SF declares NRA a terrorist organization

[Kernen]

If the law doesn't prevent any acquisition of firearms it's pointless. If it does, it's restrictive.

So criminals should have firearms?

The question isn't rather we are capable of doing it. It's rather we should.

Considering the number of shootings in the US.

You can own a weapon and be a criminal in the US.

The number of shootings in the US doesn't justify invasive and, frankly oppressive inquiries into mental health to justify exercising a constitutional, enumerated right.

[Celritannia]

So criminals should have firearms?



Considering the number of shootings in the US.

Criminals should not have firearms, but non criminals should. And since drawing the line exactly is functionally impossible, I would prefer to err on the side of liberty.

Every first world country has liberty, and they also have firearm restrictions.

[Gun Manufacturers]

If the government isn't paying for the examination requirements in order to own a firearm, then it starts to sound like an infringement and a way to put the right to bear arms financially out of reach of many Americans.

Psst, that's what it is.

Oh, I know. And it probably wouldn't pass Constitutional muster.

[Kernen]

It burdens acquisition, which is itself a limit on one's rights.

But why does it need to be a right, why isn't it common sense to see the problems of mass shootings and place stricter laws on purchasing a firearm?

The Founders considered an armed populace a useful check on an oppressive government. And, when bullets were propelled with black powder and not gunpowder, they were probably right. Whether it should be a right is mostly academic, since it is and its unlikely to go anywhere.

[Grinning Dragon]

Mine just tell me to go buy more firearms and ammo.

That's funny, mine tell me that my pants don't go with my shirt.

M1911- You aren't wearing that to the range are you? If you wear that, I'm not firing.

[Celritannia]

So criminals should have firearms?



Considering the number of shootings in the US.

You can own a weapon and be a criminal in the US.

The number of shootings in the US doesn't justify invasive and, frankly oppressive inquiries into mental health to justify exercising a constitutional, enumerated right.

[O]ne study found that nearly one-third of the world's public mass shootings between 1966 and 2012 (90 of 292 incidents) occurred in the United States.[5][6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shootings_in_the_United_States

I consider that a rather good reason to have stricter firearm laws.

[Telconi]

Criminals should not have firearms, but non criminals should. And since drawing the line exactly is functionally impossible, I would prefer to err on the side of liberty.

Every first world country has liberty, and they also have firearm restrictions.

Not adequate liberty.

[Celritannia]

But why does it need to be a right, why isn't it common sense to see the problems of mass shootings and place stricter laws on purchasing a firearm?

The Founders considered an armed populace a useful check on an oppressive government. And, when bullets were propelled with black powder and not gunpowder, they were probably right. Whether it should be a right is mostly academic, since it is and its unlikely to go anywhere.

But with a large militia and a small military.
And as I pointed out, the founders did not envisage everyone being part of the militia either.

[Telconi]

You can own a weapon and be a criminal in the US.

The number of shootings in the US doesn't justify invasive and, frankly oppressive inquiries into mental health to justify exercising a constitutional, enumerated right.

[O]ne study found that nearly one-third of the world's public mass shootings between 1966 and 2012 (90 of 292 incidents) occurred in the United States.[5][6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shootings_in_the_United_States

I consider that a rather good reason to have stricter firearm laws.

People think awful things, news at 11.

[The Two Jerseys]

Every first world country has liberty, and they also have firearm restrictions.

Not adequate liberty.

ThErE's No PlAcE fOr HaTe SpEeCh!

[Kernen]

You can own a weapon and be a criminal in the US.

The number of shootings in the US doesn't justify invasive and, frankly oppressive inquiries into mental health to justify exercising a constitutional, enumerated right.

[O]ne study found that nearly one-third of the world's public mass shootings between 1966 and 2012 (90 of 292 incidents) occurred in the United States.[5][6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shootings_in_the_United_States

I consider that a rather good reason to have stricter firearm laws.

There are millions of gun owners who never hurt anybody. These measures you'd suggested would only actually limit an extremely minor segment of them at the cost of a great deal of substantive and procedural due process. The law and statistics suggest otherwise.

[Celritannia]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shootings_in_the_United_States

I consider that a rather good reason to have stricter firearm laws.

There are millions of gun owners who never hurt anybody. These measures you'd suggested would only actually limit an extremely minor segment of them at the cost of a great deal of substantive and procedural due process. The law and statistics suggest otherwise.

So what is the best course of action to stop these mass shootings then?

It only took one school shooting in the UK to bring in stricter firearm legislation.

[The Two Jerseys]

The Founders considered an armed populace a useful check on an oppressive government. And, when bullets were propelled with black powder and not gunpowder, they were probably right. Whether it should be a right is mostly academic, since it is and its unlikely to go anywhere.

But with a large militia and a small military.
And as I pointed out, the founders did not envisage everyone being part of the militia either.

Except they did envisage that...

[Kernen]

The Founders considered an armed populace a useful check on an oppressive government. And, when bullets were propelled with black powder and not gunpowder, they were probably right. Whether it should be a right is mostly academic, since it is and its unlikely to go anywhere.

But with a large militia and a small military.
And as I pointed out, the founders did not envisage everyone being part of the militia either.

They didn't. Which is fair. I don't actually think an armed populace does as much to prevent tyranny as a politically engaged one does. I'm just explaining why it is a right ad why the question isn't one where we have to justify its existence so much as you justifying its removal. The burden of proof, practically, lies with you. If the positions were reversed, we'd be the ones bearing that argument.

[Celritannia]

Every first world country has liberty, and they also have firearm restrictions.

Not adequate liberty.

Most countries with stricter firearms laws actually rank in the top 10 for most free and least oppressed by freedom house ratings.

[Grinning Dragon]

The Founders considered an armed populace a useful check on an oppressive government. And, when bullets were propelled with black powder and not gunpowder, they were probably right. Whether it should be a right is mostly academic, since it is and its unlikely to go anywhere.

But with a large militia and a small military.
And as I pointed out, the founders did not envisage everyone being part of the militia either.

Hmm....
10 USC 311
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

[Celritannia]

But with a large militia and a small military.
And as I pointed out, the founders did not envisage everyone being part of the militia either.

Except they did envisage that...

I have looked at the federalist papers, I didn't see anything there.

[Kernen]

Except they did envisage that...

I have looked at the federalist papers, I didn't see anything there.

All of them? There are many, many such papers, and they are very dense.

[Celritannia]

But with a large militia and a small military.
And as I pointed out, the founders did not envisage everyone being part of the militia either.

Hmm....
10 USC 311
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Very well, I stand corrected.

[Celritannia]

I have looked at the federalist papers, I didn't see anything there.

All of them? There are many, many such papers, and they are very dense.

Gods no, not all of them.

[Grinning Dragon]

Except they did envisage that...

I have looked at the federalist papers, I didn't see anything there.

Seriously?
Federalist-46

[Kernen]

All of them? There are many, many such papers, and they are very dense.

Gods no, not all of them.

Not your best argument, then. Its covered.

[The Emerald Legion]

Do you need an examination to vote? How about to speak? To gather with friends?

A firearm is a tool, like a car.
What you have mentioned are not tools.

A printing press is also a tool. Language is a tool.

Also, whether it's a tool or not is irrelevant. Our right to keep and bear that tool is not to be restricted by the government. Full stop. At all. Ever. For any reason.

Also, those rankings are made by Europhiles who actively disdain the second amendment.

[Gun Manufacturers]

If the government isn't paying for the examination requirements in order to own a firearm, then it starts to sound like an infringement and a way to put the right to bear arms financially out of reach of many Americans.

A local range would do, as long as they get some form of certificate to say it's done.
It would be alright to subsidies those who may not be able to pay to go on the range.
I would have thought some ranges were free to go to though?

Or even having an examination at a local sheriff's or police station.

The only free range in MY state is only open on the weekends with 3, 90 minute time slots for each of the 10 covered shooting positions on each of those days. It's already almost impossible to get a slot at that range, imagine trying to process all the firearms owners in the state in a timely manner as well.

In my state, sheriffs and police tend to have an arrangement to use private ranges.

Your suggestion sounds like an infringement.

[Grinning Dragon]

A local range would do, as long as they get some form of certificate to say it's done.
It would be alright to subsidies those who may not be able to pay to go on the range.
I would have thought some ranges were free to go to though?

Or even having an examination at a local sheriff's or police station.

The only free range in MY state is only open on the weekends with 3, 90 minute time slots for each of the 10 covered shooting positions on each of those days. It's already almost impossible to get a slot at that range, imagine trying to process all the firearms owners in the state in a timely manner as well.

In my state, sheriffs and police tend to have an arrangement to use private ranges.

Your suggestion sounds like an infringement.

Gods, that sucks.
a couple of ranges near me, charge $6-10$ a lane, 2 people max per lane, for as long as you want to shoot. Targets are additional or you can bring your own.
One range has 25 lanes for long firearms, and 15 lanes for handgun.
The other range has 15 lanes.