Gun Control

[Enhance]

Knapp, I for one do not feel waiting longer or jumping through a few more hoops to acquire a gun would be considered punishment. I look at owning and having my guns as a privilege as a US citizen. I know the constitution 2nd amendment states "right to bear arms" but nowhere does it say it can't be denied for just cause. "The right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of either firearms or similar devices".

I would agree with that. And I would stipulate that making gun purchasers go through more government oversight than I have to go through to build an addition onto my house is a small price to pay.

LOL +1, been there and done that. I felt pretty good when I was all done only to have the inspector come back out and tell me I had to make a change, as I was extended 7" beyond boundary limit.

No place in the Constitution (the greatest legal document ever drafted) does it say the rights granted to the people are subject to change, amendment, degradation, curtailment or the whims or changing views of the masses over time. The Constitution is NOT 'a living and breathing document evolving over time to suit the wishes of a few'! The right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness and free speech, freedom of press, religion, etc etc. are all broad and all inclusive and may not be taken by governmental power or authority or action.

Forget that we're talking about gun control for a second. The Constitution itself says the Congress and Senate have the ability to make changes, or amendments, to the Constitution.

Now, back to gun control. Theoretically, it is possible to amend the 2nd Amendment, but it would set the precedent that any of the rights laid forth are subject to the whims of the majority.

Will it ever happen? I sincerely doubt it. That doesn't mean people can't hold the opinion that it is antiquated, though.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

Knapp, I for one do not feel waiting longer or jumping through a few more hoops to acquire a gun would be considered punishment. I look at owning and having my guns as a privilege as a US citizen. I know the constitution 2nd amendment states "right to bear arms" but nowhere does it say it can't be denied for just cause. "The right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of either firearms or similar devices".

I would agree with that. And I would stipulate that making gun purchasers go through more government oversight than I have to go through to build an addition onto my house is a small price to pay.

LOL +1, been there and done that. I felt pretty good when I was all done only to have the inspector come back out and tell me I had to make a change, as I was extended 7" beyond boundary limit.

No place in the Constitution (the greatest legal document ever drafted) does it say the rights granted to the people are subject to change, amendment, degradation, curtailment or the whims or changing views of the masses over time. The Constitution is NOT 'a living and breathing document evolving over time to suit the wishes of a few'! The right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness and free speech, freedom of press, religion, etc etc. are all broad and all inclusive and may not be taken by governmental power or authority or action.

Well the fact that there are Amendments at all means they didn't get it right the first time.

Maybe it's just me, but giving women the vote and deciding that negroes are fully fledged humans aren't exactly "whims."

And hey, if they hadn't fiddled with that sacred document just a few decades ago, Obama could be running for his third term.

 

[TAKODA]

Redux, I get what your intent has been and while you may have worded things in a way that caused some speculation as to what you were intending to say, you had stated and maintained that you got your gun permit and it was a pretty uneventful process or in other words, easy.

I do not know if stronger laws will result in less mass shootings but if it makes it appear like we are circling our wagons and causes just one person to rethink their attempt at obtaining a gun for ill purposes, then its a win. I again, know that guns are very easy to obtain illegally, thus those who have the ill intent will go a different route to get that which they seek.

I guess my point in this thread has been to simply state that while I am good with an improved process, I do not think it will make a significant difference in violent crimes that involve a gun and that Potus bringing up the gun control in his address to the Nation about this shooting was just wrong. I learned through this thread however that not only did Hilary and the FBI drop the ball that would have tied this gunman to extremist and had some action been taken, could have prevented the legal sale of a firearm to him that was ultimate used in this mass killing spree, but I also learned by virtue of this thread that the republican party voted against the "no fly no buy" policy that Potus and others presented and this is contrary to any logical thought process..

The bottom line is, we as US Citizens, need to be open to allowing deeper security checks regarding gun purchasing permits without whining about the extra steps they might feel goes against the 2nd Amendment. I am willing to be inconvenienced for an additional time period if it means somewhere, someone, was just stopped from buying a gun for ill purposes. We as US Citizens also need to get off our asses, pull our faces out of the computers, i-phones and other distractions and be vigilant everyday, because what you see or hear, might be the ultimate preventative measure that could save someones life.

Sorry for the Soap Box narrative!

 

[QMany]

I understand it may take some time and money, but I would like to see palm/fingerprint recognition safety features on guns. They could be authorized to those that pass background checks, training, etc. I would support Congress allocating funds to research these issues and figure out the best way to implement these policies (but I doubt the NRA would allow that).

The FBI can barely get into a dead terrorist's iPhone after weeks of hacking, but children, criminals, and terrorists seem to be able to acquire and use guns with relative ease.

 

[Redux]

Redux, I get what your intent has been and while you may have worded things in a way that caused some speculation as to what you were intending to say, you had stated and maintained that you got your gun permit and it was a pretty uneventful process or in other words, easy.

I do not know if stronger laws will result in less mass shootings but if it makes it appear like we are circling our wagons and causes just one person to rethink their attempt at obtaining a gun for ill purposes, then its a win. I again, know that guns are very easy to obtain illegally, thus those who have the ill intent will go a different route to get that which they seek.

I guess my point in this thread has been to simply state that while I am good with an improved process, I do not think it will make a significant difference in violent crimes that involve a gun and that Potus bringing up the gun control in his address to the Nation about this shooting was just wrong. I learned through this thread however that not only did Hilary and the FBI drop the ball that would have tied this gunman to extremist and had some action been taken, could have prevented the legal sale of a firearm to him that was ultimate used in this mass killing spree, but I also learned by virtue of this thread that the republican party voted against the "no fly no buy" policy that Potus and others presented and this is contrary to any logical thought process..

The bottom line is, we as US Citizens, need to be open to allowing deeper security checks regarding gun purchasing permits without whining about the extra steps they might feel goes against the 2nd Amendment. I am willing to be inconvenienced for an additional time period if it means somewhere, someone, was just stopped from buying a gun for ill purposes. We as US Citizens also need to get off our asses, pull our faces out of the computers, i-phones and other distractions and be vigilant everyday, because what you see or hear, might be the ultimate preventative measure that could save someones life.

Sorry for the Soap Box narrative!

No need to appologize, very well said.

 

[TAKODA]

Knapp, I for one do not feel waiting longer or jumping through a few more hoops to acquire a gun would be considered punishment. I look at owning and having my guns as a privilege as a US citizen. I know the constitution 2nd amendment states "right to bear arms" but nowhere does it say it can't be denied for just cause. "The right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of either firearms or similar devices".

I would agree with that. And I would stipulate that making gun purchasers go through more government oversight than I have to go through to build an addition onto my house is a small price to pay.

LOL +1, been there and done that. I felt pretty good when I was all done only to have the inspector come back out and tell me I had to make a change, as I was extended 7" beyond boundary limit.

No place in the Constitution (the greatest legal document ever drafted) does it say the rights granted to the people are subject to change, amendment, degradation, curtailment or the whims or changing views of the masses over time. The Constitution is NOT 'a living and breathing document evolving over time to suit the wishes of a few'! The right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness and free speech, freedom of press, religion, etc etc. are all broad and all inclusive and may not be taken by governmental power or authority or action.

Well the fact that there are Amendments at all means they didn't get it right the first time.

Maybe it's just me, but giving women the vote and deciding that negroes are fully fledged humans aren't exactly "whims."

And hey, if they hadn't fiddled with that sacred document just a few decades ago, Obama could be running for his third term.

Exactly Guy! +1

 

[Landlord]

I understand it may take some time and money, but I would like to see palm/fingerprint recognition safety features on guns. They could be authorized to those that pass background checks, training, etc. I would support Congress allocating funds to research these issues and figure out the best way to implement these policies (but I doubt the NRA would allow that).

Palm/fingerprint recognition? So what about when a terrorist shoots my dad in the head and then I go to get his gun to defend myself and kill him but I can't, because I don't have his fingerprints? I have the right to be able to protect myself in that scenario!

(/sarcasm, of course guys)

 

[Redux]

I understand it may take some time and money, but I would like to see palm/fingerprint recognition safety features on guns. They could be authorized to those that pass background checks, training, etc. I would support Congress allocating funds to research these issues and figure out the best way to implement these policies (but I doubt the NRA would allow that).

Palm/fingerprint recognition? So what about when a terrorist shoots my dad in the head and then I go to get his gun to defend myself and kill him but I can't, because I don't have his fingerprints? I have the right to be able to protect myself in that scenario!

(/sarcasm, of course guys)

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[zoogs]

I think we should draw a distinction between a coordinated terrorist event as occurred in Paris or Boston, and something like this where a troubled person goes off the deep end and shoots up a place.

Both are undesirable and both are unavoidable. In the former case you can better facilitate security agencies working together in the hopes that they catch these plots more often before they take off. The latter is pretty tough; like Lanza, or Roof, or the Aurora shooter, or the Colombine shooters, etc...you look at them after the fact and think, "Wow. So many trouble signs." But before the fact, is there really enough to lock them away in a psych ward, or otherwise?

That's the gun control angle here. The world is full of troubled people with no record, and nothing short of severe intrusion in *everyone*'s private lives will flag everyone in real time. Let's help the people on any spectrum of troubled, on the one hand; and not make it also a world where it's stupid easy for them to get so much destructive power at their hands.

 

[Saunders]

I understand it may take some time and money, but I would like to see palm/fingerprint recognition safety features on guns. They could be authorized to those that pass background checks, training, etc. I would support Congress allocating funds to research these issues and figure out the best way to implement these policies (but I doubt the NRA would allow that).

The FBI can barely get into a dead terrorist's iPhone after weeks of hacking, but children, criminals, and terrorists seem to be able to acquire and use guns with relative ease.

There's been research into them for a long time, but the reality is, they aren't remotely reliable enough yet.

 

[Saunders]

but I also learned by virtue of this thread that the republican party voted against the "no fly no buy" policy that Potus and others presented and this is contrary to any logical thought process..

Not to single you out, but I'm going to reply to this one every time I see it. It's not just "republicans" that were against this. Even the pro gun control ACLU was against it because the No-Fly list is a nightmare, and denying people their rights without due process is wrong. I suggest EVERYONE read these regarding the issue.

There is no constitutional bar to reasonable regulation of guns, and the No Fly List could serve as one tool for it, but only with major reform. As we will argue to a federal district court in Oregon this Wednesday, the standards for inclusion on the No Fly List are unconstitutionally vague, and innocent people are blacklisted without a fair process to correct government error. Our lawsuit seeks a meaningful opportunity for our clients to challenge their placement on the No Fly List because it is so error-prone and the consequences for their lives have been devastating.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/until-no-fly-list-fixed-it-shouldnt-be-used-restrict-peoples-freedoms

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/12/07/the-no-fly-list-is-a-terrible-tool-for-gun-control-in-part-because-it-is-a-terrible-tool/

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/12/no-fly-list-inverted-politics/419172/

Edit: I also find it a little amusing that Hillary is advocating that people under investigation (not convicted or charged) by the FBI should be denied due process and be stripped of their rights.

 

[zoogs]

I'm with you there, saunders. I'm extremely skeptical about reactionary measures that put civil liberties at stake -- especially because there seems to be so much political pressure to resort to them.

 

[Saunders]

I'm with you there, saunders. I'm extremely skeptical about reactionary measures that put civil liberties at stake -- especially because there seems to be so much political pressure to resort to them.

Exactly. That's how the patriot act, and all the approved NSA domestic spying, cam to be. Living in fear, and stripping our freedoms, is exactly what the terrorists want.

 

[Mierin]

Lets pretend for a second that he was unable to aquire firearms. Does he still commit acts of violence via different means?

If you answer no to that I have nothing to say to you.

Well, it's a pointless question, so the answer doesn't matter. Without a gun he was far less likely to be able to kill that many. If bomb-making was easier, more people would do it.

 

[Redux]

Lets pretend for a second that he was unable to aquire firearms. Does he still commit acts of violence via different means?

If you answer no to that I have nothing to say to you.

Well, it's a pointless question, so the answer doesn't matter. Without a gun he was far less likely to be able to kill that many. If bomb-making was easier, more people would do it.

No interest in debating this with you.