There's something I want done, but I don't have any solutions as to ho

[chunkymonster]

Im not asking what gun owners would do to lower gun deaths lol. Im asking whats the solution? How can a gun owning society be safe if any unhinged individual can go and get guns and ammo quickly and without a background check? I know you talk about NJ, but Im not in NJ and evidently CO has very lax laws concerning buying a gun. I was with a cousin a few months ago who went into a gun shop and walked out with a 38 special.

Unfortunately mingo, I can not think of any solution that is not either draconian or unconstitutional. Also unfortunately, part of the price of personal responsibility and freedom in American is the fact that some of the people will just not act responsibly or respect the rule of law.

It's funny that you mentioned "unhinged persons" because the liberals and progressive preaching some form of gun control in the recent new cycles realize gun bans are just not going to happen so they have decided to focus on laws that would prevent an unhinged person from buying firearms to begin with. Which again, I do not think can not be done without being completely draconian or wholly unconstitutional. How would that be done? Do you profile every single person in America for mentally unstable behavior? Who gets to decide what is considered mentally unstable behavior? Do you red flag all people who are on some form of anti-depressants? Or do you draw a line between someone on Zoloft compared to someone taking Clozapine?

 

[chunkymonster]

The wrong people have guns today which has to be stopped right away.

Who are the "wrong" people? Who decides who the wrong people are? Are there degrees to how wrong someone can be? Who determines which person is more wrong than another?

Oh, wait, I know marv...we should just inject a micro-chip into each newborn baby that records and reports their behavior to a centralized database running morality algorithms managed by a "Morality Committee". For every bad behavior they perform it increases their "Morality Quotient" by one point and conversely for every good behavior they perform it reduces their "Morality Quotient" by one point. That way, when they are reach the legal age of consent, there is a predetermine pattern of behavior and can sufficiently predict whether they are responsible enough to get a driver's license, responsible enough to raise children, responsible enough to buy an axe at Home Depot, or responsible enough to own a firearm.

With technology like that, we certainly would no longer have to worry about the "wrong" people getting there hands on weapons or other tools that have the potential to hurt, maim, or kill another person.

 

[jsc]

Vermont and most New England states arent densely populated enough to cause any trouble.

2000 national census:
Colorado: 50 people per square mile.
Vermont: 68 people per square mile.

--------------------------------------------------------

"Gun free environment" = "target rich environment".

 

[Crush3d]

The wrong people have guns today which has to be stopped right away.This is one prime example you quote.

I think that's the idea, but a perfect system is near impossible, if not outright impossible. I don't know the exact numbers, but I'd be fairly confident in saying the percentage of guns that are bought legally and used for a crime by the buyer is incredibly small. Similarly the percentage of buyers that use a legally obtained gun for a crime is surely very small. So in the vast majority of cases the system is working as intended. Even if you weed out all of the crazy people and ban them from buying guns, what's to stop someone who bought one 30 years ago from going nuts and using it to kill someone - it's impossible to predict.

Given that we cannot perfectly predict who will go batshit crazy at some point it seems the only way to prevent any crimes from legally purchased guns is to ban everyone from purchasing them.

What you are stating applies to many situations and is not limited to gun control. Doctors prescribe highly addictive pain medication all the time - often for the right reasons. The vast majority of people use it as intended and it serves it's purpose well. The parallel to your statement is banning pain medication because an incredibly small minority of people use it in an unintended manner.

This mindset it becoming ever more popular in our country and I hate it. It's the reason why whenever you buy something there are 20 pages of warnings in the manual - coffee is hot, so are curling irons and stovetops. There's a small minority of people that are just, for lack of a better word, abnormal and it's causing such a pain in the ass for everyone else.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Laws are simply deterrents, people actually have to stop crime.
Putting the cart in front of the horse is one thing, asking why it doesnt work this way is something else all together

 

[wanamingo]

Here is a nice easy question.
Should background checks be required for purchasing a gun?

More in depth.
What should be required to own a gun? (Valid ID, Pass a certification program, extended waiting periods, pinky promise you wont do anything stupid, etc)

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

All but the last, and maybe a few more, or a more complete design as to what the background check is.
Denial should be generally accepted as a common sense denial, so as to not keep rightful upstandings purchasers from their right

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

I learned from friends when young, as well as my father, even boyscouts.
I also remember the YMCA having a range indoors.

Training is only a good thing, and many dont have family and friends, nor certain access to it that shoot.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

And this is for those who dont even have this, as far as comments go.
I would place that on the local hunting community, as volunteer work, theres people out there.
It would take time, and no money.
This does happen today, but it isnt recognized officially.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Problem here is, transpotation
If youre caught transporting a gun, and it isnt secured properly, you get fined or worse.
If you do happen to carry, then you do need a permit.
To me, this is a problem solved, tho it doesnt address proper gun handling, which is needed.
Like schooling, where we see less and less parental design, support or rights, we will lose this as well if we dont do it right

 

[musical marv]

With all due respect Marv, How do you think that could be accomplished?

Criminals do not get their weapons through legal channels in the first place?

Legal gun owners that loose their minds either temporarily or permanent are not predictable events?

So how do you propose it be accomplished?

Do you realize how much money is invested in guns across the entire United States, and just how many guns we're actually talking about here?

I live out in the country 30 minute response time from the nearest Police facility, I have a Baby Desert Eagle 45ACP within hand reach at this very minute, anyone kicking in my front or rear door is not coming in my house to have tea and crumpets, but they'll be leaving in a body bag.

The weapons I have are for the defense of my home and family, I am not a hunter and never bought any of my weapons for hunting they are for home defense, I don't want to have to live with shooting someone, but if they enter my home, thanks to Uncle Sam's training I will not miss my target.

I live in an area that gangs have broken into innocent peoples homes and shot and killed the home owners, do you really think I would allow that in my own home, would you?

It is pathetic we have to have guns to protect us today.

 

[Reynod]

Luckily here I don't need a gun as we are more civilised ... like the Canadians.

Despite a poor pedigree start (like the US) we managed to lift ourselves out of the primordial slime and move forward onto the beach.

There we build surfboards and have stayed ever since.

The end.

 

[4Ryan6]

It is pathetic we have to have guns to protect us today.

Maybe a better thread title would have been;

There's something I want done, but I don't have any solutions as to how to accomplish it!

 

[Reynod]

The title of this topic has been edited by REYNOD

 

[Reynod]

To be fair to marv though I have to agree something has to be done.

Maybe we should limit US citizens to just one gun each ... and not let them take them:

1. To cinemas.
2. Schools and universities.
3. McDonalds.
4. The pub.

Actually If I listed all of the places where people seem to get shot the safest place seems to be ... the grave.

 

[chunkymonster]

Here is a nice easy question.
Should background checks be required for purchasing a gun?

Sadly there are no easy answers.

No. Backgrounds checks are technically unconstitutional. The right to bear arms is guaranteed and shall not be infringed; the verbiage is absolute. But because the 2nd Amendment did not include qualifiers about criminal history, mental health, etc, the liberals and progressives argued that a background check was technically constitutional. If a person fails said background check and he is denied the ability to purchase a firearm, that's when the background check becomes unconstitutional because the background check and associated laws infringe on that person's right to bear and keep firearms.

More in depth.
What should be required to own a gun? (Valid ID, Pass a certification program, extended waiting periods, pinky promise you wont do anything stupid, etc)

There should be no requirements to own a gun in America. Again, the verbiage in the constitution is absolute, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. But also again, given the 2nd Amendment did not include qualifiers about competency, the liberals and progressives argued that certifications, permits, waiting periods did not violate the constitution.

On a historical note, there was NO FEDERAL GUN CONTROL legislation prior to 1927. So, for the first 140+/- years of America's history, there were no federal laws restricting the right to keep and bear arms. So, what happened in the 1900's to suddenly change the previous 140+/- years? It was in the early 1900's that the Democrats and Progressives took control of Congress. Coincidence? Absolutely not! Gun control is and has been a tool of liberals and progressives to further turn America from a constitutional republic into a social democracy.

 

[4Ryan6]

The title of this topic has been edited by REYNOD

ROFL :lol:

Sorry Marv!

 

[wanamingo]

Sadly there are no easy answers.

No. Backgrounds checks are technically unconstitutional. The right to bear arms is guaranteed and shall not be infringed; the verbiage is absolute. But because the 2nd Amendment did not include qualifiers about criminal history, mental health, etc, the liberals and progressives argued that a background check was technically constitutional. If a person fails said background check and he is denied the ability to purchase a firearm, that's when the background check becomes unconstitutional because the background check and associated laws infringe on that person's right to bear and keep firearms.

There should be no requirements to own a gun in America. Again, the verbiage in the constitution is absolute, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. But also again, given the 2nd Amendment did not include qualifiers about competency, the liberals and progressives argued that certifications, permits, waiting periods did not violate the constitution.

On a historical note, there was NO FEDERAL GUN CONTROL legislation prior to 1927. So, for the first 140+/- years of America's history, there were no federal laws restricting the right to keep and bear arms. So, what happened in the 1900's to suddenly change the previous 140+/- years? It was in the early 1900's that the Democrats and Progressives took control of Congress. Coincidence? Absolutely not! Gun control is and has been a tool of liberals and progressives to further turn America from a constitutional republic into a social democracy.

Just a few quick things. If the founding fathers had the ability to make sure the person purchasing a firearm wasnt a criminal or mentally unstable would they have used that system? They didnt have the internet or anyway of verifying who you were what crimes you committed etc.

Do you think the founding fathers ever even considered what guns would be capable of when they created that document? I imagine Aurora would have been a much different story if he had a muzzle loader that had a 50/50 chance of blowing up in his face. Then it would take a minute (If he had been doing some serious practicing) to reload and fire again. We have guns that can reliably and accurately fire hundreds of rounds before needing to stop and reload. This would have been like an atomic bomb to someone in the 1700's, Madison would have *** himself if he knew what kind of weapons people are allowed to own.

Also in 1927 the senate and congress were controlled by republicans, so im not sure why you would blame Democrats and Progressives.......

 

[chunkymonster]

Just a few quick things. If the founding fathers had the ability to make sure the person purchasing a firearm wasnt a criminal or mentally unstable would they have used that system? They didnt have the internet or anyway of verifying who you were what crimes you committed etc.

Do you think the founding fathers ever even considered what guns would be capable of when they created that document? I imagine Aurora would have been a much different story if he had a muzzle loader that had a 50/50 chance of blowing up in his face. Then it would take a minute (If he had been doing some serious practicing) to reload and fire again. We have guns that can reliably and accurately fire hundreds of rounds before needing to stop and reload. This would have been like an atomic bomb to someone in the 1700's, Madison would have *** himself if he knew what kind of weapons people are allowed to own.

Also in 1927 the senate and congress were controlled by republicans, so im not sure why you would blame Democrats and Progressives.......

Debating what the founding fathers envisioned, would or would not have done, what system or check they would have used and such are all intellectually illogical arguments. We can only guess at what the Founding Fathers would or would have not done. But one thing we do have is the words, writings, and correspondence they left behind. And, based on all of their writings, from the Federalist Papers to the Constitutional debates, point to the right to keep and bear arms not being infringed by the federal government.

Wow! Someone is actually paying attention! I knew Republicans controlled Congress in 1927, it's nice to know someone is doing some fact checking. You go mingo!

So, with that said, let's look at what the Republican controlled Congress passed in 1927; in summary, they prevented the mail order of sales of hand-guns and stopped the U.S. Postal Service from being used as a carrier across state lines. The gun control advocates (the Democrat minority in Congress) failed to pass anything within the law that prevented commercial companies from transporting firearms across state lines and/or stopping the private sale of hand guns across state lines that used alternative shipping methods. So, effectively the Firearms Act of 1927 was a practice in ineffective politics and it did nothing to stop the sale of firearms to or from private citizens nor did it infringe on the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms.

Now, as you move forward in the history of who controlled Congress, every Congress starting with the 73rd Congress in 1933, it was Democrats who controlled both the House and Senate up until the 1980's. Also, as you move forward in the history of federal gun control legislation, it was with the National Firearms Act of 1934 were we begin to see the liberal and progressive ideology towards gun control be implemented by Democrat Attorney General Homer Cummings. Democrats knew, as a result of the failure of the Firearms Act of 1927, that an outright ban on guns and gun sales of private citizens was impossible and unenforceable. So, in typical liberal and progressive fashion, they exploited the Constitution to pass legislation, for the first time ever at the federal level, to require registration of firearms, levy heavy taxes on firearm manufacturers and distributors, and impose restrictions on the size, type, and supposed purpose of firearms.

So, yes, I blame the liberals and progressives for systematically infringing on my rights as plainly stated in the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Reynod]

Ry I'm blaming you if marv gos off at me ... you manipulated me with mind control.

Plus you have a desert eagle ... I have a katana.

Marv ... he made me do it !!!

 

[wanamingo]

Debating what the founding fathers envisioned, would or would not have done, what system or check they would have used and such are all intellectually illogical arguments. We can only guess at what the Founding Fathers would or would have not done. But one thing we do have is the words, writings, and correspondence they left behind. And, based on all of their writings, from the Federalist Papers to the Constitutional debates, point to the right to keep and bear arms not being infringed by the federal government.

Wow! Someone is actually paying attention! I knew Republicans controlled Congress in 1927, it's nice to know someone is doing some fact checking. You go mingo!

So, with that said, let's look at what the Republican controlled Congress passed in 1927; in summary, they prevented the mail order of sales of hand-guns and stopped the U.S. Postal Service from being used as a carrier across state lines. The gun control advocates (the Democrat minority in Congress) failed to pass anything within the law that prevented commercial companies from transporting firearms across state lines and/or stopping the private sale of hand guns across state lines that used alternative shipping methods. So, effectively the Firearms Act of 1927 was a practice in ineffective politics and it did nothing to stop the sale of firearms to or from private citizens nor did it infringe on the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms.

Now, as you move forward in the history of who controlled Congress, every Congress starting with the 73rd Congress in 1933, it was Democrats who controlled both the House and Senate up until the 1980's. Also, as you move forward in the history of federal gun control legislation, it was with the National Firearms Act of 1934 were we begin to see the liberal and progressive ideology towards gun control be implemented by Democrat Attorney General Homer Cummings. Democrats knew, as a result of the failure of the Firearms Act of 1927, that an outright ban on guns and gun sales of private citizens was impossible and unenforceable. So, in typical liberal and progressive fashion, they exploited the Constitution to pass legislation, for the first time ever at the federal level, to require registration of firearms, levy heavy taxes on firearm manufacturers and distributors, and impose restrictions on the size, type, and supposed purpose of firearms.

So, yes, I blame the liberals and progressives for systematically infringing on my rights as plainly stated in the 2nd Amendment.

I dont agree that you cant question what the original intent was. There were no laws against nuclear weapons in the constitution, so it is my right to bear arms as I see fit. I want a tomahawk missile, and my birthday is coming up (ill see if I can put it up on my Amazon wishlist)....Or should there be restrictions on what kind of armament I can have. Can I own a tank?

Now 1927 - pretty much the early 90's are a little before my time but you did give me some incentive to do a little google research into gun control. You hit the nail on the head with the firearms act of 1927 but your logic gets fuzzy after that. The 80th "do nothing congress" went back into the hands of republicans so its not exactly as you paint it, since democrats didn't control the house and senate for the time you listed. If you read what the FAA of 1934 is trying to do was bans guns that mobsters were using to inflict mass damage, much like laws today. They tried to ban fully automatic and snub nosed rifles that you could conceal on your person, except for handguns. So basically everything you could stick in a pocket and shoot someone with that wasnt a handgun was punishable with a fine. Not the greatest law, but definitely not some part of the liberal agenda to take away your guns.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

At the time, a fire arm was the second most powerful weapon on the planet.
Now, granting someone with such 'power', Im sure crossed their minds.
The constitution didnt give rights to carrying a canon tho

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Again, laws are but deterrents, people stops crime.

From the link:
"I don't happen to believe that America needs new gun laws. A lot of what this ... young man did was clearly against the law. But the fact that it was against the law did not prevent it from happening," he said.

So, in admittance theres little that can be done

 

[4Ryan6]

Ry I'm blaming you if marv gos off at me ... you manipulated me with mind control.

Plus you have a desert eagle ... I have a katana.

Marv ... he made me do it !!!

Marv I truly didn't mean to offend you and if I did I'm truly sorry, they don't let me out of the cage much, so when I get out! Hee Hee! MuHAHA! :lol:

Reynod, You're alright man! Ry

 

[wanamingo]

Marv I truly didn't mean to offend you and if I did I'm truly sorry, they don't let me out of the cage much, so when I get out! Hee Hee! MuHAHA! :lol:

Reynod, You're alright man! Ry

I giggled.