Gun control with brains

[Quetzal]

If you have an answer or rebuttal, please get to it.

Let me ask you one question, why are you against background checks for firearms?

 

[PureX]

He is essentially advocating that a person's constitutional right to privacy should be violated in order to exercise their constitutional right to bear arms.

Everyone is given an eye test before receiving a license to drive motor vehicles. Blind people will be tested and refused a license to operate motor vehicles.

Everyone is given a written test that they must pass to be given a license to operate motor vehicles. Mentally handicapped people will be given that test and refused a license to drive motor vehicles when they fail it.

Do you see these instances as invasions of their privacy?

Do you see these instances as an unreasonable assault on their individual rights as citizens?

Do you see the way we manage the ownership and use of motor vehicles in our society as fundamentally 'wrong' in some way? And if so, how so?

And if we can manage hundreds of millions of people owning and operating hundreds of millions of motor vehicles through the systematic training, testing, and licensing, why do you think we couldn't or shouldn't do a very similar thing with firearms?

 

[bybee]

Sadly, yes. Which is why we have had to fight to defend those "unalienable rights" ever since: to live, to live according to our own will, and to pursue our own well-being and happiness.

And it's those same "decedents of Cain" living among us, today, that are still trying to usurp our unalienable rights, so as to impose their will on us, and on everyone and everything … so as to become like gods, themselves.

This was mankind's original sin, and it is still the sin hidden within all the others.

Sadly so.

 

[Yorzhik]

Not necessarily. In the Biblical view, it seems that there is an absolute morality that is independent of God. See the discussion between Abraham and God about the destruction of Sodom.

You have a point. However, the meaning of rights is not that they can be taken away, but that they cannot be taken away justly. And it is God that is the guarantor of justice. Therefore, one can use "rights from God" as a figure to encompass the entire system as created by God, including an independent morality utilized by His creation.

So what simple phrase do you think would be better to differentiate between rights as an attempt to be implemented by man and rights that are transcendent?

 

[rexlunae]

First and foremost, laws will never stop criminals from gaining guns illegally. That's why they are called criminals, they break the law. Gun laws would only take guns away from law abiding citizens, the very people we ant to have guns.

Oh, look, there it is, the very obviously false nonsense at the core of at least 99.95% of all pro-gun arguments. There's no point in making anything illegal because criminals don't obey the law. Why even have laws? It's just as easy to acquire something that is illegal as something that is legal, and well-meaning, generally law-abiding people never ever accidentally hurt someone. So lets not bother.

Why don't you guys take deep breath and admit the truth: It doesn't really matter if gun laws could save lives. You don't want to do it because you think your freedom would be forfeit, and you're willing to let people die because you're too scared of that possibility to try to do something meaningful about it.

 

[bybee]

Oh, look, there it is, the very obviously false nonsense at the core of at least 99.95% of all pro-gun arguments. There's no point in making anything illegal because criminals don't obey the law. Why even have laws? It's just as easy to acquire something that is illegal as something that is legal, and well-meaning, generally law-abiding people never ever accidentally hurt someone. So lets not bother.

Why don't you guys take deep breath and admit the truth: It doesn't really matter if gun laws could save lives. You don't want to do it because you think your freedom would be forfeit, and you're willing to let people die because you're too scared of that possibility to try to do something meaningful about it.

So, all of the legislation already on the books is not meaningful?
What would be meaningful?

 

[Totton Linnet]

Except that men being men, once a certain type of man tastes power he is corrupted and will inflict his control over those who simply wish to exist in peace. Metaphorically, when Cain felt anger because his brother showed a more generous nature, he picked up a weapon and bashed his brother's brains out. Thus began the saga of man.

I cain't prove this but I think Abel smiled....I do know Cain was a gloomster for his countenance fell.....there are certain naughty boys who will trample on flowers.

 

[jzeidler]

Oh, look, there it is, the very obviously false nonsense at the core of at least 99.95% of all pro-gun arguments. There's no point in making anything illegal because criminals don't obey the law. Why even have laws? It's just as easy to acquire something that is illegal as something that is legal, and well-meaning, generally law-abiding people never ever accidentally hurt someone. So lets not bother.



Why don't you guys take deep breath and admit the truth: It doesn't really matter if gun laws could save lives. You don't want to do it because you think your freedom would be forfeit, and you're willing to let people die because you're too scared of that possibility to try to do something meaningful about it.

http://youtu.be/nz1XuHC9pIg

Our right is more important than your dead!

 

[jzeidler]

Gun control with brains

jziedler …

I greatly appreciate that you're at least giving the issue the serious consideration that it deserves. Many, here, aren't bothering to do that. They're just mindlessly spouting off their political party propaganda without even questioning it. Thank you for not doing that.

It will be obvious to anyone with any sense at all that some sort of regulation is needed, and that what we are doing now is not working. So the question becomes what kind of regulation, and who will be responsible for this regulatory oversight? And I think you hit on the crucial factor in that the goal here is not to stop people from owning firearms, but to stop people who are likely to misuse firearms from getting access to them. Firearms are deadly, but that doesn't make them 'bad' or 'evil' in and of themselves. They are just tools that can be used well, or badly. So whatever system of oversight and regulation we set up, it needs to focus on identifying the people who are most likely to misuse firearms, and then stop those people from gaining access to them, while helping everyone else who wants to own and use firearms do so, responsibly.

This being the case, there are a couple of things we can know about what we need to do:

1. The system has to be nation-wide. The problem is nation-wide, and so the solution will need to address it that way. No 'states rights' arguments or special exceptions can be allowed. And all the information regarding eligibility/ineligibility and licensing has to be available and enforceable in all states via a national data base.

2. Firearm function and design varies widely depending on the intended purpose of the weapon. So that the criteria for determining ownership eligibility should also be varied, and also depend on the intended firearms owned and used by the applicant. A hunter that only wants to own long guns for hunting would not need to be screened, trained, and tested to the same degree of complexity and scrutiny as someone who wants to own semi-automatic handguns for self-protection in the home or at work. And we would want to insure even further expertise if they intend to cary such weapons among the general public.

3. The scrutiny needs to be ongoing. Just because someone takes the requisite training and passes the requisite tests to gain a license to own and carry firearms in public today, doesn't mean they will still be equally qualified and responsible carrying firearms in public five years from now. Especially if in the interim the licensee has shown himself to be socially irresponsible in other ways (received a DUI, been involved in domestic disputes or disturbances, etc.). Or perhaps there has been some physical deterioration, as we are all getting older. The point is that if the right to own and use firearms is to be genuinely overseen and properly regulated, it will have to be both proactive and ongoing.

4. And as an addendum to point #3, the right to own and use firearms must be predicated on the subject's overall mindfulness of their social responsibility. The biggest factors in predicting who will be likely to abuse a firearm is a person's general disregard for themselves, for others, and for the peace and order of society as a whole. People who abuse intoxicants, both legally and illegally, are showing themselves to be unmindful of their own health and safety, and of the health and safety of others. People who drive recklessly; drive too fast, fly into a rage behind the wheel, and disregard traffic signs and signals also show themselves to disregard their own safety and well-being, as well as that of everyone else on the road. People who can't manage to get along with other people; those who are intensely self-righteous, controlling, intolerant, and adversarial, also tend to be those who have little regard for the rights or well-being of others.

These are the kinds of people who when pushed to extremes by drugs or alcohol, or by relationship problems, or by economic instability, tend to use firearms to kill themselves, their family members, or friends, or coworkers, or strangers. And so these are the kinds of people we need to be on the lookout for when determining who can be reasonably expected to own and use firearms responsibly, and who cannot.

Thanks man for your complement. I appreciate that.

You're totally right when you say this: "the goal here is not to stop people from owning firearms, but to stop people who are likely to misuse firearms from getting access to them. Firearms are deadly, but that doesn't make them 'bad' or 'evil' in and of themselves. They are just tools that can be used well, or badly. "

However, some of your points infringe upon the second amendment, thus making them unconstitutional and illegal. Point's 2,3, and 4 are infringements upon people's right to bear arms and would be unnecessary if a psych evaluation and strict punishments for gun related crime was implemented.

Anything that takes guns away from anyone for any other reason other than them committing a violent crime is a violation of of the 2nd amendment. There needs to be stated in law that there can never be a gun ban/grab or gun buy back. And gun free zones should be illegal

 

[aCultureWarrior]

You're totally right when you say this: "the goal here is not to stop people from owning firearms, but to stop people who are likely to misuse firearms from getting access to them. Firearms are deadly, but that doesn't make them 'bad' or 'evil' in and of themselves. They are just tools that can be used well, or badly. "

Wolves in sheep's clothing (which PureX is) will say anything to repeal the 2nd Amendment. Learn the techniques of the enemies of freedom jz and you'll be a much wiser man.

 

[alwight]

Wolves in sheep's clothing (which PureX is) will say anything to repeal the 2nd Amendment. Learn the techniques of the enemies of freedom jz and you'll be a much wiser man.

Always trust uncle aCW for honest misinformation. :chuckle:

 

[PureX]

Thanks man for your complement. I appreciate that.

You're totally right when you say this: "the goal here is not to stop people from owning firearms, but to stop people who are likely to misuse firearms from getting access to them. Firearms are deadly, but that doesn't make them 'bad' or 'evil' in and of themselves. They are just tools that can be used well, or badly. "

However, some of your points infringe upon the second amendment, thus making them unconstitutional and illegal. Point's 2,3, and 4 are infringements upon people's right to bear arms and would be unnecessary if a psych evaluation and strict punishments for gun related crime was implemented.

Anything that takes guns away from anyone for any other reason other than them committing a violent crime is a violation of of the 2nd amendment. There needs to be stated in law that there can never be a gun ban/grab or gun buy back. And gun free zones should be illegal

People's right to bear arms is not absolute. That would be absurd.

Please answer the questions in post #82 to see what I mean.

 

[HisServant]

Am I for gun control? Well... Yes and no. Let me explain.

I have talked this through pretty heavily with my wife and have come to the conclusion that yes I am for gun control. But only in a way where there are stipulations on buying a gun instead of making laws on people who have guns, the guns themselves, or where you can take a gun.

What I mean is that the gun isn't the problem and laws will never fix the problem of gun violence. So, what I advocate is that those who want to buy a gun should take a psych evaluation and go through an in depth background check (obviously political and religious views would not be involved.) If they do not pass either of these they should be rejected. But those who can pass these should be able to buy any kind of gun and as many as they want.

Gun control should be something that makes sure guns never get into the hands of psychos while at the same time letting law abiding citizens get as many guns as they desire. Furthermore, guns should not have a restriction on where they can be. There should be no gun free zones because it is in those places that people are killed with no way of defending themselves. And if these are implemented gun owners who prove that they are stable and good law abiding citizens should be allowed to buy any kind of gun they want. Assault rifles should be allowed to people who don't pose threats to individual people. We should be free to own weapons, I would be okay with allowing artillery as the founding fathers originally intended, there just needs to be stipulations, evaluations of the people, and the ability to safely keep them. We should be free to have the right to own weapons.

Also, those who end up committing a violent gun crime should automatically receive 25 years in prison and have all their guns taken away with no ability to buy guns again.

Now, I am strongly against gun control by laws which is what Obama wants. First and foremost, laws will never stop criminals from gaining guns illegally. That's why they are called criminals, they break the law. Gun laws would only take guns away from law abiding citizens, the very people we ant to have guns. So just on that making gun laws is pointless. But there is another side to the coin. Not only is making gun laws pointless, they are dangerous. They are dangerous because what is being proposed is against our rights, the gun itself, the gun owner, and where guns can be.

Obama is proposing laws similar to the UK and Australia which implemented confiscation among other things. This is done out of a flawed reasoning that says that the gun, not the person is the problem. This, if tried here would go against our second amendment and would start a second civil war. It would start a war not because Americans love their guns, it's because Americans love their rights and the ability to defend themselves both from home intruders and from tyranny.

This whole talk about gun control is deeper than Americans wanting their guns. It is about Americans not wanting their rights infringed upon by an overreaching government. They don't want to give up the right to defend themselves against intruders and tyrants alike. This is why it is such a big deal.

But, there needs to be two simple things put in place in order to keep guns out of psychos hands and those need to be headed up by the individual states and local governments instead of the federal government.

Gun control should be something that makes sure guns never get into the hands of psychos while at the same time letting law abiding citizens get as many guns and any kind of gun as they desire. This is done by stipulations on buying a gun, not laws on guns or gun owners.

The bill of rights was designed to restrict government from regulation certain activities... all regulations regarding anything in that bill should be struck down summarily.

If the citizens want the ammendment repealed, then it should be up for a vote, but we should never allow government to chip away at those restrictions and gain more power over us (and keep in mind, that I do not own a gun and do not plan to... gun ownership is a right that those that chose to can participate in).

 

[jzeidler]

The bill of rights was designed to restrict government from regulation certain activities... all regulations regarding anything in that bill should be struck down summarily.



If the citizens want the ammendment repealed, then it should be up for a vote, but we should never allow government to chip away at those restrictions and gain more power over us (and keep in mind, that I do not own a gun and do not plan to... gun ownership is a right that those that chose to can participate in).

You are 100% correct.

 

[PureX]

The bill of rights was designed to restrict government from regulation certain activities... all regulations regarding anything in that bill should be struck down summarily.

But that's idiotic. The purpose of government is to protect not just our individual rights, but our collective rights as well. Including our collective right to live in a reasonably safe environment. Blind people are denied their right to operate motor vehicles. People infected with deadly contagious diseases are denied the freedom to risk infecting others. Our right to free speech does not include the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. And we incarcerate people for the abuse of our collective rights and security all the time.

No individual right is absolute. Every individual right must be weighed and balanced against our collective rights and responsibilities as members of an integrated community.

How can you not understand this?

 

[HisServant]

But that's idiotic. The purpose of government is to protect not just our individual rights, but our collective rights as well. Including our collective right to live in a reasonable safe environment. Blind people are denied their right to operate motor vehicles. People infected with deadly contagious diseases are denied their right to risk infecting others. Our right to free speech does not include yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. And so on.

No individual right is absolute. Every individual right must be weighed and balanced agains our collective right and responsibilities as members of an integrated community.

How can you not understand this?

"Those that give up their rights (liberties) for safety deserve neither"... to paraphrase Ben Franklin.

 

[PureX]

"Those that give up their rights (liberties) for safety deserve neither"... to paraphrase Ben Franklin.

That's idiotic. People have to sacrifice some of their freedom and autonomy to live together in peace and relative harmony. What you're advocating is complete selfishness, and complete disregard for the well being and security of your fellow human beings. That's no kind of Christian I've ever heard of.

 

[HisServant]

That's idiotic. People have to sacrifice some of their freedom and autonomy to live together in peace and relative harmony. What you're advocating is complete selfishness, and complete disregard for the well being and security of your fellow human beings. That's no kind of Christian I've ever heard of.

What I am advocating is personal responsibility... not collectivism or socialism, which is what you are advocating.

Why do you want to deprive other people of their rights?

And like I said, the proper way to deal with this is a constitutional amendment.

Basically, you are advocating tyranny.

 

[rexlunae]

http://youtu.be/nz1XuHC9pIg

Our right is more important than your dead!

That was an unhinged and horrible little tirade. But at least it's honest. He prioritizes the right to bear arms before the right not to be shot. I really suspect that's at the heart of gun control opposition in most cases, but good on him for actually saying so. It's a lot better than pretending there's nothing that can be done.

 

[HisServant]

That was an unhinged and horrible little tirade. But at least it's honest. He prioritizes the right to bear arms before the right not to be shot. I really suspect that's at the heart of gun control opposition in most cases, but good on him for actually saying so. It's a lot better than pretending there's nothing that can be done.

There is no "right not to be shot".... that would be covered as a crime and the laws of the land should deal with that.