2 of 5
2
Oh lordie lordie the future is not looking good
Posted: 16 February 2014 02:22 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  464
Joined  2013-12-20
Lois - 15 February 2014 04:33 AM

Would you control it? If so, how?

Lois

Yes, I would control access to firearms.

I think the model here in Canada works pretty good, so handguns would be restricted weapons requiring special licences and strict limits on how they are transported and stored and everyone would need a Firearms Acquisition Certificate to purchase firearms which requires a background check by the RCMP.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 February 2014 02:27 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  464
Joined  2013-12-20
garythehuman - 16 February 2014 11:04 AM

My viewpoint as a Viet Nam vet on private ownership of weapons.  If you enable you are responsible.  If you want to quote the 2nd Amendment - the arms you have the “right to bear” are unrifled muzzle loading muskets that the founding fathers were referring to;  not modern day automatics or semi-automatics with their ranges of a mile or more. 

Why should I have to worry about the drunken gun owners two blocks over who gets mad at his wife and decides to fire a round or two his backyard.

Those are pretty much my feelings about it too, at the time the Amendment was passed the US needed to rely on an armed citizenry for defence against attacks from natives and foreign powers like the British. Now most of the weapons in the US are being turned against Americans and in too many dreadful cases one or a few gunmen with high capacity weapons can do a lot of damage.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 February 2014 06:20 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27
Fuzzy Logic - 16 February 2014 02:22 PM
Lois - 15 February 2014 04:33 AM

Would you control it? If so, how?

Lois

Yes, I would control access to firearms.

I think the model here in Canada works pretty good, so handguns would be restricted weapons requiring special licences and strict limits on how they are transported and stored and everyone would need a Firearms Acquisition Certificate to purchase firearms which requires a background check by the RCMP.

Yes, that would certainly help in the States, but we’ll never get those kinds of laws passed here—at least not at the Federal level where they’re needed. Canadians are fortunate in not having the Second Amendment of the US Constitution to deal with. We’ll never get around the misreading of it.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 February 2014 07:35 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3255
Joined  2011-08-15

Another major problem conflicting with a national blanket law is the patchwork of state laws concerning who may own and carry a fire arm. In some states there is an age restriction, some require a special ID card that must be presented before buying or selling any firearm, some don’t even have a Second Amendment restriction in their constitutions. Some allow a conceal carry permit issued after a background check and some don’t allow those permits, period. In most states anyone with an FFL may purchase just about any type of weapon but that permit is only issued by the Federal Government and impossible to obtain if you have a record. So until we pass a strict uniform gun law that applies to citizens in every state that bans automatic weapons and insists on enforcing background checks (already on the books BTW but laxly enforced in most states) the problem will continue. As to disarming the public entirely, that won’t happen in our lifetime and the only way it will happen is when more and more Americans no longer feel a need to own a gun for whatever reason.


Cap’t Jack

 Signature 

One good schoolmaster is of more use than a hundred priests.

Thomas Paine

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 February 2014 09:27 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27
Thevillageatheist - 16 February 2014 07:35 PM

Another major problem conflicting with a national blanket law is the patchwork of state laws concerning who may own and carry a fire arm. In some states there is an age restriction, some require a special ID card that must be presented before buying or selling any firearm, some don’t even have a Second Amendment restriction in their constitutions. Some allow a conceal carry permit issued after a background check and some don’t allow those permits, period. In most states anyone with an FFL may purchase just about any type of weapon but that permit is only issued by the Federal Government and impossible to obtain if you have a record. So until we pass a strict uniform gun law that applies to citizens in every state that bans automatic weapons and insists on enforcing background checks (already on the books BTW but laxly enforced in most states) the problem will continue. As to disarming the public entirely, that won’t happen in our lifetime and the only way it will happen is when more and more Americans no longer feel a need to own a gun for whatever reason.


Cap’t Jack

Or it will happen is when more and more Americans realize that an armed citizenry is far more dangerous than having strict gun control laws. Won’t happen in our lifetimes, though, and possibly not our children’s or grandchildren’s. A lot more innocent people, including children, will have to be slaughtered first.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 February 2014 05:41 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3255
Joined  2011-08-15

Or it will happen is when more and more Americans realize that an armed citizenry is far more dangerous than having strict gun control laws. Won’t happen in our lifetimes, though, and possibly not our children’s or grandchildren’s. A lot more innocent people, including children, will have to be slaughtered first.

And one more case in point, the Dunn trial that just ended. All too often when someone who buys a weapon for personal protection and has no training (e.g. Police or military) in responding to potential threats, they tend to play “John Wayne” and blaze away with no thought for the consequences. Dunn completely misread the situation and deliberately provoked the kids into a face saving response by acting belligerent. Dunn could have saved a life by just leaving the scene, but knowing that he had a weapon he staid and allowed the situation to escalate. One wonders how he would have acted without a gun in his glove box. Instead, he acted irrationally and sprayed the car with nine bullets, killing one kid and potentially injuring two others.


Cap’t Jack

 Signature 

One good schoolmaster is of more use than a hundred priests.

Thomas Paine

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 February 2014 01:12 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5551
Joined  2010-06-16

Unfortunately, as the middle class continues becoming poorer, more at the bottom will be forced to steal, and that will cause more and more citizens to buy guns to protect themselves.  As the general population sinks into poverty and can no longer feel comfortable with their lives, they’ll be more susceptible to those promoting revolution.  I’m happy that I won’t be around to see the results. 

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 February 2014 01:18 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27
garythehuman - 16 February 2014 11:04 AM

My viewpoint as a Viet Nam vet on private ownership of weapons.  If you enable you are responsible.  If you want to quote the 2nd Amendment - the arms you have the “right to bear” are unrifled muzzle loading muskets that the founding fathers were referring to;  not modern day automatics or semi-automatics with their ranges of a mile or more. 

Why should I have to worry about the drunken gun owners two blocks over who gets mad at his wife and decides to fire a round or two his backyard.

You might have a different opinion if you or a loved one got caught by a misdirected bullet—which happens all the time.

Besides that, do you have no interest in the kind of society you live in?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 February 2014 02:58 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14
Lois - 17 February 2014 01:18 PM
garythehuman - 16 February 2014 11:04 AM

My viewpoint as a Viet Nam vet on private ownership of weapons.  If you enable you are responsible.  If you want to quote the 2nd Amendment - the arms you have the “right to bear” are unrifled muzzle loading muskets that the founding fathers were referring to;  not modern day automatics or semi-automatics with their ranges of a mile or more. 

Why should I have to worry about the drunken gun owners two blocks over who gets mad at his wife and decides to fire a round or two his backyard.

You might have a different opinion if you or a loved one got caught by a misdirected bullet—which happens all the time.

Besides that, do you have no interest in the kind of society you live in?

Lois, Gary’s post here states that: “he shouldn’t have to worry about the drunk with the gun…”
In otherwords the societal/legal conditions(ie lax gun laws) put Gary(and most of us) in a position in which he may have to worry about that.

Your retort is misdirected. You and Gary are on the same page.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 February 2014 03:10 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14
Occam. - 16 February 2014 12:48 PM

I tried to use the muzzle loading argument a while ago, and the pro-gun guy said, “If you want to ban techological advances, then you’d have to limit the First Amendment to the spoken word and old method printing.  Radio, Television, telephones, and the Internet statements wouldn’t be protected by the First Amendment.”  I dislike guns and think we should just have an amendment to eliminate the Second one, but, unfortunately, the muzzle loading argument doesn’t work.

Occam

Nothing will work on those types Occam.
We don’t need amendments. There’s already plenty of laws regarding guns and ammo.  Laws that restrict.
We just need more of those laws.
Hopefully in a few years when the next president is also a Dem-o-crat one or two more reactionary dinosaurs in the Supreme Court will retire
and new and more restrictive laws will be passed. And then there will be a suitable Supreme Court to uphold those laws.
Have faith. The silent majority wants these guns off the market.
The lunatic fringe gets all of the spotlight. These stunted gun nuts with their crazed fantasies about defense and all that other happy horse$h!t.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 February 2014 04:38 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3255
Joined  2011-08-15

That’s a valid point Vy, there are already restrictive laws on the books that could curtail ownership by those deemed mentally incompetent and ex-cons but some states refuse to enact them. If enough citizens put even the slightest pressure on their state legislators to take action the problem of sorting out legal ownership could be solved but apathy and fear of losing any personal freedom stops them in their tracks. Everyone (the competent, not the paranoid deniers who say that Newtown was faked by the National Gov’t to take our guns away) just shakes their collective heads in regret and with a tsk tsk turn the channel to the Walking Dead and dream of dropping zombies with a shotgun instead of emailing or calling their local congressman to demand action. This type of legislation Must come from the people as the politicians are hamstrung by special interests and their own desire to compromise on controversial issues that would lose them votes in the Fall. It’s much worse BTW on the local level as the voting pool is much smaller and a few negative votes can oust an assemblyman or state rep.


Cap’t Jack

 Signature 

One good schoolmaster is of more use than a hundred priests.

Thomas Paine

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 February 2014 10:46 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27
Thevillageatheist - 17 February 2014 05:41 AM

Or it will happen is when more and more Americans realize that an armed citizenry is far more dangerous than having strict gun control laws. Won’t happen in our lifetimes, though, and possibly not our children’s or grandchildren’s. A lot more innocent people, including children, will have to be slaughtered first.

And one more case in point, the Dunn trial that just ended. All too often when someone who buys a weapon for personal protection and has no training (e.g. Police or military) in responding to potential threats, they tend to play “John Wayne” and blaze away with no thought for the consequences. Dunn completely misread the situation and deliberately provoked the kids into a face saving response by acting belligerent. Dunn could have saved a life by just leaving the scene, but knowing that he had a weapon he staid and allowed the situation to escalate. One wonders how he would have acted without a gun in his glove box. Instead, he acted irrationally and sprayed the car with nine bullets, killing one kid and potentially injuring two others.


Cap’t Jack

He was out looking for trouble. He wanted a confrontation.  There was a report on television that besides the gun, he had nunchucks and a silencer in his car. He wasn’t carrying the gun for protection. He was carrying it because he wanted to use it. The big tough guy with a gun.  There was also a report that he pulled up next to the car holding the kids when there were other spaces to park in. He complains about the music and parks as close to it as possible, looking for trouble. He belongs in prison.


Lois

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 February 2014 04:27 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14
Thevillageatheist - 17 February 2014 04:38 PM

If enough citizens put even the slightest pressure on their state legislators to take action the problem of sorting out legal ownership could be solved but apathy and fear of losing any personal freedom stops them in their tracks. Everyone (the competent…..issues that would lose them votes in the Fall. It’s much worse BTW on the local level as the voting pool is much smaller and a few negative votes can oust an assemblyman or state rep.

Cap’t Jack

Yes, I’m also talking about laws that restrict access to types of guns and their sales.
Magazine capacities, types of ammo, types of rifles and pistols and their sales and access.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 February 2014 09:59 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1777
Joined  2007-10-22
Lois - 17 February 2014 01:18 PM
garythehuman - 16 February 2014 11:04 AM

My viewpoint as a Viet Nam vet on private ownership of weapons.  If you enable you are responsible.  If you want to quote the 2nd Amendment - the arms you have the “right to bear” are unrifled muzzle loading muskets that the founding fathers were referring to;  not modern day automatics or semi-automatics with their ranges of a mile or more. 

Why should I have to worry about the drunken gun owners two blocks over who gets mad at his wife and decides to fire a round or two his backyard.

You might have a different opinion if you or a loved one got caught by a misdirected bullet—which happens all the time.

Besides that, do you have no interest in the kind of society you live in?

Lois is this directed at me?

 Signature 

Gary the Human

All the Gods and all religions are created by humans, to meet human needs and accomplish human ends.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 February 2014 02:39 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27
mid atlantic - 16 February 2014 01:57 AM
Lois - 15 February 2014 04:30 AM
mid atlantic - 08 February 2014 06:26 PM

I think it’s an example of people having too much time on their hands, but nothing to get depressed over.

Nothing to get depressed over? You must be kidding!

Lois

Not kidding.


Sad that you are so unaware of what is going on around you.  You must think that if you can’t see something it isn’t happening or it’s of no consequence.

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 5
2