What should the end goal of our gun policy be?

[OldLady]

Freedom is not painless. It comes with a price. It means we have to live with midget porn and protesters and handguns and Nazi parades in Skokie. But the benefits far outweigh the costs. The benefits have made us the greatest nation in the history of world. A model which other nations followed to freedom.

This liberal attempt to immanentize the eschaton is a path that leads to submissive obedience to tyrants. It is the belief a tyrant will know what is better for me than I do, which is an extremely condescending attitude.

It's actually easier to take your word for it than 2AGuy's. So there must be another way to get folks to stop killing each other with guns. I'm thinking.

 

[candycorn]

I have proposed a solution here a few times. Instead of registering guns and limiting magazine sizes and whatnot, we should register gun buyers.

If you apply to be a gun buyer, and pass a mental health and criminal background check, your name goes on a list. Sort of like those people who can now get pre-screened before flying.

If you wish to purchase a firearm, the retailer simply looks to see if your name is on the approved gun buyer list. If it is, you can buy as many guns and any size magazines you wish, and no record is kept of what you bought.

If you are a certified nutjob, your name does not get on the list and you cannot buy a gun.

If you are on the list, and then get convicted of whatever crime the people of your state decide warrants your removal from the list, then you are taken off the list.

If you are on the registered gun buyer list, it does not necessarily mean you have bought a gun. Nor does it indicate how many guns you own. Nor does it indicate how much ammo or magazines you own. It just indicates you are an upstanding citizen whose Second Amendment rights shall not be infringed or taken away without due process.

What does your mental health test look like?

OPINION: Paul Ryan blames mass shootings on mental health laws

NRA-ILA | 63% of Americans Blame Mental Health—Not Guns—for Mass Shootings

So, no mental health test. It seems not much weight given to anyone on the mental health list, anyway.

If we just enforced those who have been declared mentally ill through due process of law, that would fix most of the problem. Most shooters who are mentally ill have long histories

Fascinating.

The “mentally ill” shooters who are muslim are held up as examples of their faith by right wing nut jobs on this board. Those that practice other religions are mentally ill.

 

[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?

It says “militia” in the Amendment but we’re supposed to think the framers were just being generous with words that day it was written and chunked it in for shits and giggles.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Amendment but we’re supposed to think the framers were just being generous with words that day it was written and chunked it in for shits and giggles.

As I pointed out before, when liberal fanatics can't win the debate, they tend to start reciting silly lies like that one.

It's a pretty reliable indicator.

 

[candycorn]

Just leave the gun laws the way they are. Enforce what is on the books.

Accept that the costs of willing to live under 200+ y/o edicts is that from time to time frontier insanity will clash with a post-industrial world in a very messy way. It would be no different if physicians in Virginia went back to bleeding patients with leeches. The difference is that science won out with the leeches. Hysteria has won out with the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Quite the opposite. Your purchases are not registered. What part of "no record is kept of what you bought" did you fail to understand?

They know who's houses to search.

 

[Little-Acorn]

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

Yes, some do.

Some people also think that government's job is to help people with the ordinary problems in life (hunger, sickness, fear, disagreement).

And some think the earth is flat.

They are all wrong.

And they are unified in ignoring existing fact and reference that shows them to be wrong.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Just leave the gun laws the way they are. Enforce what is on the books.

Good idea.

And the highest law that is "on the books", is of course the U.S. Constitution.

And it says that since X is true, the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons, cannot be taken away or restricted.

And the Constitution also says that its text (with amendments) is the highest law of the land. Which means that any laws that are not part of the Constitution and which conflict with it, must yield and are void.

Now please do exactly what this liberal said. Enforce what is on the books.

 

[Timmy]

What we have is a fundamental difference of opinion about rights. Conservatives and our Founders believed we have rights. Liberals do not.

The catastrophic mistake liberals are making is that by claiming we can deny a right means we can deny the right to dissent or the right to privacy or the right to a jury of our peers or the right to equal protection of the laws.

Playa please . Other than the 2nd , it's the conservatives that attack our personal rights all the time .

That's why they hate the ACLU so much .

I can't recall the ACLU defending the 2nd Amendment, ever.

I think you will find I have a pretty good track record of defending rights when the pseudo-cons attack them, too, which is one of the reasons the retards think I am a liberal.

Cause the NRA does that . The ACLU takes on all those other pesky amendments ! And the right hates them for it .

 

[Timmy]

What gun laws are NOT being enforced ?!

 

[Little-Acorn]

Accept that the costs of willing to live under 200+ y/o edicts is that from time to time frontier insanity will clash with a post-industrial world in a very messy way. It would be no different if physicians in Virginia went back to bleeding patients with leeches. The difference is that science won out with the leeches.

Another thing the Constitution (highest law in the land, remember?) says, is that we can modify it at any time, if the modification is duly proposed, and is agreed to by 3/4 of the states.

We could have done that to the 2nd amendment any time in the last 200+ years. Many attempts have been made.

In all that time, the people have decided not to change it. Every time.

I'm sure this liberal is happy with the way we have so faithfully and consistently obeyed and enforced the laws that are on the books... as she asked above.

Isn't she?

 

[Little-Acorn]

What gun laws are NOT being enforced ?!

The one I have mentioned several times. And that supersedes any law that is not part of the Constitution.

 

[Timmy]

What gun laws are NOT being enforced ?!

The one I have mentioned several times. And that supersedes any law that is not part of the Constitution.

Oh you mean you incorrect ramblings about the 2nd. You can just quote the whole thing, it's not very long. Instead you made up your own version

2nd amendment : " everyone can own guns , and no one can do nothing about it . Neener neener neener!! "

 

[Iceweasel]

I couldn't pick. It should be up to the individual except under compelling circumstances. Some would be a violent criminal background. Too young. The weapon isn't defensive, like rocket launchers. Documented mental illness and/or substance abuse problems.

Isn't that "unlimited." I assume with your checks you are only restricting rights based on determinations following the due process of law, no?

Yes, that's why I said what I did.

 

[Little-Acorn]

What gun laws are NOT being enforced ?!

The one I have mentioned several times. And that supersedes any law that is not part of the Constitution.

Oh you mean you incorrect ramblings about the 2nd. You can just quote the whole thing, it's not very long. Instead you made up your own version

2nd amendment : " everyone can own guns , and no one can do nothing about it . Neener neener neener!! "

Another liberal loser who doesn't dare quote what I actually said, and doesn't dare come up with a coherent reply. (yawn)

As I said, it's an accurate indicator that they have lost the debate.

 

[Timmy]

What gun laws are NOT being enforced ?!

The one I have mentioned several times. And that supersedes any law that is not part of the Constitution.

Oh you mean you incorrect ramblings about the 2nd. You can just quote the whole thing, it's not very long. Instead you made up your own version

2nd amendment : " everyone can own guns , and no one can do nothing about it . Neener neener neener!! "

Another liberal loser who doesn't dare quote what I actually said, and doesn't dare come up with a coherent reply. (yawn)

As I said, it's an accurate indicator that they have lost the debate.

Quote what ? Your endless cut n paste jobs ?

 

[Rustic]

 

[OnePercenter]

Since 99% of gun owners are law abiding citizens what's the point here?

Since 99% of gun owners are law abiding citizens what's the point here?

I feel the number is closer to 95% with the other 5% screwing it up for the 95%.

You fight isn't with the government, it's with the 5%.

 

[Leweman]

What gun laws are NOT being enforced ?!

The one I have mentioned several times. And that supersedes any law that is not part of the Constitution.

Oh you mean you incorrect ramblings about the 2nd. You can just quote the whole thing, it's not very long. Instead you made up your own version

2nd amendment : " everyone can own guns , and no one can do nothing about it . Neener neener neener!! "

Not true. Another amendment could be passed as per the rules of the constitution that limit gun ownership. Constitution is pretty straight forward contrary to the opinions of moronic liberal judges who "interpret" things that don't exist.

 

[OnePercenter]

If you wish to purchase a firearm, the retailer simply looks to see if your name is on the approved gun buyer list. If it is, you can buy as many guns and any size magazines you wish, and no record is kept of what you bought.

There's nothing simple about it. We don't have to prove our innocence in this country to exercise a right. Any list can be whittled down to nothing, it's the first step in confiscation.

There's nothing simple about it. We don't have to prove our innocence in this country to exercise a right. Any list can be whittled down to nothing, it's the first step in confiscation.

You really need to seek help for your paranoia.