What should the end goal of our gun policy be?

[alang1216]

I went with regulated but I would prefer no open carry of handguns. I think there are two issues here, one is the gun and the other is the gun owner.

gun - no fully automatic weapons nor any with a caliber over .45. Just seems like common sense limits that 99.9% of buyers should be fine with.

gun owner - adult, citizen, with no severe mental or violent criminal history (some exceptions...?), trained and tested in gun use. If I know you have a weapon I want to react the same as I do when I see a cop, I know that cop is trained when and how to use that gun safely and, just as importantly, when not to use a weapon. I have no problem is the gov't offers this training for free and then tests those that graduate to ensure they really know what they are doing. The training would be much less for those that don't intend to routinely carry a gun but comparable to what police go through if they want a carry permit.

SOrry...Europeans use training requirements to deny access to guns.......the gun grabbers here would eventually make the training too expensive and time consuming for all but the rich and politically connected to be able to do it.....

the old slippery slope argument? sorry but you don't know what the future brings

With our system now......357,000,000 million guns in private hands....and only 8,124 gun murders....and of those 90% are committed by people who have multiple felony convictions! and cannot own or carry the gun they use to commit the murder.....and they murder people who 70-80% of the time are also multiple felons......

You may not care about suicides but I think many people would be saved by keeping guns away from such people. My personal theory is that many mass killings are really suicide attempts. We lost less than 4,000 people on 9/11 and went to war so don't tell me the numbers are too small to care about.

So everything you want....is unnecessary. ..since our normal gun owners are not the problem......

If all gun owners were responsible there would be no debate.

Why don't you actually focus on the criminals....why is it you guys only target normal, law abiding gun owners....do you really think criminals will get your training to carry illegal guns?

No but if there was a national standard for those who want to carry a handgun maybe more jurisdictions will allow or even encourage them. Then criminals might actually have to think twice about using a weapon.

 

[Rustic]

I went with regulated but I would prefer no open carry of handguns. I think there are two issues here, one is the gun and the other is the gun owner.

gun - no fully automatic weapons nor any with a caliber over .45. Just seems like common sense limits that 99.9% of buyers should be fine with.

gun owner - adult, citizen, with no severe mental or violent criminal history (some exceptions...?), trained and tested in gun use. If I know you have a weapon I want to react the same as I do when I see a cop, I know that cop is trained when and how to use that gun safely and, just as importantly, when not to use a weapon. I have no problem is the gov't offers this training for free and then tests those that graduate to ensure they really know what they are doing. The training would be much less for those that don't intend to routinely carry a gun but comparable to what police go through if they want a carry permit.

SOrry...Europeans use training requirements to deny access to guns.......the gun grabbers here would eventually make the training too expensive and time consuming for all but the rich and politically connected to be able to do it.....

the old slippery slope argument? sorry but you don't know what the future brings

With our system now......357,000,000 million guns in private hands....and only 8,124 gun murders....and of those 90% are committed by people who have multiple felony convictions! and cannot own or carry the gun they use to commit the murder.....and they murder people who 70-80% of the time are also multiple felons......

You may not care about suicides but I think many people would be saved by keeping guns away from such people. My personal theory is that many mass killings are really suicide attempts. We lost less than 4,000 people on 9/11 and went to war so don't tell me the numbers are too small to care about.

So everything you want....is unnecessary. ..since our normal gun owners are not the problem......

If all gun owners were responsible there would be no debate.

Why don't you actually focus on the criminals....why is it you guys only target normal, law abiding gun owners....do you really think criminals will get your training to carry illegal guns?

No but if there was a national standard for those who want to carry a handgun maybe more jurisdictions will allow or even encourage them. Then criminals might actually have to think twice about using a weapon.

Putting suicides and homicides in the same category… Is lying. LOL

 

[2aguy]

I went with regulated but I would prefer no open carry of handguns. I think there are two issues here, one is the gun and the other is the gun owner.

gun - no fully automatic weapons nor any with a caliber over .45. Just seems like common sense limits that 99.9% of buyers should be fine with.

gun owner - adult, citizen, with no severe mental or violent criminal history (some exceptions...?), trained and tested in gun use. If I know you have a weapon I want to react the same as I do when I see a cop, I know that cop is trained when and how to use that gun safely and, just as importantly, when not to use a weapon. I have no problem is the gov't offers this training for free and then tests those that graduate to ensure they really know what they are doing. The training would be much less for those that don't intend to routinely carry a gun but comparable to what police go through if they want a carry permit.

SOrry...Europeans use training requirements to deny access to guns.......the gun grabbers here would eventually make the training too expensive and time consuming for all but the rich and politically connected to be able to do it.....

the old slippery slope argument? sorry but you don't know what the future brings

With our system now......357,000,000 million guns in private hands....and only 8,124 gun murders....and of those 90% are committed by people who have multiple felony convictions! and cannot own or carry the gun they use to commit the murder.....and they murder people who 70-80% of the time are also multiple felons......

You may not care about suicides but I think many people would be saved by keeping guns away from such people. My personal theory is that many mass killings are really suicide attempts. We lost less than 4,000 people on 9/11 and went to war so don't tell me the numbers are too small to care about.

So everything you want....is unnecessary. ..since our normal gun owners are not the problem......

If all gun owners were responsible there would be no debate.

Why don't you actually focus on the criminals....why is it you guys only target normal, law abiding gun owners....do you really think criminals will get your training to carry illegal guns?

No but if there was a national standard for those who want to carry a handgun maybe more jurisdictions will allow or even encourage them. Then criminals might actually have to think twice about using a weapon.

-- they are confiscating registered hand guns in Canada...I just posted that last night.....they confiscated guns in Germany, Britain and Australia......

--When you compare 1,500,000 million times AMericans use guns to stop violent criminal attack and to save lives vs. the intentional ending of someones own life......not an accurate or real comparison...you lose.

--there were 505 accidental gun deaths in 2013.....35,000 accidental car deaths..the only reason we have a debate is because people hate guns irrationally....without thought or reason.

--Sorry...we have federally mandated background checks in all states...criminals avoid them easily. We have 356,991,876 million guns in private hands......and only 8,124 gun murders......90% of which are committed by people who cannot legally own the gun or carry it...thereby making your point about background checks foolish......and of the victims.....70-80% are also convicted felons.....

AMericans are doing just fine with the current system....there is nothing new that has been proposed that would make things better....even mental health inclusions to background checks are iffy...since they will be exploited by anti gunners as well....

Criminals get guns easily in every country on the planet....Britain, France, Australia and Japan.....only normal people can't get guns.

 

[Rustic]

Without firearms America ceases to be America… Dead to the world.

 

[P@triot]

For those who don't find an exact match, just pick the closest one. It's impossible to cover every possible choice in a poll like this.

Note this is a goal question, not a question what the policies are to get there.

Simple - uphold the 2nd Amendment. Which guarantees me unfettered rights to keep and bear arms. Notice that it does not say muskets. Or revolvers. It says arms. I have a right to any and all weapons. And yes - before the first idiot liberal jumps up and nonsensically declares "what about nukes" - I absolutely, unequivocally have a right to nuclear weapons. But where am I going to come up with the tens of millions of dollars to own one, who is going to sell it to me, and where am I going to find the people willing to share in the responsibility of entering their launch codes and turning their keys (nukes cannot be launched by any one person - even the President of the United States cannot launch a nuke by himself). So it is a typical liberal second grade question that proves nothing. I do have a right to nukes, but it's not a concern at all. Not only for the reasons I pointed out, but those aside, I wouldn't launch one if I had it. What situation is going to justify me in killing 90,000 people? Even in a riot, that many people don't pose an immediate threat to me (maybe several hundred would, maybe even several thousands, but not tens of thousands). So I couldn't claim self-defense anyway - thus there would be no reason for me to launch one unless I wanted to go to prison for life and/or receive the death penalty.

 

[OldLady]

I've been thinking hard about this issue. If our culture had a stronger respect for human life, we could all own twenty guns and no one who didn't deserve it would be shot. More to come.

 

[P@triot]

I've been thinking hard about this issue. If our culture had a stronger respect for human life, we could all own twenty guns and no one who didn't deserve it would be shot. More to come.

But....if our culture had stronger respect for human life, none of us would need to own a single gun, much less twenty.

It is exactly because of the thugs who want to rape, pillage, and murder like vikings that I need to be armed at all times.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

The "mentally ill" thing is a smokescreen. Sure, some mass shootings are carried out by people with a history of mental illness. Mass shootings make a big splash in the media and in the fearful mind.

But we are not losing 16,000 Americans a year to mass shootings or the mentally ill. We are losing them to one-on-one gun homicides.

No one on the Right is offering a viable solution to this problem. They toss out "mental health" red herrings after a mass shooting, and call it a day.

It's a good point that the mass shootings like the Colorado theater and Newtown were a huge splash, but as awful as they were, they account for not many of the gun deaths in this country. Most killings one-on-one or one-on-two are by people who aren't mentally ill. Since it is impossible (I think) to know who would take another citizen's life when you sell them the gun (except for the restrictions we already have in place) that is why it seems like the only way to put a big dent in these killings is to severely restrict the number and type of guns available for general consumption.
I know lots of people with guns and none of them worry me. I don't like the thought of disarming them. But what else can be done, except to shrug and give up and let the killings keep going on and on?

Disarming America would require us to repeal the Second Amendment. And when you are willing to start denying rights in the name of the common good, then you cannot make an argument against the banning of dissent.

No, you are going to have to come up with a better plan.

Don't some people think the Second Amendment actually speaks to a militia, not individual citizens?

The rights of the "people" to keep and bear arms "shall not" be infringed.

 

[candycorn]

The "mentally ill" thing is a smokescreen. Sure, some mass shootings are carried out by people with a history of mental illness. Mass shootings make a big splash in the media and in the fearful mind.

But we are not losing 16,000 Americans a year to mass shootings or the mentally ill. We are losing them to one-on-one gun homicides.

No one on the Right is offering a viable solution to this problem. They toss out "mental health" red herrings after a mass shooting, and call it a day.

It's a good point that the mass shootings like the Colorado theater and Newtown were a huge splash, but as awful as they were, they account for not many of the gun deaths in this country. Most killings one-on-one or one-on-two are by people who aren't mentally ill. Since it is impossible (I think) to know who would take another citizen's life when you sell them the gun (except for the restrictions we already have in place) that is why it seems like the only way to put a big dent in these killings is to severely restrict the number and type of guns available for general consumption.
I know lots of people with guns and none of them worry me. I don't like the thought of disarming them. But what else can be done, except to shrug and give up and let the killings keep going on and on?

Disarming America would require us to repeal the Second Amendment. And when you are willing to start denying rights in the name of the common good, then you cannot make an argument against the banning of dissent.

No, you are going to have to come up with a better plan.

Don't some people think the Second Amendment actually speaks to a militia, not individual citizens?

The rights of the "people" to keep and bear arms "shall not" be infringed.

You left out the part about the Militia. Hate when you guys interpret the Constitution.

 

[OldLady]

I've been thinking hard about this issue. If our culture had a stronger respect for human life, we could all own twenty guns and no one who didn't deserve it would be shot. More to come.

But....if our culture had stronger respect for human life, none of us would need to own a single gun, much less twenty.

It is exactly because of the thugs who want to rape, pillage, and murder like vikings that I need to be armed at all times.

I'm sorry you live in such a bad neighborhood. The Viking thugs are human beings, too, and most could have been taught more respect for human life. An opportunity was missed. Do I think we will never have bad guys? No. But many of the thugs taking life today believe they are defending themselves or their honor. Without thinking about the grave, grave weight of taking a human life.
Many that live deserve death. And some die that deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then be not too eager to deal out death in the name of justice, fearing for your own safety. Even the wise cannot see all ends.
J. R. R. Tolkien, The Lord Of the Rings, Book Four, Chapter One

 

[Yousaidwhat]

The "mentally ill" thing is a smokescreen. Sure, some mass shootings are carried out by people with a history of mental illness. Mass shootings make a big splash in the media and in the fearful mind.

But we are not losing 16,000 Americans a year to mass shootings or the mentally ill. We are losing them to one-on-one gun homicides.

No one on the Right is offering a viable solution to this problem. They toss out "mental health" red herrings after a mass shooting, and call it a day.

It's a good point that the mass shootings like the Colorado theater and Newtown were a huge splash, but as awful as they were, they account for not many of the gun deaths in this country. Most killings one-on-one or one-on-two are by people who aren't mentally ill. Since it is impossible (I think) to know who would take another citizen's life when you sell them the gun (except for the restrictions we already have in place) that is why it seems like the only way to put a big dent in these killings is to severely restrict the number and type of guns available for general consumption.
I know lots of people with guns and none of them worry me. I don't like the thought of disarming them. But what else can be done, except to shrug and give up and let the killings keep going on and on?

Disarming America would require us to repeal the Second Amendment. And when you are willing to start denying rights in the name of the common good, then you cannot make an argument against the banning of dissent.

No, you are going to have to come up with a better plan.

Don't some people think the Second Amendment actually speaks to a militia, not individual citizens?

The rights of the "people" to keep and bear arms "shall not" be infringed.

You left out the part about the Militia. Hate when you guys interpret the Constitution.

O.K.

Militia. The military force raised from the civilian population who are trained like soldiers.

I would think that since I am a trained soldier that I am also the militia.

I am armed and I intend to remain armed. Whether you approve or NOT!

 

[kaz]

The "mentally ill" thing is a smokescreen. Sure, some mass shootings are carried out by people with a history of mental illness. Mass shootings make a big splash in the media and in the fearful mind.

But we are not losing 16,000 Americans a year to mass shootings or the mentally ill. We are losing them to one-on-one gun homicides.

No one on the Right is offering a viable solution to this problem. They toss out "mental health" red herrings after a mass shooting, and call it a day.

It's a good point that the mass shootings like the Colorado theater and Newtown were a huge splash, but as awful as they were, they account for not many of the gun deaths in this country. Most killings one-on-one or one-on-two are by people who aren't mentally ill. Since it is impossible (I think) to know who would take another citizen's life when you sell them the gun (except for the restrictions we already have in place) that is why it seems like the only way to put a big dent in these killings is to severely restrict the number and type of guns available for general consumption.
I know lots of people with guns and none of them worry me. I don't like the thought of disarming them. But what else can be done, except to shrug and give up and let the killings keep going on and on?

Disarming America would require us to repeal the Second Amendment. And when you are willing to start denying rights in the name of the common good, then you cannot make an argument against the banning of dissent.

No, you are going to have to come up with a better plan.

Don't some people think the Second Amendment actually speaks to a militia, not individual citizens?

The rights of the "people" to keep and bear arms "shall not" be infringed.

You left out the part about the Militia. Hate when you guys interpret the Constitution.

LOL, liberals can't read at a high school level.

Second amendment: "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"

Note the form of the sentence,

Because A, B

In that form, it's saying for the reason of A, B is true. A is not a qualifier for B, it's an explanation of B

So the founding fathers said

Because "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of the State"

Note again that's an explanation, not a restriction or a qualifier

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

That is the power given. Note the militia is not part of the power. It states simply and directly the right shall not be infringed.

You're welcome for this English lesson that apparently government schools didn't give you when you were 12 as they should have done

 

[P@triot]

I've been thinking hard about this issue. If our culture had a stronger respect for human life, we could all own twenty guns and no one who didn't deserve it would be shot. More to come.

But....if our culture had stronger respect for human life, none of us would need to own a single gun, much less twenty.

It is exactly because of the thugs who want to rape, pillage, and murder like vikings that I need to be armed at all times.

I'm sorry you live in such a bad neighborhood. The Viking thugs are human beings, too, and most could have been taught more respect for human life. An opportunity was missed. Do I think we will never have bad guys? No. But many of the thugs taking life today believe they are defending themselves or their honor. Without thinking about the grave, grave weight of taking a human life.
Many that live deserve death. And some die that deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then be not too eager to deal out death in the name of justice, fearing for your own safety. Even the wise cannot see all ends.
J. R. R. Tolkien, The Lord Of the Rings, Book Four, Chapter One

So you're going to quote a work of literary fiction? And as far as the thugs - it is what it is. We can wax poetic all we want about what could have been or should have been or about the fact that they are "people too". But at the end of the day, I'm going to protect myself and my family. I'm not going to let any of us die simply because J.R.R. Tolkien wrote an absurd book about people flying around on broom sticks and you've taken that as your reality.

 

[P@triot]

You left out the part about the Militia. Hate when you guys interpret the Constitution.

Hey candycorn - word-for-word from the U.S. Constitution:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

The only one misinterpreting the U.S. Constitution is you.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

Miller v. US says that if it's good to go on the battlefield it should be made available to the militia, meaning the common citizenry. Outside of that can be regulated, but magazines can't.

Not that it stops the states and courts from doing what they want anyways.

Your rights are only a court ruling away from being gone. Each and every one of them.

The militia is no longer the common citizenry .

Have you seen what kind of weapons are available to our military ? That should be available to everyone!?

The militia is no longer the common citizenry.

Oh really.

The militia is the citizenry trained as soldiers.

Every person I know who are armed were those who have "BEEN" trained by the military or law enforcement.

We are are all now the civilian force known as the militia.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

Hey. Can we at least agree that we want to keep guns away from criminals and those who would do bad things wh them??

Yes. Sure we can. Do you think all of us enjoy having our neighbors friends and relatives murdered by those who can't control themselves?

But it always reverts back to take away their firearms.

 

[OldLady]

I've been thinking hard about this issue. If our culture had a stronger respect for human life, we could all own twenty guns and no one who didn't deserve it would be shot. More to come.

But....if our culture had stronger respect for human life, none of us would need to own a single gun, much less twenty.

It is exactly because of the thugs who want to rape, pillage, and murder like vikings that I need to be armed at all times.

I'm sorry you live in such a bad neighborhood. The Viking thugs are human beings, too, and most could have been taught more respect for human life. An opportunity was missed. Do I think we will never have bad guys? No. But many of the thugs taking life today believe they are defending themselves or their honor. Without thinking about the grave, grave weight of taking a human life.
Many that live deserve death. And some die that deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then be not too eager to deal out death in the name of justice, fearing for your own safety. Even the wise cannot see all ends.
J. R. R. Tolkien, The Lord Of the Rings, Book Four, Chapter One

So you're going to quote a work of literary fiction? And as far as the thugs - it is what it is. We can wax poetic all we want about what could have been or should have been or about the fact that they are "people too". But at the end of the day, I'm going to protect myself and my family. I'm not going to let any of us die simply because J.R.R. Tolkien wrote an absurd book about people flying around on broom sticks and you've taken that as your reality.

Fictional characters can say wise stuff; they don't write the books, ya know? I can tell you didn't read Tolkein; the broomsticks were Harry Potter. But anyway, no surprise you would dismiss my ideas out of hand. The opportunity was missed with you, too, apparently.

 

[2aguy]

I've been thinking hard about this issue. If our culture had a stronger respect for human life, we could all own twenty guns and no one who didn't deserve it would be shot. More to come.

That is exactly it. The reason we have so much gun murder...(and keep in mind...it is concentrated in very tiny locations)...in our inner cities where you have generations of single, teenage mothers raising young males...with no adult men to help turn them into adult men..........

Unlike Europe....until recently, they did not have the cultural problems in their criminal sub culture that we do.........our criminals are murdering each other over insults on facebook....the criminals in Europe do not do this...yet......huge cultural differences which lead to gun murder....and guns are not the issue.....normal gun owners are not doing the shooting......and the shooting is isolated to very tiny, multi block locations in our inner cities...

 

[2aguy]

The "mentally ill" thing is a smokescreen. Sure, some mass shootings are carried out by people with a history of mental illness. Mass shootings make a big splash in the media and in the fearful mind.

But we are not losing 16,000 Americans a year to mass shootings or the mentally ill. We are losing them to one-on-one gun homicides.

No one on the Right is offering a viable solution to this problem. They toss out "mental health" red herrings after a mass shooting, and call it a day.

It's a good point that the mass shootings like the Colorado theater and Newtown were a huge splash, but as awful as they were, they account for not many of the gun deaths in this country. Most killings one-on-one or one-on-two are by people who aren't mentally ill. Since it is impossible (I think) to know who would take another citizen's life when you sell them the gun (except for the restrictions we already have in place) that is why it seems like the only way to put a big dent in these killings is to severely restrict the number and type of guns available for general consumption.
I know lots of people with guns and none of them worry me. I don't like the thought of disarming them. But what else can be done, except to shrug and give up and let the killings keep going on and on?

Disarming America would require us to repeal the Second Amendment. And when you are willing to start denying rights in the name of the common good, then you cannot make an argument against the banning of dissent.

No, you are going to have to come up with a better plan.

Don't some people think the Second Amendment actually speaks to a militia, not individual citizens?

The rights of the "people" to keep and bear arms "shall not" be infringed.

You left out the part about the Militia. Hate when you guys interpret the Constitution.

No...we read and understand the Constitution...you guys Mis-interpret the Constitution because you hate guns.

 

[alang1216]

[QUOTE="kaz, post: 14119196, member: 26616]

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

That is the power given. Note the militia is not part of the power. It states simply and directly the right shall not be infringed.
[/QUOTE]
Except in the real world EVERYONE believes there are times when this right (and probably every other right) SHOULD be infringed. Or would you allow violent criminals the unrestricted right to bear arms? What about schizophrenics, psychopaths or children?

The truth is we all believe in some form of gun control we just can't discuss it like adults if ideology trumps reality and we're tossing the Constitution around like it's been carved in stone by God.