Time to revisit the 2nd Amendment?

[StrangeSox]

Also a national registry for all firearms.

[LittleHurt05]

I really think you're overestimating how "different" it is here as opposed to frequently compared countries like Japan, China, South Korea, Australia, UK, France etc...

 

Not at all. There are studies that have shown how much more violence is presented in American media.

[bmags]

although I'm heartened by the sudden attention to deaths involving cars. We certainly could use some added rules and regulations to help prevent the tremendous loss of life each year.

[Jenksismyhero]

I'm sorry, I care about reducing gang violence as well.

 

And absent some blanket ban on a type of gun, like handguns, that's not going to happen. And I think that kind of ban would be unconstitutional. It's not narrowly tailored being that it's an outright ban on a product nor is the least restrictive means of solving a problem that isn't caused SOLELY from the availability of guns.

 

[Reddy]

And absent some blanket ban on a type of gun, like handguns, that's not going to happen. And I think that kind of ban would be unconstitutional. It's not narrowly tailored being that it's an outright ban on a product nor is the least restrictive means of solving a problem that isn't caused SOLELY from the availability of guns.

so because YOU think nothing will help but a ban, and that a ban is unconstitutional, we should......... just do nothing? chalk this up to "s*** happens"?

 

then i nominate you to say that to the parents of those kids.

[Jenksismyhero]

did ANY of us suggest that with guns? i sure didn't.

 

You're talking about banning handguns and assault weapons right? If not, others like SS are. And if we're back to simply "making it more difficult" then as I said on page 2 of this thing that solves nothing. Making it more difficult just means making the process longer. If you want a gun, you'll still get it.

[StrangeSox]

And absent some blanket ban on a type of gun, like handguns, that's not going to happen. And I think that kind of ban would be unconstitutional. It's not narrowly tailored being that it's an outright ban on a product nor is the least restrictive means of solving a problem that isn't caused SOLELY from the availability of guns.

 

A national registry to cut down on straw purchases and overall restricted access to handguns could certainly help to reduce the flow of weapons to the streets.

[Jenksismyhero]

so because YOU think nothing will help but a ban, and that a ban is unconstitutional, we should......... just do nothing? chalk this up to "s*** happens"?

 

then i nominate you to say that to the parents of those kids.

 

So because it's difficult to tell someone something it's automatically wrong?

[Jenksismyhero]

A national registry to cut down on straw purchases and overall restricted access to handguns could certainly help to reduce the flow of weapons to the streets.

 

Potentially, and i'd be fine with a registry of some kind.

[StrangeSox]

You're talking about banning handguns and assault weapons right? If not, others like SS are. And if we're back to simply "making it more difficult" then as I said on page 2 of this thing that solves nothing. Making it more difficult just means making the process longer. If you want a gun, you'll still get it.

 

First, I think I've waffled between a straight-up ban, which would surely be found unconstitutional by the current court, and much stronger restrictions.

 

Making it more difficult means less people will get guns. I see no reason to believe that NFA-style controls on handguns can't be effective.

[Jenksismyhero]

First, I think I've waffled between a straight-up ban, which would surely be found unconstitutional by the current court, and much stronger restrictions.

 

Making it more difficult means less people will get guns. I see no reason to believe that NFA-style controls on handguns can't be effective.

 

Do we have any proof of this here in the US? When the Brady Bill was passed and there was a waiting period enacted, did that curb the sale of guns? What will registration do? If you find out a guy is buying 15 guns over a two year period, are you going to send FBI agents to see what he's up to? What's the end game there? I could see it maybe helping if a specific dealership has sold a crazy amount of guns that happen to end up with criminals, but i'm not sure what the next step there is - arrest the dealership for selling a gun legally to a person legally able to buy the gun?

 

I just don't see an effective restriction here that's going to stop people that want guns to get them. Guns aren't a product purchased by people who are iffy on whether they want one. If you want one, you want it for a reason (hunting, sport, protection). We put up restrictions on the sale of alcohol and cigarettes, but if you want them, you're still going to get them.

[bmags]

We put up restrictions on the sale of alcohol and cigarettes, but if you want them, you're still going to get them.

So we should tax the hell out of guns and bullets too.

[Jenksismyhero]

So we should tax the hell out of guns and bullets too.

 

That's probably the best and most legal way to do it. Whether or not you can get past the lobbyists though is another question.

[StrangeSox]

Do we have any proof of this here in the US? When the Brady Bill was passed and there was a waiting period enacted, did that curb the sale of guns? What will registration do? If you find out a guy is buying 15 guns over a two year period, are you going to send FBI agents to see what he's up to? What's the end game there? I could see it maybe helping if a specific dealership has sold a crazy amount of guns that happen to end up with criminals, but i'm not sure what the next step there is - arrest the dealership for selling a gun legally to a person legally able to buy the gun?

 

I just don't see an effective restriction here that's going to stop people that want guns to get them. Guns aren't a product purchased by people who are iffy on whether they want one. If you want one, you want it for a reason (hunting, sport, protection). We put up restrictions on the sale of alcohol and cigarettes, but if you want them, you're still going to get them.

 

Yes. The weapons restricted by the 1936 NFA and the 1984 FOPA. It capped the number of these weapons that could ever legally enter into circulation. Thanks to both the red tape and high costs due to restricted supply, few people own fully automatic weapons (or suppressors etc.) and they are only infrequently used in crimes.

 

The AWB of the 90's was similar, but with the sunset provision, there was not enough time for that cap to start taking effect. Pre-ban weapons and accessories were still widely and relatively cheaply available, though I believe they fetched a price premium.

[Jake]

So my dad is an FFL which means he has had lots of people calling him to get them some assault weapons. He called his distributors and they all have said that every distributor in the US is completely sold out of assault weapons. Seems odd. I wonder if the distributors are hoarding them or if some retailer(s) bought them all out.

 

There is one big difference. In those other countries, they censor violence and celebrate sex. In America it's the opposite. A kid can watch someone get their head blown off, but god forbid he sees a boob!

 

That's not quite right. We censor sex more than anybody else, which is ridiculous, but they don't censor much at all, particularly in Europe. I will say that most filmmakers/creative minds abroad tend to lean towards sexual storylines because that is something more people relate to and they don't have to worry about the MPAA giving them an NC-17 rating.

 

And don't worry, Tea Party Nation says the problem here is too much sex! Our children become sexually frustrated and want to shoot people, I guess.

 

 

argument over Sandy Hook shooting ends in gunfire

 

http://gawker.com/5969933/argument-over-sa...ends-in-gunfire

 

 

 

If only the customer had been armed, too!

 

edit: This is why saying "we need to keep guns out of the hands of criminals/bad guys" is meaningless. I'm sure Davis was a Law Abiding Citizen prior to this, as was the guy who shot someone at Little Caesers, and Dunn, and Zimmerman, and, of course, Nancy and Adam Lanza.

 

Just because there are ignorant people that shoot each other for no reason, that does not mean we shouldn't target people that are obviously the wrong people. Like this guy, try to find a way to get illegal weapons off the streets. I still love that idea where you would give cash payouts for people to turn in illegal weapons. They might game the system a little bit, but in the end you're getting guns out of circulation.

 

 

See, this is the disconnect for me in this discussion. There are people who have guns, who have grown up with guns and don't live on top of someone else because they have land and space. They DO use guns on the weekends for kicks. I grew up with land and I would routinely go out and shoot at cans or clay pigeons or whatever. I wasn't killing anything. I wasn't shooting someone because I needed to wait for a pizza, I shot at a plastic or tin object because it was FUN to do.

 

Surprisingly i'm not some deranged individual that might shoot someone at any moment! Shocking!

 

Edit: bolded the wrong part. fixed.

 

 

I grew up with lots of land and I shot some stuff in the yard too. This is probably harmless. However, not many people can do this so IMO it hardly applies. But yes, like others were saying I could have driven my 4 wheeler drunk and whatever else and probably never gotten in trouble and possibly never hurt anybody but myself.

[ptatc]

I think this is one topic we don't really need analogies for to understand, it's just convoluting the argument. I have no doubt that is the aim of a few posters right now.

 

From a couple of pages to go, Jenks was arguing against that Heller was making it easier to restrict guns because there was no slippery slope. I tend to agree with him, however, I do believe it still left quite a bit of area for regulations on guns, especially concerning sales.

 

I'd prefer we really dive into the new assault rifle ban so it doesn't repeat the same mistakes. I'd like a hard magazine size restriction. I'd like Colorado's law to be encouraged federally by providing matching grants. I'd like gun shows to be shut down, or force any gun show seller to get a license and be forced to follow new regulations.

These are reasonable restrictions. No one needs a magazine of more than say 5 shots for semi-auto weapons. I'm not sure how you can keep guns out of people's hands and please most people. Most violent gun crimes are committed with illegally obtained weapons so it may not do too much. However, I'm all for things like this that could reduce the opportunity for mass killings.

[Y2HH]

honestly i hate when people say this.

 

 

You can have an OPINION on something like abortion when it comes down to whether or not you THINK the fetus is a person or not. THAT'S opinion. When it comes down to guns being designed to be used to intentionally kill large numbers of people, that's NOT an opinion, but a FACT. Just like it's a fact that cars are not made for the same purpose as a gun, thus car-related deaths are not comparable to gun related deaths in just about any respect.

 

It's an opinion, since not ALL guns are designed for such purposes. Some are. Some are not.

 

So like I said, thank you for proving me right with your open mindedness on what constitutes an opinion of the ONLY intended use for a gun. You made that easy.

[Y2HH]

These are reasonable restrictions. No one needs a magazine of more than say 5 shots for semi-auto weapons. I'm not sure how you can keep guns out of people's hands and please most people. Most violent gun crimes are committed with illegally obtained weapons so it may not do too much. However, I'm all for things like this that could reduce the opportunity for mass killings.

 

Exactly. Reasonable restrictions are fine, and should be put into place. This applies to just about everything around us.

[Reddy]

It's an opinion, since not ALL guns are designed for such purposes. Some are. Some are not.

 

So like I said, thank you for proving me right with your open mindedness on what constitutes an opinion of the ONLY intended use for a gun. You made that easy.

 

ugh the semantics with you.

 

fine.

 

guns are designed with the soul purpose of killing animals.

 

humans are animals.

[illinilaw08]

These are reasonable restrictions. No one needs a magazine of more than say 5 shots for semi-auto weapons. I'm not sure how you can keep guns out of people's hands and please most people. Most violent gun crimes are committed with illegally obtained weapons so it may not do too much. However, I'm all for things like this that could reduce the opportunity for mass killings.

 

I didn't grow up around guns. I have family and friends that did. There is certainly a time and a place for guns. ptatc's use is one that I think gets generally overlooked (farmer/rancher protecting their livelihood). I get the appeal of target shooting. I get the sense of security a gun provides in the home (probably a similarly flawed sense of security to my alarm system - input after a burglary this year - but I understand that).

 

When I get uncomfortable about guns generally are the examples cited above at the barbershop and at the Little Ceasers. People get mad. They see red and don't think. I would rather that, in that situation, the Law Abiding Citizen get mad enough to punch me rather than have access to a gun to shoot me.

 

The things that frequently get ignored in this debate are:

 

1) There are plenty of practical, reasonable uses for guns in a society (ban all guns!); and

 

2) Just because you are comfortable around guns doesn't mean everyone is comfortable around them (arm the teachers!).

 

We will never legislate away gun violence entirely. The goal should be to lessen the likelihood of another Sandy Hook. But it should also be to lessen the likelihood of the barbershop and Little Ceaser's shootings. Why that guy needed to be carrying while he waited in line for his pizza is something I just don't understand.

[bmags]

I didn't grow up around guns. I have family and friends that did. There is certainly a time and a place for guns. ptatc's use is one that I think gets generally overlooked (farmer/rancher protecting their livelihood). I get the appeal of target shooting. I get the sense of security a gun provides in the home (probably a similarly flawed sense of security to my alarm system - input after a burglary this year - but I understand that).

 

When I get uncomfortable about guns generally are the examples cited above at the barbershop and at the Little Ceasers. People get mad. They see red and don't think. I would rather that, in that situation, the Law Abiding Citizen get mad enough to punch me rather than have access to a gun to shoot me.

 

The things that frequently get ignored in this debate are:

 

1) There are plenty of practical, reasonable uses for guns in a society (ban all guns!); and

 

2) Just because you are comfortable around guns doesn't mean everyone is comfortable around them (arm the teachers!).

 

We will never legislate away gun violence entirely. The goal should be to lessen the likelihood of another Sandy Hook. But it should also be to lessen the likelihood of the barbershop and Little Ceaser's shootings. Why that guy needed to be carrying while he waited in line for his pizza is something I just don't understand.

 

Excellent post.

[StrangeSox]

^^

[Reddy]

so much win in that post.

[Steve9347]

[bmags]

Okay, close the thread before duke posts.