Gun Controllers: Which type of gun restriction is better?

[Libertade]

We really, really would. European governments aren't big on bowing to the demands of terrorists.

European governments would get overthrown within the week if the people were armed: I don't think any European government is actually capable of withstanding an armed uprising. Sadly, the working classes in Europe are thoroughly disarmed, allowing the pigs an actual monopoly on force and preserving the existing regimes. Americans are nowhere near that powerless: If Euros packed anywhere near that kinda heat, our governments would be toast.

[Mkuki]

I I had to choose I'd go with option one. I'd prefer elements of both, though.

[Yjafjord]

it comes down to this really.

should i, a soldier, not be trusted with anything at home more than a handgun when i play around with bigger tools at work, but so is X the local drunken racist homophobe who has some serious mental issues that impose threats of life on others?

or

should i, a soldier ,not be trusted with anything at home more than a handgun when i play around with bigger tools at work, but not X the local drunken racist homophobe who has some serious mental issues that impose threats of life on others?

or

should i, a soldier, be trusted with the tools i am trusted with at work, but not X the local drunken racist homophobe who has some serious mental issues that impose threats of life on others?

Here is the question that comes to mind though. What law, has that local drunken racist homophobic done to deserve his rights from being taken from him?

-Moving onto topic again-
I say let the states handle it, as it should have been done. The second amendment is against the government, but not the states. If New York, and New Jersey wishes to have no guns in their state, that is their right. Their own constitution has no second amendment in it.

On the question of mentally handicapped, I am on the fence. While it MAY save a life, does that person also have the right to defend themselves? Just because someone is slightly handicapped, or taking a ordered medication, he or she shouldn't be reduced to some sort of secondary citizen. They have their right to defend themselves just like everyone else.

Background checks are generally okay, unless its private sale. I shouldn't have to do a background check on my next door neighbor who I may have known for 20+ years. I shouldn't have to do one for a distant family member, or a step son, or daughter. But at the same time, maybe be held responsible for part of the crime, if that gun was involved. Exceptions of course to this, such as if you sold the gun to someone, and it was stolen from them, then used. Background checks in private sales, should be optional, which they are right now. If you feel uneasy selling one to someone, check him, if still uneasy, don't do the sell.

Gun crime in America is going down. It's been on the decline for a long time. In terms of gun related crimes vs population, we are very safe.

So I am against both of the options you had in your poll. Both are wrong.

Also, someone who was joking about the founding fathers, they didn't know a lot of things. But that is the beauty of it. They knew that things were going to change. They didn't know that we would have computers that were faster then us, or being able to go to the moon, but they had a general vision that things that they couldn't even think of could happen. The amendment process is a tool of this vision.

X may not of broken a law, but he would show on a psycho exam that he is not safe to be trusted with guns and thus should not be allowed to have them as he is more likely to use them to illegally kill than i would, a peace loving soldier who doesn't want to kill and takes no enjoyment out of it, but will do it to save lives of others if ordered.

as for mentally handicapped, only those those handicapped presents a threat to live of others via use of said gun shouldn't be allowed, possible even those that would hurt themselves is the risk is high enough (i myself gave up on any form on suicide after somehow surviving 5)

as for background checks, it should be allowed in the form of a state or government licence, no need for private background checks when they can look at a licence and deem it real. of course, you should also be allowed to ask for those lengthy background ones, but if i want to buy some mags for a gun i already have, i'd like to just simply flash a licence and have a licence be flashed at me rather than nothing at all.

but gun crime is still very high pop wise compared to let's say, Canada i think (who knows, the US might of done a crime turn about when i wasn't looking and became a much safer place.)

as for the amendments , they have gotten old and in the way of progress, re-work them in favour of the public opinion.

[Ainin]

We really, really would. European governments aren't big on bowing to the demands of terrorists.

European governments would get overthrown within the week if the people were armed: I don't think any European government is actually capable of withstanding an armed uprising. Sadly, the working classes in Europe are thoroughly disarmed, allowing the pigs an actual monopoly on force and preserving the existing regimes. Americans are nowhere near that powerless: If Euros packed anywhere near that kinda heat, our governments would be toast.

So you're saying the reason the European governments are still in power is because the workers are disarmed...

*looks at Switzerland*
Do you see a violent uprising?

[Yjafjord]

European governments would get overthrown within the week if the people were armed: I don't think any European government is actually capable of withstanding an armed uprising. Sadly, the working classes in Europe are thoroughly disarmed, allowing the pigs an actual monopoly on force and preserving the existing regimes. Americans are nowhere near that powerless: If Euros packed anywhere near that kinda heat, our governments would be toast.

So you're saying the reason the European governments are still in power is because the workers are disarmed...

*looks at Switzerland*
Do you see a violent uprising?

may they are all scared to death of a new USSR, knowing how well it ended they don't want they. of course i don't think people would be stupid enough to try again and the governments are over re-acting, but still, they have some sort of mess up idiotic reason that isn't keeping the job.

[Blazedtown]

Why? The only crimes I've ever heard of involving rocket launchers involved buying, selling, and owning rocket launchers.

I've never even heard of a crime involving a nuclear weapon! LEGUHLIZE TEH N00kz.

http://factcheck.gullible.info/discussi ... r-weapons/

Nuclear weapons are legal to own in 47 states. When will people stop using that utterly retarded analogy?

[Sociobiology]

On the question of mentally handicapped, I am on the fence. While it MAY save a life, does that person also have the right to defend themselves? Just because someone is slightly handicapped, or taking a ordered medication, he or she shouldn't be reduced to some sort of secondary citizen. They have their right to defend themselves just like everyone else.

even from the invisible lizard people, dead relatives, and space aliens.

Background checks are generally okay, unless its private sale. I shouldn't have to do a background check on my next door neighbor who I may have known for 20+ years.

because we should all trust you to only sell to such people.

I shouldn't have to do one for a distant family member, or a step son, or daughter.

And we know you are selling to only those people how?

But at the same time, maybe be held responsible for part of the crime, if that gun was involved.

which we determine how without a tracking system and record of sale.

Background checks in private sales, should be optional, which they are right now. If you feel uneasy selling one to someone, check him, if still uneasy, don't do the sell.

no they should not for the same reason they are not optional for any other sale.
I don't trust your magical ability to tell if someone is a bad guy.

Gun crime in America is going down. It's been on the decline for a long time. In terms of gun related crimes vs population, we are very safe.

majority of homicides still use guns.
Also ALL crime is going down.

[Yjafjord]

I've never even heard of a crime involving a nuclear weapon! LEGUHLIZE TEH N00kz.

http://factcheck.gullible.info/discussi ... r-weapons/

Nuclear weapons are legal to own in 47 states. When will people stop using that utterly retarded analogy?

wat.
just wat.

is it legal to set them off? because if they have the right to own them there is nothing the government can do to prevent them from being used.

[Blazedtown]

http://factcheck.gullible.info/discussi ... r-weapons/

Nuclear weapons are legal to own in 47 states. When will people stop using that utterly retarded analogy?

wat.
just wat.

is it legal to set them off? because if they have the right to own them there is nothing the government can do to prevent them from being used.

I'm sure there would be a few million pages of paperwork, but probably. Nuclear weapons have been used for everything from excavation, to destroying hazardous waste.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peaceful_n ... explosions

[Yjafjord]

i understand peace use, but private is the part that worries me

[Ainin]

So you're saying the reason the European governments are still in power is because the workers are disarmed...

*looks at Switzerland*
Do you see a violent uprising?

may they are all scared to death of a new USSR, knowing how well it ended they don't want they. of course i don't think people would be stupid enough to try again and the governments are over re-acting, but still, they have some sort of mess up idiotic reason that isn't keeping the job.

Umm... I have no idea what the heck you're trying to say...

[Blazedtown]

i understand peace use, but private is the part that worries me

There have been Freedom of Information act requests, but they've been turned down. I'm not sure if they just won't release the info, or if the information doesn't exist.

[Disserbia]

I oppose gun control, but #1 sounds good to me.

[Golambia]

If we have guns, I reckon they're both as important.

But banning all guns would work a lot better.

[The Reasonable]

If we have guns, I reckon they're both as important.

But banning all guns would work a lot better.

...replace the word "guns" with drugs or alcohol and you'll see how realistic and intelligent your statement sounded.

[Yjafjord]

may they are all scared to death of a new USSR, knowing how well it ended they don't want they. of course i don't think people would be stupid enough to try again and the governments are over re-acting, but still, they have some sort of mess up idiotic reason that isn't keeping the job.

Umm... I have no idea what the heck you're trying to say...

they fear a new USSR popping up due to a revolt being caused by workers, so they disarm them so that no new red oktober can happen.

[Golambia]

If we have guns, I reckon they're both as important.

But banning all guns would work a lot better.

...replace the word "guns" with drugs or alcohol and you'll see how realistic and intelligent your statement sounded.

I'm European and it works well here.

Of course, there are problems that you'd have to face in America (black market, etc) but it would be doable with enough time.

[Blazedtown]

If we have guns, I reckon they're both as important.

But banning all guns would work a lot better.

Because that has worked so well for drugs. If your under 18 its easier to get drugs than is it to buy a pack of smokes.

[Golambia]

If we have guns, I reckon they're both as important.

But banning all guns would work a lot better.

Because that has worked so well for drugs. If your under 18 its easier to get drugs than is it to buy a pack of smokes.

Except that you can't grow guns and even if you make your own, you wouldn't be able to smoke/snort/inject it away. And if you were to use it, you'd be arrested for illegal possession of a firearm.

Banning guns has worked well in Europe, it can work in America with enough time.

[Ifreann]

We really, really would. European governments aren't big on bowing to the demands of terrorists.

European governments would get overthrown within the week if the people were armed:

Not a chance.

I don't think any European government is actually capable of withstanding an armed uprising.

I highly doubt there would be any armed uprisings. There would, at most, be some terrorist attacks, and they'd accomplish very little.

Sadly, the working classes in Europe are thoroughly disarmed, allowing the pigs an actual monopoly on force and preserving the existing regimes. Americans are nowhere near that powerless: If Euros packed anywhere near that kinda heat, our governments would be toast.

Oh please, like they'd accomplish anything against armed police or any national military except getting killed.

[Yjafjord]

one major difference with the USA and Europe
how the people would react.
the USA would be up in arms before you know it against said arms ban.

[Blazedtown]

Because that has worked so well for drugs. If your under 18 its easier to get drugs than is it to buy a pack of smokes.

Except that you can't grow guns and even if you make your own, you wouldn't be able to smoke/snort/inject it away. And if you were to use it, you'd be arrested for illegal possession of a firearm.

Banning guns has worked well in Europe, it can work in America with enough time.

Anyone with a decent machine shop and some understanding of how to read blueprints can make a gun. I'm pretty sure I could make a simple level action rifle.

And no shit, you can't chop a revolver up into lines and snort it.

[Ifreann]

Except that you can't grow guns and even if you make your own, you wouldn't be able to smoke/snort/inject it away. And if you were to use it, you'd be arrested for illegal possession of a firearm.

Banning guns has worked well in Europe, it can work in America with enough time.

Anyone with a decent machine shop and some understanding of how to read blueprints can make a gun. I'm pretty sure I could make a simple level action rifle.

And no shit, you can't chop a revolver up into lines and snort it.

I dunno, you could probably reduce it to iron filings if you were determined enough.

[Bilgeria]

Here is the question that comes to mind though. What law, has that local drunken racist homophobic done to deserve his rights from being taken from him?

-Moving onto topic again-
I say let the states handle it, as it should have been done. The second amendment is against the government, but not the states. If New York, and New Jersey wishes to have no guns in their state, that is their right. Their own constitution has no second amendment in it.

On the question of mentally handicapped, I am on the fence. While it MAY save a life, does that person also have the right to defend themselves? Just because someone is slightly handicapped, or taking a ordered medication, he or she shouldn't be reduced to some sort of secondary citizen. They have their right to defend themselves just like everyone else.

Background checks are generally okay, unless its private sale. I shouldn't have to do a background check on my next door neighbor who I may have known for 20+ years. I shouldn't have to do one for a distant family member, or a step son, or daughter. But at the same time, maybe be held responsible for part of the crime, if that gun was involved. Exceptions of course to this, such as if you sold the gun to someone, and it was stolen from them, then used. Background checks in private sales, should be optional, which they are right now. If you feel uneasy selling one to someone, check him, if still uneasy, don't do the sell.

Gun crime in America is going down. It's been on the decline for a long time. In terms of gun related crimes vs population, we are very safe.

So I am against both of the options you had in your poll. Both are wrong.

Also, someone who was joking about the founding fathers, they didn't know a lot of things. But that is the beauty of it. They knew that things were going to change. They didn't know that we would have computers that were faster then us, or being able to go to the moon, but they had a general vision that things that they couldn't even think of could happen. The amendment process is a tool of this vision.

X may not of broken a law, but he would show on a psycho exam that he is not safe to be trusted with guns and thus should not be allowed to have them as he is more likely to use them to illegally kill than i would, a peace loving soldier who doesn't want to kill and takes no enjoyment out of it, but will do it to save lives of others if ordered.

as for mentally handicapped, only those those handicapped presents a threat to live of others via use of said gun shouldn't be allowed, possible even those that would hurt themselves is the risk is high enough (i myself gave up on any form on suicide after somehow surviving 5)

as for background checks, it should be allowed in the form of a state or government licence, no need for private background checks when they can look at a licence and deem it real. of course, you should also be allowed to ask for those lengthy background ones, but if i want to buy some mags for a gun i already have, i'd like to just simply flash a licence and have a licence be flashed at me rather than nothing at all.

but gun crime is still very high pop wise compared to let's say, Canada i think (who knows, the US might of done a crime turn about when i wasn't looking and became a much safer place.)

as for the amendments , they have gotten old and in the way of progress, re-work them in favour of the public opinion.

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/ ... c-unaware/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violen ... s_by_state
http://web4.uwindsor.ca/users/m/mfc/41- ... 02-XIE.pdf

last one is US/Canada. We have some crimes that are higher, and they have some that are.
But yeah, crime over all has dropped like a rock in the last 20 years.

But, he has done nothing wrong, correct? He may be a black hating, think Mexican is worthless, detest Irish, bible thumping anti gay, that does not mean that he is a psychopath, or crazy. While... personally I think that he shouldn't have a gun, that's just personal. I respect his right to own one.

Same goes for someone who is mentally handicapped. Now, if that said person should be in a white padded room, that is where he should be, to bad that we don't have those. But someone on some mild antidepressant? Not at all, he should be able to own a gun. A lot of our drugs we use today, are antidepressant, or mind altering. We use a lot of them for pain medication.

This is a very large grey area. How do you put a line in the ground for this? Someone who is heavily handicapped, could easily be stable enough to be able to handle the responsibility. Then there is people who is not even considered "dangerous", who turns out to be so... Don't know how we would even start to rank that. The problem is, that if we give even a basic level of restrictions, it could effect a lot of people who shouldn't be.

Ill agree with a license. I think it would also cause a lot of headache reduction. Problem I have, is that its a database I wouldn't want. Now, if it was state ran, and not federal government, I could live with that. I would also like to see it transferable to other states. Just like our drivers licenses.

That is the reason why we have the amendment process, we are able to change our constitution to be more modern. As a Libertarian, and a Conservative, I have no problem at all, if it is amended. I have a problem, with it being snuck around, and ignored. If they want to change it, I say go ahead and put it in the amendment process. But its also a state issue. I believe in the term "These united States." not "The United States." Two very different things. We are 50 countries, or at least we were until about 1870 or so.

[Yjafjord]

Except that you can't grow guns and even if you make your own, you wouldn't be able to smoke/snort/inject it away. And if you were to use it, you'd be arrested for illegal possession of a firearm.

Banning guns has worked well in Europe, it can work in America with enough time.

Anyone with a decent machine shop and some understanding of how to read blueprints can make a gun. I'm pretty sure I could make a simple level action rifle.

And no shit, you can't chop a revolver up into lines and snort it.

IF YOU REALLY TRIED, I'M SURE YOU COULD SOMEHOW SNORT UP A REVOLVER!