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

[White 6]

As I''ve said numerous times, I have nothing against guns. They're all just machines or tools.

I do have something against those who choose to have an AR-15 or similar weapon, in black. At least 90% of them own them for reasons that don't meet my expectations of them being totally legitimate.

I allow for 10% because they're like you, like what you claim to be, or are liars. Most have no apologies to offer.

But isn't it ironic that your opinions voiced all of a sudden turned to you defending your reasons why you didn't buy one, etc., etc., while earlier you didn't demonstrate any need to explain or apologize.

And now you're even calling me stupid for thinking there will be a war on US soil. Didn't you understand that is what half the pro-gunners are suggesting and it has nothing to do with what I think?

Color? Come on, Man! You mean about the same color a my shotgun barrel or either of my other rifle barrels, maybe a shade or so lighter, but more resistant due to Tenifer Nitride process, quite similar to my Walther PPQ if not the same. Old style bluing from back in the day does not compare, compete or stand up to the elements as well. If you feel better about it, some of my internals are hardened chromed for longevity as well as less carbon buildup and far easier cleaning.

You don't have to be swayed or take seriously the gun nutters are saying. Most gun owners, you never hear from or hear of, and if you do, they don't have the outlandish crap to say, that the gun nutter on her spout. They talk crap, I doubt even they believe.

 

[Donald H]

Color? Come on, Man! You mean about the same color a my shotgun barrel or either of my other rifle barrels, maybe a shade or so lighter, but more resistant due to Tenifer Nitride process, quite similar to my Walther PPQ if not the same. Old style bluing from back in the day does not compare, compete or stand up to the elements as well. If you feel better about it, some of my internals are hardened chromed for longevity as well as less carbon buildup and far easier cleaning.

You don't have to be swayed or take seriously the gun nutters are saying. Most gun owners, you never hear from or hear of, and if you do, they don't have the outlandish crap to say, that the gun nutter on her spout. They talk crap, I doubt even they believe.

I can accept your apology on behalf of the gun owners we never hear from, even if that doesn't make the statistics lie.

Agreed that the pro-gun side on this board are extremists.

We've accomplished a lot today!

Here I was thinking that you bought an AR and was one of them!

Anyway, guns aren't to blame and establishing that is making our two extremists go crazy!

 

[Vrenn]

The goal of the Left is to take guns away from law abiding citizens, bottom line.

Nothing will abate that drive nor will it abate in the media. Any time you hear about a shooting, you will hear the same old mantra as government passes more regulations against guns.


The goal is just to regulate all gun rights away. They will never stop.

Ah, the brain stoppage of the gunnutters. There are 10 states that "Regulate" the AR-15 and it's various clones right now. Some, like CA and NY, regulate them so hard that they just as well be banned. But you can't ban a gun or an explosive. You Can Regulate it. Read up on the 1934 National Firearms law AND the Thompson M1921. More and more states are regulating the AR and it's various clones and copies as time goes by. Just like Nuclear Weapons are not banned but they are heavily regulated. By next week, that number will be 11. And other states are going to join in until Texas, Florida, and Arizona may be the last place it isn't regulated. At that point, the US Government can easily pass a National Regulation that agrees with the other 47 states and those 3 will have no choice but to comply.

You can stop with the trigger phrases since they aren't working anymore. Reality says that it's you Gunnutters that keep saying what others are saying and they "Others" are starting to pass laws that you are finding unbearable. I suggest you move to a country that has no Gun Regs or restriction. I hear Somolia is a wonderful place.

 

[White 6]

I can accept your apology on behalf of the gun owners we never hear from, even if that doesn't make the statistics lie.

Agreed that the pro-gun side on this board are extremists.

We've accomplished a lot today!

Here I was thinking that you bought an AR and was one of them!

Anyway, guns aren't to blame and establishing that is making our two extremists go crazy!

I don't apologize for any gun owners but me and then only if legitimately wrong. I know about where you are, surprised you guys even have limited gunrights, so not surprised you are unfamiliar with normal weapons owns, that far outnumber the gun nuts, so strident in view and sometimes in paranoia.

 

[AZrailwhale]

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?

Where does it say they should be? The Bill of Rights is a list of things the government is FORBIDDEN to do for the most part. The founders quite correctly feared a powerful government. That’s why there are so many restrictions and checks and balances built into the Constitution.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I can accept your apology on behalf of the gun owners we never hear from, even if that doesn't make the statistics lie.

Agreed that the pro-gun side on this board are extremists.

We've accomplished a lot today!

Here I was thinking that you bought an AR and was one of them!

Anyway, guns aren't to blame and establishing that is making our two extremists go crazy!

Those who gas light are extremist
You fucking extremist bitch. You're unhinged and mentally challenged.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I don't apologize for any gun owners but me and then only if legitimately wrong. I know about where you are, surprised you guys even have limited gunrights, so not surprised you are unfamiliar with normal weapons owns, that far outnumber the gun nuts, so strident in view and sometimes in paranoia.

And you're one clueless bitch. There is nothing paranoia about the gun grabber end game agenda. Total gun confiscation.

 

[Ace Nova]

An interesting way to concede the point - but accepted.

There is ZERO ratification-era history of a requirement to register a firearm as a condition to exercise of the right to keep and bear arms.
The example you provided was an example of registration as a requirement for service in the militia, not the exercise of the righ to keep and bear arms.

That's Heller.
Bruen, which expands up and clarifies Heller says:

...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.”

There is ZERO ratification-era history of a requirement to undergo a background check as a condition to exercise of the right to keep and bear arms.

Bruen not only discarded the means-tests that sprang up after Heller, it rejected and invalidated their very concept:

Despite the popularity of this two-step approach, it is one step too many. Step one of the predominant framework is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by history. But Heller and McDonald do not support applying means-end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context. Instead, the government must affirmatively prove that its firearms regulation is part of the historical tradition that delimits the outer bounds of the right to keep and bear arms.

We could do this for the next 10 pages. At the end of the day, the courts will figure it out.

 

[Ace Nova]

You might want to retune your math. What you did was lump all Americans together and decide half Americans want his and the other half want that. Why don't you retune your math by those who can legally buy and own a firearm vs. those who cannot. I'm pretty sure the math will show More Americans do not want more gun control

It's pretty close. About 53% of Americans polled are in favor of it.

Key facts about Americans and guns

Six-in-ten U.S. adults say gun violence is a very big problem in the country today, up 9 percentage points from spring 2022.

www.pewresearch.org

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It's pretty close. About 53% of Americans polled are in favor of it.

Key facts about Americans and guns

Six-in-ten U.S. adults say gun violence is a very big problem in the country today, up 9 percentage points from spring 2022.

www.pewresearch.org

No it isn't close at all. Your stats is lumping all people living in the US together including teenagers and prohibited people and non citizens those don't count . Only ones that count are those who can legally buy guns and vote but more so buy a gun legally

 

[bigrebnc1775]

We could do this for the next 10 pages. At the end of the day, the courts will figure it out.

Braun set the bar for the courts.

 

[M14 Shooter]

We could do this for the next 10 pages.

And in each of them you will fail to demonstrate the restrictions you seek are consistent with ratification-era regulations.
Your concession accepted.

At the end of the day, the courts will figure it out.

Much to your chagrin.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It's pretty close. About 53% of Americans polled are in favor of it.

Your fallacious appeal to popularity aside....

The majority does not always rule:
The enshrinement of constitutional rights -- necessarily and intentionally - takes certain policy choices off the table.

 

[LibertyKid]

I'm politically non-partisan so I try to see both sides of the issue. And I see how someone on the "gun rights" side would think that.

But my question to you is, "Why would their goal be to take guns away from law abiding citizens and not criminals?"

Because the law abiding citizens recognize that firearms serve two purposes: Self Protection and Constitutional Protection from a tyrannical gov't.
If guns were banned and could be taken away from law abiding citizens who uphold the two previous points, we would then see the gov't not care about the criminals they so lovingly ignore today. Militant action would be taken against gangs and the inner city looters in order to protect society. In essence, the gov't would turn against the very same people that helped get them into office. You wouldn't see looters and gangs anymore. They would be either dead or locked up for life. The gov't has now become tyrannical.

 

[task0778]

But my question to you is, "Why would their goal be to take guns away from law abiding citizens and not criminals?"

Political reasons. Many law-abiding citizens are also gun owners and many of them do not vote for democrats and no doubt many are also MAGA types.

 

[White 6]

And you're one clueless bitch. There is nothing paranoia about the gun grabber end game agenda. Total gun confiscation.

Well, honey, I'll have and keep mine, knowing nobody coming while you lay awake worrying about yours, leaving you to your ingrained paranoia. Maybe the difference is all mine are legal, legal to own and my background being squeaky clean it is legal and normal to have what I have. For all I know, you could be a convicted felon or trying to keep your hoard of machine guns, pump stocks, and sear augmentation devices, wanting everybody else to help be paranoid for you, while the rest of us are just sportsman target shooters, hunter, you know normal people. I just can't work up any panic for you, but you go ahead.

 

[Dagosa]

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.

Gun a holics have no intention of entering any debate about firearm regulations. It has to be done without them. Its like giving a hungry dog permission to debate how to distribute a raw steak.

 

[LibertyKid]

Gun a holics have no intention of entering any debate about firearm regulations. It has to be done without them. Its like giving a hungry dog permission to debate how to distribute a raw steak.

This might win the "Dumbest post of the day award". Reason: Conjecture, speculation, hyperbole, sensationalism, stereotyping

 

[Dagosa]

This might win the "Dumbest post of the day award". Reason: Conjecture, speculation, hyperbole, sensationalism, stereotyping

Your‘s might be the dumbest. It wasn’t even directed to you.
So, you are a gun a holic ?

 

[2aguy]

Gun a holics have no intention of entering any debate about firearm regulations. It has to be done without them. Its like giving a hungry dog permission to debate how to distribute a raw steak.

No....we enter into debates every chance we get.....you guys don't want to actually debate the regulations you want anymore, because we actually debate them, show you how stupid they are, and how they are really nothing more than targeting normal people while doing absolutely F**k all about actual criminals who use guns...........