what gun control do you support?

Of course you are, Johnny. That's all we have heard form you. "Stop the slaughter, we have got to do something to stop this insane massacring to people"". The fact that we have over 24,000 gun laws in this nation but most are not being enforced means nothing to you. You want to manufacture a 100 more laws that will be ignored. Why bother??? Start enforcing the ones we have that ARE enforceable and get rid of the ones that can't be enforced.

 

Can you drive a car without a license?? It's done EVERY DAY!!! Can you fly a plane without a license??? If you OWN the plane, YES!!! Saw it happen many times.

 

Yes, we're going to argue over these 'gun' laws... but they WILL change. (I'm certain, because too many people have already died.)

- - - Updated - - -

And when someone's ass is locked-up because they broke the law, you would defend them?

 

We SURELY have not been doing the right things with our "laws".

And that, will change. It will take some time.

 

Funny, Johnny. Do we need a CWP/CCP to carry a weapon concealed??? Then how is it that people without one carry weapons and kill with them??? Only those that will obey the law will comply. Once more you want to restrict, suppress, and make life difficult for the law abiding with laws that will do nothing to stop or help the problem. And again, the 1934 National Firearms Act came about because of the St. Valentines day Slaughter. The Mob killing the Mob and the Government takes rights away from the law abiding citizens. What you propose would be doing the same thing.

 

We haven't been ENFORCING the laws we have. Obama wants to say that 2,000,000 people have been stopped from buying firearms because of background checks but a huge majority of those were cleared and allowed to buy the weapon but of the 10,000 or so felons that tried to buy a weapon only 40 were prosecuted, WHY??? Since we are NOT ENFORCING the existing laws what makes you think more laws will help??

 

The only mental health check that failed was the Virginia Tech one. Virginia never reported the mental illness to the FBI so they can add it to the NICS system. As such, the gentleman was freely able to buy a gun. This law was already in the books and they didn't oblige with it. As such, if laws are on the books that are meant to deter mentally ill folks from owning guns, that could've been one prevented right there. However, no new laws need to be added to aid in that process, it's already on the books.

So if there are mental ill folks around, no law abiding citizens should be able to own a gun? That's kind of a far reaching statement. You can require the guns to be stored all day. Do you know for sure that everyone is obliging with this rule? Even if they weren't, unless a crime is committed, what is it hurting anyone? More times than not, either the current laws weren't enforced or the guns were purchased illegally. Locking them might've slowed down Lanza, but his mother took him shooting and was a doomsday prepper. She trained him so he could fight with him, if the time came. Even if they were locked up, chances are she would've told him where to find the keys to unlock it.

What does a drivers license signify exactly? You can say that 'I'm licensed to drive my car'. Sure, but I don't think they automatically have the ability to drive. If I'm operating a vehicle without a license, what harm am I causing you? I'd garner that folks are driving around today on revoked/suspended licenses and/or expired registrations. Some people might not even be paying for car insurance but still have the same plates on their car. What's going to change the reality once they get into an accident with you?

So a database for a criminal won't work but a database for law abiding citizens will? I don't see how one will work and not the other as we currently have a database for sexual predators, seems to be working fairly well for them.

When I said private sellers wouldn't get access is because folks clamor about privacy. They don't want just anybody to have their information. Funny to me because it's not like the FFL's can't do the same thing, but I digress. If only the criminals or mentally ill are stored in a database, that information is then collected by the government and stored into a database, sure, I'll buy into a centralized database. Having my information out in no mans land as if I'm a criminal, no sir, I don't buy into it. I've done nothing wrong and don't need to have my information stored like some criminal. Those folks did wrong to society, collect their data, store their data, and run me against that system. If I'm not a criminal or a mentally ill person, what difference does it make what information is stored on the server?

 

And we have come full circle, ................again. The murder rate is down over 50% from 1991 and you are only starting to cry about people dying??? Things have been done but you refuse to look at what has worked and are insisting that only the way YOU see it will work. All I can say is, "I hope everything you come up with fails and the Constitution stays intact as written and with the meaning the Founding meant it to have"".

 

remember that when you want to restrict my Rights about anything. If it's good for me, it's good enough for you, since I'm not pursuing a course to take anything away from you............. you should be very glad I'm not after your 1st A Rights.

 

None until we have government control.

 

Oh gawwwwd, surely you're not just another who is imagining Obama taking over your rights with his drones??

 

I didn't say that you came up with that all on your own, it's a phoney argument...

now this is getting desperate and silly, an auto license signifies you have passed a competency test, it also signifies you have not had your license revoked for dangerous driving behaviour...go drive your car car and inform the first cop you see you have no license or have had it revoked and let us know the results, you can explain to the cop how you're not hurting anyone...without license requirements police have no power to prevent untrained or disqualified dangerous drivers from driving because there would be no rules preventing it..

the consequences for disobeying laws are the deterrent, failure to obey gun laws can lead to permits being revoked, the vast majority of law abiding people obey those laws, will it prevent every tragedy, no but it will prevent many...

sexual predators aren't buying anything...what criminal is going to go to a gun show and admit he isn't allowed to purchase a weapon? do you expect he'll give his true identity? and you already claimed gun dealers at theses shows won't be able to access the data base so there can be no instant sales for anyone including legal buyers...carrying a ID permit similar to a drivers license is not a burden or an infringement of rights, no one is seeing your personal info other than the agency that issues the card...you worried about being in a data base is irrelevant, you are already in numerous government data bases you cannot exist in modern society without doing so...you're already in all sorts of data bases schools, taxation, medical, census, home owner, car owner, boat owner, plane owner, sports associations, NRA, library, magazine subscriptions, cable subscriptions why don't you object to those? why object to one more that intends to exclude criminals and mentally unstable from purchasing a weapon?

- - - Updated - - -

silly...

 

That's exactly what you said. The difference is, Lanza wasn't able to get a gun but was still able to access his mothers guns.

I knew you'd take the extreme measures on this and never would face my questions head on. An auto license only signifies that you completed a government provided test in order to obtain an ID. It doesn't ensure your competency because if that was the case, there'd be a lot less people on the road driving and a lot less accidents. Competency is definitely not a glaring factor when going for a drivers license.

Whose to say it will prevent anything? Whose to say that any database that is created can state who will commit a crime? Even the most sane individuals can become the most insane.

I object to all centralized databases, this thread is simply on guns. However, they are now wanting to implant RFID's into people to create health care databases. It's getting to the point where it becomes pandora's box. Soon, my entire life will be in a database for all to see. If I can get at least one from forming, yeah, I'm going to fight against all that I can.

If folks want a centralized database, start gathering information on criminals & mentally ill and give private individuals access to it. Run my information against it, if I'm none of the above, there is nothing wrong with the sale. I don't see why I need to continue to subject myself to more government oversight. In the case of criminals and such, as long as the private individual checks the person buying the gun, it doesn't matter what the criminal claims to be.

 

Call back in twenty years when the sky is black with them and let us know what you think.

 

no I didn't your making extremely leaps of logic to excuse illegal behaviour...Had Lanza's mother not died she should've been prosecuted for allowing a mentally disturbed person access to weapons...my bro-in-law has his weapons secured as our laws require no one in his family can access them but him, he is the only one with an ownership permit...should he permit someone access to the weapons who is restricted from having a firearm and they commit a crime he will face the legal consequences...

US and Canadian driving tests are ludicrously easy but it's better than no test...your objections are grasping for straws...

it eliminates those most likely, those who are deemed high risk...those who have already disqualified themselves by their past behaviour...

your entire life is already in a database, from the day you were born until the day you die you have left a paper and electronic data trail, the government and many private agencies know everything about you, you have no secrets...

the only objection anyone can have to gun purchasing permits is if they have a criminal record or mental heath issues...all this feigned indigence over a data base that confirms gun sellers that you are Not a criminal and Not insane is hard to believe..."Hey I don't want gun permits because other people will know I'm not a criminal or mentally unstable" seriously, that's a rational/believable excuse?

really who wants to keep those personal facts a secret, aren't they what you would want people to assume about you anyways?...

 

I could've gone on to mention building permits, hunting permits, electrical permits, plumbing permits, fishing permits, travel permits(passports/visas) it endless but they're all there for good reason...

I'm beginning to strongly suspect many of those objecting to permits are doing so because they wouldn't receive them because of past criminal records or mental health issues...why would anyone object to a License/permit declaring them to be a morally and mentally fit member of society, trusted with owning a deadly weapon?

 

I'm not excusing any illegal behavior. Keeping your guns out of a safe isn't illegal, it might be in Canada, but it's not in the US. Lanza's mother probably would've been prosecuted, but she can't. However, for someone claiming that I'm pulling at straws, funny that person is moving the goal posts.

To disagree with my notion doesn't simply mean I'm grasping at straws. As I could say the same thing about your argument about having a drivers test is better than no test.

Create a database with those who've done wrong. No need to keep putting my information into another centralized database.

You keep going back to this with whoever is against it is either a criminal or mentally ill. May I remind you that I have a gun, went through the MD background checks, and it's currently registered in Maryland with a regulated firearm. Whether a centralized database is created or not, it isn't going to affect me because I know I'll still be able to get one. The difference is, I know it will become that much harder to do so. That's the difference you need to see. Prior to the Newtown shooting, I didn't even know there was such a thing as a gunshow loop hole. If I was a hardened criminal, I would've went that avenue first but I went through an FFL and got it done the legal way. I have nothing to fear.

What I'm saying is build a centralized database with the criminal & mentally ill's information. I'm against that, to be perfectly honest, but if you wish to push for anything, push for that. My information is already scattered enough, I don't need more people poking around in my private life.

 

you protest too much...the only people with your data are those who already have it, no one would see your data but that government agency that okays your weapon purchase and all they're revealing is that you're not a criminal or mentally unbalanced...

me saying you're grasping at straws would be overstating things a thousandfold...

 

Are you willfully ignorant? Without responding, I've seen other people tell you that they have nothing to hide/that they have a permit to acquire. I have a permit to acquire - I'm still opposed to a database.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and just assume that you don't know the primary purpose of the 2nd amendment, because if you did know and couldn't figure out why anyone would have a problem with a database, you'd have to be really slow.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/gun_control/65_see_gun_rights_as_protection_against_tyranny

That's the purpose of the 2nd amendment, at least as commonly believed, as a protection against tyranny. Now that you know, it shouldn't be hard to fathom why a citizen would be opposed to a government database of lawful citizens owning firearms.

 

not really. you just don't comprehend the basis of his rationale. You're on a political forum - the chances of you convincing anyone by holding steadfast are, what did C3PO say? You might as well just try to understand why people actually disagree with you.

 

Ha, I don't think I protest enough. My information is shared with a lot more people than just the government agencies. Maybe things are different in Canada and you see no worry with things being generally shared. I, on the other hand, would prefer not to share my information unless I provide it and it's needed.

Again, saying I grasp at straws is simply another way to deflect this discussion. I've provided my stances and I'll gladly accept your PAL system, as long as no centralized database is kept for law abiding citizens. The difference is, unless I completely conform to how you wish to implement it, I'm either a criminal, mentally ill, or grasping at straws. I can promise you, it's none of the above.

For the sake of continuing the continual moving of the goal posts & grasping at straws, let's just say we agree to disagree.

 

The only good gun control - a firm grip and steady aim!!!

 

Says you. For every one valid reason you can give me for these permits, I can give you a reason on how it's equally pointless.

Yeah, that's exactly it, because we all know that no guns have ever been registered in the US.

 

you mean regulating our Right. Those other things are privileges that need permits. Two vastly different things. And who is going to make these so-called determinations?
I don't know you got to be so full of yourself, determining what Rights we can have and how we can use them and we haven't broken any laws.
Man, what don't you get about your Bill of Rights?
So far, not one of the anti-gun crowd has answered these questions:
Who's Rights have I violated today?
What Right(s) would that be?
If I have done nothing unlawful, why would you even consider restricting or eliminating my Rights?

 

duh, those who have disqualified themselves through mental health issues and criminal behaviour disqualify themselves...

this must be brain torture for you, no one would be denying those rights...

again with the phoney argument where would your rights be denied? the only people denied anything are those who have forfeited them through their behaviour...this is no different than driving a car, no one is denied that unless they have medical issues that it dangerous or they have had that right withdrawn because of their unacceptable driving history...