand guns the citizens could bear.

Weapons with magazine clips containing nine or more rounds, weapons with a semi-automatic or fully automatic firing system would be banned and sold exclusively to national armed forces here and around the world.

Importation of the banned weapons would result in both criminal and civil penalties. Trade between the United States and the nation where the Exeter or manufacturer operates would be suspended upon further review.

Then you ask about a better armed assailant. Let me help you recall a real life event. Four men are shot and wounded on the streets of a major east coast American city. Two of the wounded men are armed. One was rendered paraplegic for the remainder of his life. One took a shot to the chest and was saved by emergency room surgeons. And they were assaulted with a .22 caliber hand gun.

They were all surrounded by the best trained, best armed cadre of security personnel in world history.

The place was outside the Washington D.C. Hilton Hotel. The date was March 31, 1981. And the man with the chest wound was the President of the United States.

A lot of 'good guys with guns' and yet they could not prevent the tragedy.

What sort of realistic threats are in the realm of probability in your neighborhood? Are you living in Beirut 1984? How heavily armed do you really anticipate an assailant could be? Is there nothing you could not hit in your home with a 12 gage pump?

Not everyAmerican has had a pleasurable experience with guns. Too many, far too many Americans have experienced gun violence and are calling for reason and respect to the constitution. The second amendment, after all, in not a suicide pact.

 

[2aguy]

Fine gun makers if they produce any of the banned weapons. Grant gun makers national charters to provide military weaponry, but not sale to civilians. If we stop them at the source, the supply will dry up.

What specifically do you mean by "military weaponry?"

Anti-gun interests are fond of saying one does not need a military-type firearm for hunting or target shooting. But the words hunting and target-shooting are not used in the Second Amendment -- the purpose of which is to enable the citizen to defend himself. So what if the occasion arises when the citizen needs to defend himself against an oppressor who is armed with "military weaponry?"

I am strongly in favor of the citizens' right to own guns. But there should be a requirement that each gun owner knows how to safely handle and to use the guns he owns.

I agree that there should be a responsibility/competence requirement. It must be understood that the misuse of guns through violence and malice as well as incompetence and irresponsibility. As these shootings tragically extend into the innocent population, the misuse of guns represents a public health and safety problem. The rights of the gun owner, as the rights of a man of the cloth or a journalist (the only profession mentioned in the constitution) or a farmer have to respect the havoc guns play in modern American society.

Now, as to "military weaponry", in my first post on this thread I laid out what civilian weaponry should be and what weans more properly belong in the hands of a "well regulated militia".

all long barrel weapons with either a bolt action in rifled guns or a pump action for shotguns. Revolvers and single shot action firing mechanism in pistols would be examples of hand guns the citizens could bear.

Weapons with magazine clips containing nine or more rounds, weapons with a semi-automatic or fully automatic firing system would be banned and sold exclusively to national armed forces here and around the world.

Importation of the banned weapons would result in both criminal and civil penalties. Trade between the United States and the nation where the Exeter or manufacturer operates would be suspended upon further review.

Then you ask about a better armed assailant. Let me help you recall a real life event. Four men are shot and wounded on the streets of a major east coast American city. Two of the wounded men are armed. One was rendered paraplegic for the remainder of his life. One took a shot to the chest and was saved by emergency room surgeons. And they were assaulted with a .22 caliber hand gun.

They were all surrounded by the best trained, best armed cadre of security personnel in world history.

The place was outside the Washington D.C. Hilton Hotel. The date was March 31, 1981. And the man with the chest wound was the President of the United States.

A lot of 'good guys with guns' and yet they could not prevent the tragedy.

What sort of realistic threats are in the realm of probability in your neighborhood? Are you living in Beirut 1984? How heavily armed do you really anticipate an assailant could be? Is there nothing you could not hit in your home with a 12 gage pump?

Not everyAmerican has had a pleasurable experience with guns. Too many, far too many Americans have experienced gun violence and are calling for reason and respect to the constitution. The second amendment, after all, in not a suicide pact.

Well...allow me to retort.......

I agree that there should be a responsibility/competence requirement.

Then, in order to vote, there should also be a competence and responsibility requirement, say... 200 dollar fee, a license of 150 dollars, and the individual must pass a comprehensive test on the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the structures and functions of U.S. government. They must also own their own home and have at least 10,000 in a savings or checking account.

Now, as to "military weaponry", in my first post on this thread I laid out what civilian weaponry should be and what weans more properly belong in the hands of a "well regulated militia".
all long barrel weapons with either a bolt action in rifled guns or a pump action for shotguns. Revolvers and single shot
action firing mechanism in pistols would be examples of hand guns the citizens could bear.

This is my proposal and no other offers of a lesser quality will be accepted....

The United States Citizen can own any and all small arms of the conventional, and unconventional U.S. military soldier, sailor or marine......as the U.S. Citizen is the employer, and not the subject of the various branches of the military the right of the U.S. citizen to own weapons will not be dictated by the government.

Weapons with magazine clips containing nine or more rounds, weapons with a semi-automatic or fully automatic firing system would be banned and sold exclusively to national armed forces here and around the world.

Magazine bans are pointless and worse, foolish. They do nothing to stop or prevent criminals or terrorists from getting standard magazines even in Europe where they are completely outlawed for citizens and in Central and South America where government murderers and drug cartel killers get them regardless of their being illegal in Mexico. Fully automatic weapons would also be available to the general public if they are the arms of the U.S. military. Again, criminals and terrorists get them easily even in countries with extreme gun control, namely all the countries in Europe...and Central and South America.

Not everyAmerican has had a pleasurable experience with guns. Too many, far too many Americans have experienced gun violence and are calling for reason and respect to the constitution. The second amendment, after all, in not a suicide pact.

Each year on average 2 million Americans use guns to stop or prevent violent criminal attack and save lives.

In 2013 the number of accidental gun deaths...505.

The number of illegal gun murders committed by career criminals for the most part, in 2013....8,454.

There are approximately 1 million AR-15 rifles in private hands in the United States...the number of times they are used to commit crimes each year, usually less than 5 and not more than 10.

Out of a country with 1 million AR-15s in private hands...and the ones used to kill....are obtained illegally.

Guns are not an issue in our country. Criminal gangs who control politicians in Chicago, and other cities and who are protected by those politicians are the problem...fix them, and you fix the gun violence problem.

 

[M14 Shooter]

727 posts. no sound response.

 

[Coowallsky]

Ban all weapons with semi or fully automatic firing systems. Such weapons belong in the hands of 'well regulated militias', not on the streets. Permit long barrel rifles and shotguns for sporting purposes. Permit revolvers. Ban handguns equipped with magazines holding more than nine rounds.

The death tolls from mass shootings is directly attributable to weapons which can fire greater than nine rounds. Such weaponry was designed to be used on a battlefield, not on the street. After a few years, these bans will result in criminals no longer able to obtain such weapons.

Crack down on the manufacturers. Keep them from making commercially available weapons of war. Incentivize them by giving them tax credits for units of sporting weapons produced and fine them heavily for producing weapons of warfare for commercial sale.

Bans have been shown to not work. Machineguns are illegal in Mexico yet they are everywhere. Bans only affect the law abiding as has been shown over and over and over.

Banning these weapons will make them prohibitively expensive and therefore out of reach for street thugs and maniacs bent on killing the innocent.

Not at all.

 

[M14 Shooter]

729 posts... no sound response...

 

[RKMBrown]

729 posts... no sound response...

Bullshit you are merely putting your fingers in your ears and ignoring the sound responses while screaming I hear nothing ... nothing..

 

[M14 Shooter]

729 posts... no sound response...

Bullshit you are merely putting your fingers in your ears and ignoring the sound responses while screaming I hear nothing ... nothing..

^^^
Lie.

 

[RKMBrown]

729 posts... no sound response...

Bullshit you are merely putting your fingers in your ears and ignoring the sound responses while screaming I hear nothing ... nothing..

^^^
Lie.

Then address the points I made. Or change your tune.

 

[M14 Shooter]

729 posts... no sound response...

Bullshit you are merely putting your fingers in your ears and ignoring the sound responses while screaming I hear nothing ... nothing..

^^^
Lie.

Then address the points I made. Or change your tune.

I did.
In detail.
None of them prevent criminals from getting guns.
You have not shown how any of them do not violate the constitution.

 

[danielpalos]

Better aqueducts and better roads. That is my argument.

 

[RKMBrown]

729 posts... no sound response...

Bullshit you are merely putting your fingers in your ears and ignoring the sound responses while screaming I hear nothing ... nothing..

^^^
Lie.

Then address the points I made. Or change your tune.

I did.
In detail.
None of them prevent criminals from getting guns.
You have not shown how any of them do not violate the constitution.

Nothing can absolutely prevent anyone from doing everything. Your moving the goal posts to the planet pluto does not coincide with the plain fact that the current tax stamp process for machine guns has reduced, considerably, the number of machine guns that are used in criminal activities. Further I don't have to show that this process does not violate the constitution. I merely have to point to the fact that it's a process that has been around for SOME SIXTY YEARS OR SO NOW with out being removed as unconstitutional. If you didn't like it you should have thrown it out as unconstitutional.

Nothing you have stated has refuted the fact that we already have this process for machine guns and silencers and that it can be in fact expanded to cover any other number of types of scary guns and scary accessories.

 

[M14 Shooter]

729 posts... no sound response...

Bullshit you are merely putting your fingers in your ears and ignoring the sound responses while screaming I hear nothing ... nothing..

^^^
Lie.

Then address the points I made. Or change your tune.

I did.
In detail.
None of them prevent criminals from getting guns.
You have not shown how any of them do not violate the constitution.

Nothing can absolutely prevent anyone from doing everything.

So, you admit your suggestions do not meet condition #1. Thank you.

Further I don't have to show that this process does not violate the constitution.

You want to restrict the right to arms, a fundamental right specifically protected by the constitution.
Legally and conceptually, the onus is then on you to show that this restriction does not infringe on the right to arms.
Strict Scrutiny legal definition of Strict Scrutiny

And so, you have yet to provide a sound response.

 

[2aguy]

729 posts... no sound response...

Bullshit you are merely putting your fingers in your ears and ignoring the sound responses while screaming I hear nothing ... nothing..

^^^
Lie.

Then address the points I made. Or change your tune.

I did.
In detail.
None of them prevent criminals from getting guns.
You have not shown how any of them do not violate the constitution.

Nothing can absolutely prevent anyone from doing everything. Your moving the goal posts to the planet pluto does not coincide with the plain fact that the current tax stamp process for machine guns has reduced, considerably, the number of machine guns that are used in criminal activities. Further I don't have to show that this process does not violate the constitution. I merely have to point to the fact that it's a process that has been around for SOME SIXTY YEARS OR SO NOW with out being removed as unconstitutional. If you didn't like it you should have thrown it out as unconstitutional.

Nothing you have stated has refuted the fact that we already have this process for machine guns and silencers and that it can be in fact expanded to cover any other number of types of scary guns and scary accessories.

there are over 1 million AR-15s in private hands and they are sold at almost every gun store....yet, they are rarely used in crime.....tax stamps don't keep people from using "machine" guns, they just aren't used because they aren't practical for the criminal activities American criminals occupy themselves,with.......

Assault rifles are against the law in Mexico...and the drug cartels have complete,access to them......so again..tax stamps would do nothing to stop criminals from getting the guns they wanted.....

 

[RKMBrown]

Bullshit you are merely putting your fingers in your ears and ignoring the sound responses while screaming I hear nothing ... nothing..

^^^
Lie.

Then address the points I made. Or change your tune.

I did.
In detail.
None of them prevent criminals from getting guns.
You have not shown how any of them do not violate the constitution.

Nothing can absolutely prevent anyone from doing everything.

So, you admit your suggestions do not meet condition #1. Thank you.

Further I don't have to show that this process does not violate the constitution.

You want to restrict the right to arms, a fundamental right specifically protected by the constitution.
Legally and conceptually, the onus is then on you to show that this restriction does not infringe on the right to arms.
Strict Scrutiny legal definition of Strict Scrutiny

And so, you have yet to provide a sound response.

No you are having problems again with the English language. #1 states and I quote "(1) prevents criminals from getting guns". Under the rules of grammar, I merely have to prevent two criminals out of 10million from getting two particular guns to show #1. As I have already stated the tax stamp process for machine guns has reduced the number of machine guns to less than the number of criminals that we have in this country. Thus has prevented at least two criminal from getting two machine guns that would have otherwise been built and sold to the public had we not had this tax stamp process that prohibits manufacturing and selling new machine guns to the public. That you don't get this just makes you look silly. Now if you want to move the goal posts and rewrite #1 go ahead. But then you will just have moved the goal posts to pluto and be asking for people to prove something can be done that can't be done.

 

[RKMBrown]

Bullshit you are merely putting your fingers in your ears and ignoring the sound responses while screaming I hear nothing ... nothing..

^^^
Lie.

Then address the points I made. Or change your tune.

I did.
In detail.
None of them prevent criminals from getting guns.
You have not shown how any of them do not violate the constitution.

Nothing can absolutely prevent anyone from doing everything. Your moving the goal posts to the planet pluto does not coincide with the plain fact that the current tax stamp process for machine guns has reduced, considerably, the number of machine guns that are used in criminal activities. Further I don't have to show that this process does not violate the constitution. I merely have to point to the fact that it's a process that has been around for SOME SIXTY YEARS OR SO NOW with out being removed as unconstitutional. If you didn't like it you should have thrown it out as unconstitutional.

Nothing you have stated has refuted the fact that we already have this process for machine guns and silencers and that it can be in fact expanded to cover any other number of types of scary guns and scary accessories.

there are over 1 million AR-15s in private hands and they are sold at almost every gun store....yet, they are rarely used in crime.....tax stamps don't keep people from using "machine" guns, they just aren't used because they aren't practical for the criminal activities American criminals occupy themselves,with.......

Assault rifles are against the law in Mexico...and the drug cartels have complete,access to them......so again..tax stamps would do nothing to stop criminals from getting the guns they wanted.....

AR-15s don't apply to the tax stamp process. AR-15s are semi-automatic rifles. You don't seem to understand. The tax stamp process for machine guns made it illegal for new ones to be built for public sale. You can only buy machine guns that were built prior to the start of the tax stamp process.

 

[2aguy]

^^^
Lie.

Then address the points I made. Or change your tune.

I did.
In detail.
None of them prevent criminals from getting guns.
You have not shown how any of them do not violate the constitution.

Nothing can absolutely prevent anyone from doing everything. Your moving the goal posts to the planet pluto does not coincide with the plain fact that the current tax stamp process for machine guns has reduced, considerably, the number of machine guns that are used in criminal activities. Further I don't have to show that this process does not violate the constitution. I merely have to point to the fact that it's a process that has been around for SOME SIXTY YEARS OR SO NOW with out being removed as unconstitutional. If you didn't like it you should have thrown it out as unconstitutional.

Nothing you have stated has refuted the fact that we already have this process for machine guns and silencers and that it can be in fact expanded to cover any other number of types of scary guns and scary accessories.

there are over 1 million AR-15s in private hands and they are sold at almost every gun store....yet, they are rarely used in crime.....tax stamps don't keep people from using "machine" guns, they just aren't used because they aren't practical for the criminal activities American criminals occupy themselves,with.......

Assault rifles are against the law in Mexico...and the drug cartels have complete,access to them......so again..tax stamps would do nothing to stop criminals from getting the guns they wanted.....

AR-15s don't apply to the tax stamp process. AR-15s are semi-automatic rifles. You don't seem to understand. The tax stamp process for machine guns made it illegal for new ones to be built for public sale. You can only buy machine guns that were built prior to the start of the tax stamp process.

No, you don't get it. You are saying that the tax stamp limited machine guns and therefore criminal use of machine guns is non existent...you are wrong. I pointed out that AR-15s are easily accessible, and more effective than machine guns and yet they are still not used by our criminals....The tax stamp had nothing to do with how rare machine guns are in crime. they are simply not a convenient tool for crime, and they don't need them. You can put a tax stamp on pistols all day long and criminals will get them easily.