What should the end goal of our gun policy be?

[there4eyeM]

No one with any intelligence can invoke the 'founding fathers' concerning control of modern firearms. A weapon capable of a six hundred round per minute rate of fire was beyond all comprehension. It is obvious that they are vastly more dangerous than what was available two hundred and fifty years ago. The rules made at that time, for that time, are not, cannot be enshrined forever as holy writ.
So, if someone is not even rational enough to accept safety courses before taking possession of such a machine as an AK47 or an AR15, we can doubt they are rational enough to be trusted with one.

 

[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!! "

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.

Yeah those stupid judges with thier law degrees and devades of experience ! You rubes know the law much better than them .

Should we just have guns available out of vending machines ?

 

[Norman]

Strip guns from people so regressive criminals, terorrists and government can take their property. The end goal of regressivism.

 

[kaz]

None of the above. None are really relevant.

I've been saying since I got to this site, on this very issue at the time, that the issue of firearm violence is not legislative but cultural. We are a culture that worships violence like an idol. Until that changes it's not going to matter what laws do or don't do.

Politicians who either crow about more gun regulations or crow about Second Amendment rights, are doing nothing more than pandering for votes. Neither amounts to a proverbial hill of beans as regards the issue. Both are directly avoiding it.

Yes, you have mentioned your view that if we make guns uncool criminals and gangstas will lose interest in them. We haven't gotten a plan to accomplish that yet from you ...

As FREE PEOPLE, we expect the federal government to respect and honor our ABSOLUTE RIGHT to bear arms .


WE THE PEOPLE hereby DEMAND that

The Gun Control Act of 1968 be abolished

The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 (Brady Act) be abolished

The Gun-Free School Zones Act (GFSZA) be abolished

National Firearms Act (NFA) 26 USC 53 be abolished


those laws were UNLAWFULLY enacted. NO authority was granted to fedgov to regulate and/or infringe upon our right to bear arms.

The purpose of those laws are to incite violence against WE THE PEOPLE and to provide pretexts to fedgov to persecute law abiding citizens.

Yes, the Constitution is clear. The only way government can remove your right to bear arms is through due process of law. The legislature can't do it

 

[kaz]

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.

I don't know what that means. Can you translate it from gibberish into English? Would be appreciated

 

[Little-Acorn]

No one with any intelligence can invoke the 'founding fathers' concerning control of modern firearms.

Isn't it cute the way the liberal fanatics try to insult and denigrate anyone who disagrees with them? Much easier than actually citing facts and making rational argument.

A weapon capable of a six hundred round per minute was beyond all comprehension.

Actually, there were commonly-available weapons in George Washington's time that could fire a couple hundred rounds in a fraction of a second. They were called "cannon firing grapeshot". The people writing and ratifying the Constitution were well aware of them, though you apparently have no clue.

Most such cannon were privately owned back then, BTW.

The rules made at that time, for that time, are not, cannot be enshrined forever as holy writ.

OK, so change them. The process is straightforward. See my earlier comment about changing the Constitution.

Until you do that, go peddle your papers. What you propose is flatly illegal. Not that that matters to liberal fanatics.

 

[there4eyeM]

If true repression of firearm ownership comes, it will be as a result of overzealous exercise of a perceived liberty by second amendment zombies.

 

[there4eyeM]

Isn't it idiotic how some people automatically call anyone who doesn't express exactly the same sentiment as they 'liberal' or 'conservative' or 'fascist' or 'queer', etc.?

 

[Little-Acorn]

If true repression of firearm ownership comes, it will be as a result of overzealous exercise of a perceived liberty by second amendment zombies.

TRANSLATION: I'm going to post something that can't possibly be argued with, since nobody knows what on earth I'm talking about.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Isn't it idiotic how some people automatically call anyone who doesn't express exactly the same sentiment as they 'liberal' or 'conservative' or 'fascist' or 'queer', etc.?

Or "zombies"?

 

[Iceweasel]

No one with any intelligence can invoke the 'founding fathers' concerning control of modern firearms. A weapon capable of a six hundred round per minute rate of fire was beyond all comprehension. It is obvious that they are vastly more dangerous than what was available two hundred and fifty years ago. The rules made at that time, for that time, are not, cannot be enshrined forever as holy writ.
So, if someone is not even rational enough to accept safety courses before taking possession of such a machine as an AK47 or an AR15, we can doubt they are rational enough to be trusted with one.

The lack of intellect is all yours. Firearms were developing all the time, they knew it would continue. The point is lost on liberals. The firearm is the tool, the right is inherent as citizens that the government has no reason to restrict. Unless there is a compelling reason, and that's left up to the states to determine. In some cases it's the government's duty to not let someone have a weapon and keeping offensive weapons in check. A rocket launcher isn't a self defense tool.

I've owned a AR for 10 years and this is a shall issue state, no permission, test or class is required. I shoot it just fine and don't feel the need to justify myself to some halfwit on the internet.

 

[Iceweasel]

If true repression of firearm ownership comes, it will be as a result of overzealous exercise of a perceived liberty by second amendment zombies.

Overzealous with our rights? How is that even possible? You have no right to scream fire in a crowded theater because your rights end where another's begins.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Unless there is a compelling reason, and that's left up to the states to determine.

That’s true. After all, the 2nd amendment says “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 unless a state determines a compelling reason to infringe upon it.”

Doesn't it?

What could be clearer?

 

[OnePercenter]

No one with any intelligence can invoke the 'founding fathers' concerning control of modern firearms. A weapon capable of a six hundred round per minute rate of fire was beyond all comprehension. It is obvious that they are vastly more dangerous than what was available two hundred and fifty years ago. The rules made at that time, for that time, are not, cannot be enshrined forever as holy writ.
So, if someone is not even rational enough to accept safety courses before taking possession of such a machine as an AK47 or an AR15, we can doubt they are rational enough to be trusted with one.

The lack of intellect is all yours. Firearms were developing all the time, they knew it would continue. The point is lost on liberals. The firearm is the tool, the right is inherent as citizens that the government has no reason to restrict. Unless there is a compelling reason, and that's left up to the states to determine. In some cases it's the government's duty to not let someone have a weapon and keeping offensive weapons in check. A rocket launcher isn't a self defense tool.

I've owned a AR for 10 years and this is a shall issue state, no permission, test or class is required. I shoot it just fine and don't feel the need to justify myself to some halfwit on the internet.

The lack of intellect is all yours. Firearms were developing all the time, they knew it would continue. The point is lost on liberals. The firearm is the tool, the right is inherent as citizens that the government has no reason to restrict. Unless there is a compelling reason, and that's left up to the states to determine. In some cases it's the government's duty to not let someone have a weapon and keeping offensive weapons in check. A rocket launcher isn't a self defense tool.

I've owned a AR for 10 years and this is a shall issue state, no permission, test or class is required. I shoot it just fine and don't feel the need to justify myself to some halfwit on the internet.

So the constitution is a living document?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If you study history, the Progressive end game for gun control is to murder everyone they find objectionable

 

[HUGGY]

What should the end goal of our gun policy be?


KILL! KILL! KILL!

 

[Iceweasel]

Unless there is a compelling reason, and that's left up to the states to determine.

That’s true. After all, the 2nd amendment says “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 unless a state determines a compelling reason to infringe upon it.”

Doesn't it?

What could be clearer?

That's true with any right. We have the right to be freemen, unless they state has a compelling reason to say otherwise. Then you go to prison.

 

[Iceweasel]

No one with any intelligence can invoke the 'founding fathers' concerning control of modern firearms. A weapon capable of a six hundred round per minute rate of fire was beyond all comprehension. It is obvious that they are vastly more dangerous than what was available two hundred and fifty years ago. The rules made at that time, for that time, are not, cannot be enshrined forever as holy writ.
So, if someone is not even rational enough to accept safety courses before taking possession of such a machine as an AK47 or an AR15, we can doubt they are rational enough to be trusted with one.

The lack of intellect is all yours. Firearms were developing all the time, they knew it would continue. The point is lost on liberals. The firearm is the tool, the right is inherent as citizens that the government has no reason to restrict. Unless there is a compelling reason, and that's left up to the states to determine. In some cases it's the government's duty to not let someone have a weapon and keeping offensive weapons in check. A rocket launcher isn't a self defense tool.

I've owned a AR for 10 years and this is a shall issue state, no permission, test or class is required. I shoot it just fine and don't feel the need to justify myself to some halfwit on the internet.

The lack of intellect is all yours. Firearms were developing all the time, they knew it would continue. The point is lost on liberals. The firearm is the tool, the right is inherent as citizens that the government has no reason to restrict. Unless there is a compelling reason, and that's left up to the states to determine. In some cases it's the government's duty to not let someone have a weapon and keeping offensive weapons in check. A rocket launcher isn't a self defense tool.

I've owned a AR for 10 years and this is a shall issue state, no permission, test or class is required. I shoot it just fine and don't feel the need to justify myself to some halfwit on the internet.

So the constitution is a living document?

Is that what I said? The constitution doesn't address every possible nuance, variable or law that could come up. It wasn't meant to solve every conceivable problem coming down the pike. It restricts government in ways that guarantees our freedoms. Laws are handled by the legislative branch.

 

[Little-Acorn]

We have the right to be freemen, unless they state has a compelling reason to say otherwise.

The Constitution says nothing of the kind, of course. But many liberals wish it did, so they go around claiming it already does.

 

[Iceweasel]

We have the right to be freemen, unless they state has a compelling reason to say otherwise.

The Constitution says nothing of the kind, of course. But many liberals wish it did, so they go around claiming it already does.

Of course it doesn't. It isn't the law book of everything. It limits government and sets a foundation for our system of governance.

Are you one of those that think if it isn't mentioned in the constitution the law has no right to impose on your doings?