The Gun Control Debate will continue until we find solutions that make sense for people on both sides of the issue.

[M14 Shooter]

Errr...if we want to reduce rape, we register the convicted rapist as a sex offender.

AFTER he committed a crime.
How does that reduce anything?

Why do you refuse to proceed within the reality that the pro-gun side will not accept unnecessary and ineffective restrictions that violates the constitution?

 

[Ace Nova]

All of this is illegal. Laws will not prevent these things.


Background checks are unnecessary, ineffective, and violate the constitution.
Why should the pro-gun side accept this restriction?

Universal gun registration is unnecessary, ineffective, and violates the constitution.
Why should the pro-gun side accept this restriction?

Universal gun registration is unnecessary, ineffective, and violates the constitution.
Why should the pro-gun side accept this restriction?

Why do you refuse to proceed within the reality that the pro-gun side will not accept unnecessary and ineffective restrictions that violates the constitution?

Enlighten me. Where in the Constitution does it state that firearms are not to be registered? Where does it state that background checks for firearms are unconstitutional?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Enlighten me.

This can only be done if you choose to understand what you are told.

Where in the Constitution does it state that firearms are not to be registered? Where does it state that background checks for firearms are unconstitutional?

USSC in v Bruen, 2024:

when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.”

No such demonstration can be made for universal registration or any sort of background check.
Thus, unconstitutional.

Now then...
Do you choose to understand, and thus, choose enlightenment?
Or do you choose to proceed outside the reality that the pro-gun side will not accept unnecessary and ineffective restrictions that violates the constitution?

 

[2aguy]

Errr...if we want to reduce rape, we register the convicted rapist as a sex offender.

Obviously, criminals don't register their guns but it doesn't matter because it would have already been registered at the time of original purchase.

And if you require ballistic testing of all registered guns - guess what? The police won't need to have the gun in order to trace it back to it's original owner. They would be able to trace it back by both the bullet and spent shell casing. Amazing, right?

Yeah, doesnt work that way. You watch too many movies.

If the gun is registered to Bob smith and it is stolen....passed around doe yeara by various criminals....it doesnt matter that it belonged to bob.....

When i have a chance ill show you that Canada tried to juat register ling guns and not only did it fail tohwlp solve crimes....it was completwly useless....dittos an attempt to log bullets from guns in ine of our states....

 

[2aguy]

Enlighten me. Where in the Constitution does it state that firearms are not to be registered? Where does it state that background checks for firearms are unconstitutional?

5th Amendment....

 

[Donald H]

AFTER he committed a crime.
How does that reduce anything?

Even you are getting it, but only because you're ignorant enough to fall into the trap that the facts state.

The good guy becomes the bad guy with a gun for one final hurrah with his gun. I'll call that a wrap for today!

 

[Ace Nova]

AFTER he committed a crime.
How does that reduce anything?

Why do you refuse to proceed within the reality that the pro-gun side will not accept unnecessary and ineffective restrictions that violates the constitution?

If it doesn't deter the rapist, at the very least, it could help police track down the suspect and send him back to jail. If he's in jail, he's not raping. (At least not anyone outside of jail).

Actually, a large number of folks that are on "the pro gun side" aren't against background checks and gun registration. As a matter of fact, I'd wager most responsible gun owners aren't against it at all. Once again, it's the extreme minority that screams the loudest and tend to create the illusion that all gun owners are against background checks and gun registration. It's simply not true.

 

[Donald H]

Yeah, doesnt work that way. You watch too many movies.

If the gun is registered to Bob smith and it is stolen....passed around doe yeara by various criminals....it doesnt matter that it belonged to bob.....

When i have a chance ill show you that Canada tried to juat register ling guns and not only did it fail tohwlp solve crimes....it was completwly useless....dittos an attempt to log bullets from guns in ine of our states....

Get your left trigger finger on the f.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Even you are getting it, but only because you're ignorant enough to fall into the trap that the facts state.
The good guy becomes the bad guy with a gun for one final hurrah with his gun. I'll call that a wrap for today!

Thank you for continuing to demonstrate you have no actual interest in addressing the issue.
I am sure you will further continue to do so.

 

[Ace Nova]

5th Amendment....

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


Where?

 

[M14 Shooter]

If it doesn't deter the rapist,...

The rapist already committed the crime....

Actually, a large number of folks that are on "the pro gun side" aren't against background checks and gun registration. As a matter of fact, I'd wager most responsible gun owners aren't against it at all. Once again, it's the extreme minority that screams the loudest and tend to create the illusion that all gun owners are against background checks and gun registration. It's simply not true.

And thus, you choose to proceed outside reality.
Thank you for demonstrating you have no actual interest in addressing the issue.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Get your left trigger finger on the f.

Thank you for continuing to demonstrate you have no actual interest in addressing the issue.
I am sure you will further continue to do so.

 

[Captain Caveman]

Gun control is a legal, philosophical and moral issue.

About half the country wants to live in a society where citizens have the right to buy and carry firearms. Given our country's history, many of them raise valid points. Our country was founded because of a revolution against England and would not have won that war had the citizens not had firearms........

My 2 cents.

If that's your 2 cents, ask for a refund. Better still, go ask the education system at school on why they fucked you over.

If you had a clue about your own history, you would know fine well independence doesn't mention guns. You would also know that the British colonies were getting beat until the French saved their asses.

You guys always try this Disney Land bullshit, is it to sound macho? Compensating are we??

 

[Blues Man]

Gun control is a legal, philosophical and moral issue.

About half the country wants to live in a society where citizens have the right to buy and carry firearms. Given our country's history, many of them raise valid points. Our country was founded because of a revolution against England and would not have won that war had the citizens not had firearms. Most people back then lived in rural areas where having firearms was essential for both protection and hunting. (Which still holds true in many areas throughout the country, especially in smaller communities and very rural areas where it could take the police a very long time to respond)

Our country also has had somewhat of a violent past, if you think of the Wild West, the Civil War, and numerous other wars internationally. So "Gun Culture" is somewhat embedded in a large part of American Society.

The other half of the country wants to live in a society where most (if not all) firearms are used primarily for hunting purposes but rarely for self defense reasons. They've witnessed the alarming amount of gun violence that's plagued many of the cities throughout the country for decades now. They've also witnessed the increased amount of mass shootings and school shootings over the past few decades. They're also tired of fearing for their lives over road rage incidents, bar fights, sporting event fights, etc etc.

The debate over gun control will likely continue until people on both sides of the issue have a reason to "change" their opinion on the matter.

A good start (in my humble opinion) would be figuring out a way to drastically reduce inner city gun violence. How do you do it? Well, let's take a look at why there's so much violence in some of our cities. It's common knowledge that a large part of the violence is related to various networks of illegal drug trade, human trafficking and various other criminal enterprises.

Our current "War on Drugs" has been going on for 50+ years, yet the violence in most cities hasn't decreased. Is it time for a different approach? Decriminalization of possessing a small amount of drugs could be a start. Decriminalization is NOT legalization. It would simply treat drug possession cases as a civil infraction instead of a criminal infraction. It would also do wonders for our Criminal Justice System, incarceration rates, facilities, etc. It would likely save billions of dollars, which then could be used for rehabilitation programs, etc. Rehabilitating people involved with drugs, instead of sending them to prison, where many come out even more violent than when they went in.

Think of it like this: If you're a drug dealer or drug user, you won't go to jail for the drugs you possess but you will likely face heavy jail time for possessing a gun. The smart ones will likely figure it out pretty quickly and not carry guns. If you're a police officer, how much better would it feel knowing that the drug dealer you just pulled over probably won't shoot you, since he knows he won't go to jail for drugs. Decriminalization won't necessarily end the higher level trafficking but it certainly could help with the street-level drug trade. And could likely drastically reduce street-level gun violence.

The first thing that comes into the minds of gun advocates nowadays when a progressive talks about gun regulation, etc is, "They want to regulate our guns when most of the gun violence is in the cities and they can't even get that under control, despite heavy regulation in many cities". And they have a valid point. BUT if pro-gun culture folks see that inner city gun crime has finally been reduced, would they be more willing to listen to the other side of the argument? I would think so.

There are many other ways to help resolve the gun control issue within the US, including better education, better mental health programs and various other programs that can gradually change our "gun culture".

Mandatory background checks, including gun shows and private trade should be standard. I would also look into mental health screenings, classes, tests, etc If we need to take a class and a test to drive a car, we should require something similar to possess a firearm. I (and I'm assuming most people) would want the peace of mind knowing that if someone legally owns a gun, they are: A. Mentally stable. and: B. They know how to safely use it.

My 2 cents.

The "wild" west wasn't really wild.

And the gun violence so prevalent in cities is the crux of the gun crime problem. But it goes so much deeper than just guns. The US has managed to marginalize so many minority groups and has maintained generational poverty and yes segregation even today. Our for profit prison system needs an influx of fresh slaves on a regular basis after all.

In fact we all know where the gun violence is and that it is extremely concentrated in a very small number of inner city areas. We know this because it is what the powers that be want. Cops and politician know where the crime is because they allow it to go on.

 

[ActionJackson]

Gun control is a legal, philosophical and moral issue.

About half the country wants to live in a society where citizens have the right to buy and carry firearms. Given our country's history, many of them raise valid points. Our country was founded because of a revolution against England and would not have won that war had the citizens not had firearms. Most people back then lived in rural areas where having firearms was essential for both protection and hunting. (Which still holds true in many areas throughout the country, especially in smaller communities and very rural areas where it could take the police a very long time to respond)

Our country also has had somewhat of a violent past, if you think of the Wild West, the Civil War, and numerous other wars internationally. So "Gun Culture" is somewhat embedded in a large part of American Society.

The other half of the country wants to live in a society where most (if not all) firearms are used primarily for hunting purposes but rarely for self defense reasons. They've witnessed the alarming amount of gun violence that's plagued many of the cities throughout the country for decades now. They've also witnessed the increased amount of mass shootings and school shootings over the past few decades. They're also tired of fearing for their lives over road rage incidents, bar fights, sporting event fights, etc etc.

The debate over gun control will likely continue until people on both sides of the issue have a reason to "change" their opinion on the matter.

A good start (in my humble opinion) would be figuring out a way to drastically reduce inner city gun violence. How do you do it? Well, let's take a look at why there's so much violence in some of our cities. It's common knowledge that a large part of the violence is related to various networks of illegal drug trade, human trafficking and various other criminal enterprises.

Our current "War on Drugs" has been going on for 50+ years, yet the violence in most cities hasn't decreased. Is it time for a different approach? Decriminalization of possessing a small amount of drugs could be a start. Decriminalization is NOT legalization. It would simply treat drug possession cases as a civil infraction instead of a criminal infraction. It would also do wonders for our Criminal Justice System, incarceration rates, facilities, etc. It would likely save billions of dollars, which then could be used for rehabilitation programs, etc. Rehabilitating people involved with drugs, instead of sending them to prison, where many come out even more violent than when they went in.

Think of it like this: If you're a drug dealer or drug user, you won't go to jail for the drugs you possess but you will likely face heavy jail time for possessing a gun. The smart ones will likely figure it out pretty quickly and not carry guns. If you're a police officer, how much better would it feel knowing that the drug dealer you just pulled over probably won't shoot you, since he knows he won't go to jail for drugs. Decriminalization won't necessarily end the higher level trafficking but it certainly could help with the street-level drug trade. And could likely drastically reduce street-level gun violence.

The first thing that comes into the minds of gun advocates nowadays when a progressive talks about gun regulation, etc is, "They want to regulate our guns when most of the gun violence is in the cities and they can't even get that under control, despite heavy regulation in many cities". And they have a valid point. BUT if pro-gun culture folks see that inner city gun crime has finally been reduced, would they be more willing to listen to the other side of the argument? I would think so.

There are many other ways to help resolve the gun control issue within the US, including better education, better mental health programs and various other programs that can gradually change our "gun culture".

Mandatory background checks, including gun shows and private trade should be standard. I would also look into mental health screenings, classes, tests, etc If we need to take a class and a test to drive a car, we should require something similar to possess a firearm. I (and I'm assuming most people) would want the peace of mind knowing that if someone legally owns a gun, they are: A. Mentally stable. and: B. They know how to safely use it.

My 2 cents.

Violence has been part of mankind's condition since the beginning of mankind. And that's not going to change. Taking guns from law-abiding citizens while guns remain in the hands of thugs & gangsters isn't going to create a peaceful society. It's going to create a society of thugs & gangsters riding roughshod over an unarmed populace. As long as these criminals are armed to the teeth, then I have every right to protect myself with similar firepower.

Not to mention the fact that the German people, British people, Australian people, and many other unarmed societies are now being herded around like cattle by their respective dictatorial (and well armed) governments and they have no means to fight against these regimes.

 

[Ace Nova]

The rapist already committed the crime....


And thus, you choose to proceed outside reality.
Thank you for demonstrating you have no actual interest in addressing the issue.

Actually, I only deal in reality and facts.

92% of the country favors mandatory background checks. Yes, the vast majority of the country, including gun owners, are in favor of mandatory background checks.

Guns

Do you have a gun in your home? In general, do you feel that the laws covering the sale of firearms should be made more strict, less strict, or kept as they are now? Do you think there should or should not be a law that would ban the possession of handguns, except by the police and other...

news.gallup.com

57% of the country favors a national gun registry. (I'm sure at least some of the 57% are gun owners or live in a household with a firearm).

Public opinion on gun control in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[M14 Shooter]

Actually, I only deal in reality and facts.

Uh huh.
Waiting for your response to the enlightenment I offered you.

The Gun Control Debate will continue until we find solutions that make sense for people on both sides of the issue.

Errr...if we want to reduce rape, we register the convicted rapist as a sex offender. AFTER he committed a crime. How does that reduce anything? Why do you refuse to proceed within the reality that the pro-gun side will not accept unnecessary and ineffective restrictions that violates the...

www.usmessageboard.com

You stated:
Actually, a large number of folks that are on "the pro gun side" aren't against background checks and gun registration

Quantify this, specifically.

And then tell us how this affects those of us who do -not- agree.

 

[White 6]

I think you're right that most are law-abiding.

But what's in the heads of those who choose an AR-15?
Can your be completely honest and tell me what's in your head that caused you to buy one?

I've been a gun owner and an avid shooter to the level that would match your experience and that of most others on this board. So I know what is in the heads of those who choose the black military lookalike.

So don't give me any fkn bullsh-t White. How about an argument that says there are valid reasons to justify it? Here's a couple of suggestions:

1. You all need equal firepower as government for reasons you could specify.

2. You're all going to need experience with the weapon because of the chance of war on American soil.

3. .................................

I'm doing everything I can to expand the conversation and take it to a new and different level. The reason being, we've heard all the bullsh-t a hundred times over and it didn't work.

I've never bought one. I knew it to be a good platform and fun to shoot from my many years enlisted and commissioned in various chosen combat arms positions training on and training hundreds of others on a variety of weapons and weapons systems, an evaluated expert in all. I bought the parts and assembled, thinking it well within my training and mechanical ability, and liked choosing the parts (all interchangeable, as the platform is the platform) from specific manufacturers (several) based on where I thought the money best spent to build from the ground up, a highly accurate, heavier barrel, totally reliable, most resistant to wear in critical points, or specially hardened and of material more resistant to carbon build up such as the bolt (easier to clean), some for added versatility weapon, best suited to the way I shoot (and been known to abuse) put together by hand, myself and prove it on the range, so I did. It is everything I built into it. I took pride in the work and it will be passed down, a well built custom artifact of my construction. I passed down shooting skills and training to my kids, long before they were adults, just as was passed down by my father and his father before him, here in Tennessee.

1. No. I certainly do not have or would I attempt to have weapons equal to the weapons in the arsenal of US Military, as it is simply not possible, not even a desire. I am on their side.
2. There will be no chance of war on US soil. Don't be stupid. Only the nut-balls think like that.

Your line conversation is not on any kind of different level. You haven't heard any of the bullshit you have heard from some someone, coming from me. You are just as bad as non-weapons owners, lumping all weapons owners together, but you simply have a hard on, against AR-15s and their owners, as if you think you could know them. How naive, you really are.

 

[Blues Man]

Actually, I only deal in reality and facts.

92% of the country favors mandatory background checks. Yes, the vast majority of the country, including gun owners, are in favor of mandatory background checks.

Guns

Do you have a gun in your home? In general, do you feel that the laws covering the sale of firearms should be made more strict, less strict, or kept as they are now? Do you think there should or should not be a law that would ban the possession of handguns, except by the police and other...

news.gallup.com

57% of the country favors a national gun registry. (I'm sure at least some of the 57% are gun owners or live in a household with a firearm).

Public opinion on gun control in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

if you look at that Gallup data you'll see that the number of people who want these stricter gun laws has been dropping over time. It was 70% in 1990 and it's 57% now.

 

[Ace Nova]

If that's your 2 cents, ask for a refund. Better still, go ask the education system at school on why they fucked you over.

If you had a clue about your own history, you would know fine well independence doesn't mention guns. You would also know that the British colonies were getting beat until the French saved their asses.

You guys always try this Disney Land bullshit, is it to sound macho? Compensating are we??

I am very aware that the French played a significant role in our Nation's Independence.

Are you insinuating that the Colonies could have won the war without firearms?

The 2nd amendment stresses the right of having a "Well regulated Militia" with the right to bear arms. It was created to help protect the freedoms won during the war and as a commitment to citizen participation in public life and a way to keep military power under civil control. Most colonies/states already had militias in place, the 2nd amendment simply made it law.