what gun control do you support?

If you are convicted of a violent crime using a firearm, you do not deserve to taste freedom. Ever.

Your second amendment rights become irrelevant at that point.

 

Here's the problem I see with this, Johnny. This is the same problem I see from a lot of other people that want to do something and don't really know what is the right way to go about doing it. You state that we need to do research in order to determine what's best, as you can't state which law will work. In yet, right below your post I'm quoting, you state that it's just the beginning on 'waiting period, registration, background check, no high capacity clips'. To me, you've already begun to contradict yourself.

Moreover, here's my issue with research. Let's say we implement all 4 of those. Gun violence still goes down, but mass murders still occur. The economy gets better, people are going back to work, and everything seems to be on an uptick. Gun violence continues to fall, including mass murders. If we then come and say 'we want our high capacity clips back'. You and the remainder of the folks who've advocated for it will tell us flat out 'no'. This is because you will say it was included in all of the research and is proven to lower gun violence as a whole. The fact of the matter is, all of the research will include it within it. Never will it demonstrate if all of this would've went down anyway, even if the other 4 were still not implemented.

That's my issue with it because you won't accept any research until they're banned. Even if we conclude that gun violence is still going down, you've already said you won't accept not doing anything. All that I've advocated to try, to see if we can lower gun violence, you've yet to tell me you support it or not. In yet, all you ask for is banning of things. Then, on the flip-side, state you have no idea they will work or not. This is the same thing that happened with marijuana. One researcher stated it would cause harm to everyone, we've made it illegal. Now that research is coming out showing that it is more helpful than harm, it's still an uphill battle to get it legalized. In yet, so much research could've been done if only it had remained legal in the first place and many folks would've been without pain through all of their horrible diseases.

Again, I don't expect you to change your mind or go with anything I've suggested. You and the rest of the folks who want change are hard set on what you want done. I would imagine you want to re-instate the assault weapons ban (Probably something that mirrors Dianna Feinstein's bill), lower the magazine capacity, universal background guns, gun registration for every owner, a minimum of a 3 day wait period, you would probably also support a mandatory gun safe, and subject all gun owners to a random check to ensure it's all in line, right? In yet, if I tell you how to fix the NICS system issue (Which, I've gone back and forth with Daggdag over), legalize marijuana to lower the crime rate (Plus, this will also take away the drug cartels money supply as it's known marijuana is propping up the other drugs around the world), and look at fixing the regulation issues with the FDA (In part because of the messed up drugs the FDA would rather citizens take over better ones from around the world (And cheaper, I might add)), you'll probably tell me it's not enough.

All in all, the VT shooting wouldn't have occurred if the VA state would've provided information to the FBI so they could've updated the NICS system. This shooting could've been prevented. Furthermore, Jared Loughner lied on his ATF 4473 form when he stated he wasn't an unlawful user of marijuana. Folks who knew him called him a 'pothead' and the US army even rejected him because of his addiction (More information here: http://robdoar.com/jared-loughner-did-not-legally-obtain-a-gun/). So he obtained his guns illegally as well. Another mass shooting that should've been prevented. We all want gun violence to go away, taking legal law-abiding citizens guns & rights to buy these type of guns away isn't solving the issue. I've said my last piece on this because I know folks won't change their mind on any of it and nothing I say will change it.

 

NONE. How many video cameras do you support in your residence, you weirdo MOFO?

 

I will admit to ANYONE that I don't have THE answers; but I'm certain that many of us can contribute to ideas and suggestions on the matter.

In that same sense, I'm sure that as much as you think you know... you don't have THE answers either. If you do have the answers, I'd be pleased. But I'm a realist, I do know that the answers will be a long time coming and will require many years of study plus the necessary trial and error to effect what is ultimately most appropriate.

And yes, I think there are too many guns out here. I think they are too EASY for just any 'yahoo' to get their hands on and that there is too much literal firepower in the hands of individuals.

We can disagree on that, but be certain that I WILL advocate to have affected those very things I've listed above. I KNOW that I won't get exactly what I 'want', but that isn't what I'm aiming for. I want the problems mitigated and for this society to have a more serious mindset about the same. This insane, self-destructive and unwise notion that MORE guns in society is equal to being 'right' or 'good'... needs to be tossed out on its head.

 

That pic made me laugh...thanks man..LOL

 

The problem with your approach and the dismissal of the idea of rights based law depending on what some study group or authority figure (scientist) decides pretty much negates the idea that rights should be protected.

Also, if we are to use science and the idea that the collective has more rights than the individual then you must agree that all of those dangers that are greater than guns should also be limited. For instance, vehicles should be banned since they cause so much death and destruction. Hammers kill more people than rifles do so you must agree that more hammers is insane, etc. You must be able to see the absurdity of your limited argument. One can only surmise that it is based on emotion instead of logic.

 

I'm not trying to suggest that any basic right be taken away; I'm no extremist. But we must/shall ultimately consider as a society what "law" is best for ALL to live under.

And certainly, firearms are a controversial and contentious issue in this society. And no, I'm not going to ever again cling to the notion that the status quo will do. I'm going to continually advocate for fine-tuning and reassessing whatever laws exist. Matter of life/death such those related to firearms (and other technologies within modern society) are worth the attention and effort they may muster.

 

I agree it's too easy for some 'yahoo' to get a gun. But is that my fault? I have zero control over what is handed over to the FBI so it can be reported in the NICS system. As I stated before, had VA given the information to the FBI, the VT shooting never would've occurred. Folks aren't updating that system, unlawful folks are getting their hands on these guns, and it's causing a big mess. I won't refute that point and I haven't. BUT, the stuff that has been there to properly report these folks so they are prevented from getting guns isn't done as it should've been done. That's the point I've been trying to get at.

I don't have the answers, I admit that as well. However, I will say that I know disarming and/or punishing law abiding citizens isn't the right method either. What folks have begun to do is demonize us all, as if we're the criminals. I did nothing wrong and I don't plan on doing anything wrong with my sporting rifle (And my Ruger SR40C, when I get it). That's what I want people to understand. You're not punishing the criminals, they'll figure out how to get the weapons (As noted, Jared Loughner lied on his ATF 4473 form, he automatically became a criminal before he even owned his gun). You're only punishing me and the remainder of the law abiding citizens.

On the other hand, suicides are on the rise, especially among veterans. The study has shown that veterans & civilians are killing themselves more often than not. We're not looking into that either. There are bigger issues than just guns. If we fix the reason behind why folks believe they should do the things they are going to do, gun violence will go down. http://blog.thenewstribune.com/military/2013/02/01/new-va-study-shows-rising-suicides-among-veterans-and-civilians/

 

This isn't exclusively about YOU (per se). If it were THAT simple, things would be great.

 

It's about me and all of the other law-abiding citizens.

 

In essence, that is true. Even so, I'm not about unreasonable diminishment of basic rights... though you and others may perceive it as such.

This is a NATIONAL debate, that I'm happy the nation is having.

Thank God!!!

 

Then you understand that laws do not stop crime but only set punishment for actions taken. If laws passed do nothing to deter crime but place increasing burden on law abiding citizens then the slow encroachment of tyranny is the only active action taken. This is one reason the Founders felt the need to enumerate a couple of the unalienable rights in the constitution even though all unalienable rights are protected even though not enumerated, to make it clear for future generations seeing the ability of government to eventually violate rights for the "common good".

Lawful possession of firearms has been around for hundreds of years and the problems we are seeing in society are not suddenly being caused by inanimate objects that did not cause the problem before. You must look at the reason this change has taken place and fix the foundation, not just put up more fences. If you are not happy with the status quo, then don't change things just for the sake of change but fix the real problems. What are they? They are myriad yet you cannot get the public to agree on any of them because they go deep into well established belief systems, for instance, the death of religious teaching and the acceptance of anything goes, the victim mentality of certain groups and idea that they are owed by others, the government taking over individual responsibilities with social programs and the list goes on.

 

Show where I've ever claimed that laws with stop crime. That isn't what I'm advocating and never have. Even so, laws can/do mitigate rates of crime; that is reality.

I don't claim any perfect suggestions or answers here. Please stop pretending that is what I am doing. You either agree with my views or you do not. All I'm doing is advocating for all Americans to remain AWAKE on the issues surrounding firearms in this society. Ignoring the problems before us, will not improve outcomes.

More firearms in people's hands, isn't something that anyone has convinced me is the best solution to what we are facing.

 

And most people of the nation don't even understand the laws that are already enacted much less the Constitution or Bill of Rights. These are the folks who we all rely on to make the best judgment to vote our politicians into office. Jim Moran, who is in the 8th district of VA, is one of the most corrupt politicians in the House of Representatives. In yet, he's the one pushing for some sort of anti-gun legislation.

Here's a thought, I'd actually buy into any gun legislation when you take the corruption out of our government. Until that time comes, I'll take my guns & my freedom, you keep the change.

 

Well, that is reality. We are dealing with HUMAN beings... we do not ALL want the same things, in the same way. There WILL be compromise; it is inevitable.

 

By your own implication, controlling what people chose to own is the only suggestion you have so far. You have convinced no one that what people choose to buy and own is the problem.

 

Your language is 'extreme'. And of course, there isn't ONE SINGLE RIGHT we possess that has not been regulated or qualified in some way.

I cannot see how 'firearms' (sales, possession and use thereof) cannot fit into that reality.

I fundamentally disagree with those who propagate the notion that people should easily attain weapons or own just any weapons technology they prefer. I'm NEVER going to agree with that misguided view.

 

The only time that rights are regulated, and again by laws that set punishment, is when they violate the rights of others. In reality, rights are not rights if they violate other's rights. This should be apparent to all but then many people do not understand what unalienable rights are. The right to free speech is inviolate unless it violates other rights. For instance, yelling fire in a crowded theater can violate the right to life by stampede for the exit and the property owners rights by the damage caused. Yelling fire at home does no such thing and is not regulated.

This can be used as an analogy for the right to keep and bear arms. The firearms a person owns do not violate the rights of others unless the owner intentionally tries to violate others rights. Those laws are already on the books.

What you are arguing for is to violate rights plain and simple. There is no other way to describe it.

 

The problem is nothing, outside of what you agree with, is what you will support. Nothing anyone else has suggest, you've supported. This is the same as with everyone else. So you wonder why folks won't budge, it's because we're met with the same force.

Universal background checks is the only one so far that I will support. It's the only one I see that will aid in stopping the guns get into unlawful/criminal hands. However, these laws need to be enforced. As history has proven, the government does a real crappy job of enforcing any laws they put onto the books (Just like MD, it's unlawful to buy/sell certain weapons in MD, but you can manufacture them there. So Beretta can't sell their guns in MD, but they can make them. Stupid laws, I know). So I wish not continue to subdue myself when the government makes these ridiculous laws. Maybe you wish to have a false sense of security, I live in reality.

The rest I've stated, I'll support as well. Of which, they're the only ones, with enough common sense, that can actually stand a chance in lowering gun violence. You say there are too many guns in America. How many of those guns do you believe have been sold there by corrupt individuals (And I'm not talking everyday citizens like you and me)?

 

The problem with universal background checks is that for it to be effective would require national gun registration. That has already been made illegal by Congress. The only way you would ever know if a gun has been property transferred would to be able to look it up in a database to see if the gun was in the proper owners hands. Otherwise it is a useless and ineffective law.

That and criminals get their guns from family members or theft and would never go through a background check so the law again burdens only law abiding citizens.

 

Aye, but I'm not asking for a universal database that tracks guns. What I'm talking about is in regards to having a complete & up-to-date NICS system. From there, allow private citizens to run background checks against those folks in the system, not just the FFL dealers. No information that tells me how many or what type of gun someone has. Just tell me if they're approved or not, the rest doesn't need to be included.

If the case is to be made to register guns, then I'm advocating everyone provide a sperm/DNA sample into a database. This way, if someone rapes someone, they have the information on file.

 

Barking up the wrong tree. It shouldn't.

- - - Updated - - -

Barking up the wrong tree. It shouldn't.

 

Any country that allows its citizens an easy means to kill one another is not fit for self-government, surely?

 

I'm strong in my position, that is what I'll advocate for. Why would I support what I do not agree with???!

I'm absolutely against propagating the notion that more firearms, and excessive levels of firepower, in the hands of whoever wants them... would be the way forward. That is ludicrous to me.

Of course I'm not budging, when that is how the NRA and others have indoctrinated a vocal FEW into believing. Most people want stronger policy on the issuing and proliferation of firearms in this society; and the culture of DEATH where fear, racism and greed PUSH us toward an arms race that will be perpetual, needs be 'affected'... for the sake of saving as many lives as possible.

 

Gun control? 2nd amendment? Bahh! You all can bash each other silly over all of that. I have two dogs with deep, gruff barks and bear spray. If someone wants to kill me then have at it. Save some virus or mutant gene the trouble.