Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
My stand is simple - XAND (or as others call it NXOR). Either yes for both or no for both.
-
Features
A Question for Gun Advocates
- Thread starter T.G.G. Moogly
- Start date
To me it would depend on how it was carried. Weapons should be required to be secured around children except in a one-on-one supervision situation. Anything where a kid could slip a gun away from someone not paying enough attention isn't adequate for a school environment to me.
A rife carried on the back with the strap crossing the body would be acceptable.
For concealed carry I would say under-clothes (not merely under-jacket) holsters would be acceptable.
So, you advocate that individual U.S. citizens ought have the right to own nuclear bombs.
arkirk
Veteran Member
There should be a place for education and a place for the macho to go and let off steam at a gun range. People should not be entering and exiting schools with guns all the time. You know so fucking much about guns...how about learning a little about civil behavior. People need to not be so married to their guns they cannot go anywhere without them. Only frightened small minded people are so insecure in their persons they always need their trusty firearm. When they force this intimidating exposure to the danger of firearms on others, they are violating those others.
DBT
Contributor
Given that a comprehensive background check, medical and police records, shows that an individual is of sound mind and is not prone to impulsive rage based reactions, is given a firearm permit, when to carry a firearm should be up the the discretion of the individual.
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
Since apparently you advocate that the government ought have the right to own nuclear bombs, then sure I advocate the same for the people.
Scrapping seized guns is just a waste of money and a payoff to the gun manufacturers. The cops should simply sell them to a secondhand gun store.
As I said before, it's a spectrum and the controls on civilians with the big guns should be as strict as the military controls on the same weapons.
Note that the military control on nuclear weapons is two-man control and nobody with issues in their personal life is allowed near them, period. This completely precludes private possession of nuclear weapons. Ownership is a separate issue, though. A private individual should be able to own a nuke, although they will never have physical possession. While this might seem nonsensical there are cases where it still could be useful. Acme Asteroid Mining wants to bring a rock into high orbit and decide Orion is the way to do it. They buy the bombs and pay the Air Force for a crew to deploy the bombs. NASA has to verify that no propulsion failure could put the rock on an impact trajectory.
I'm astonished that you can divine that, given that I've said nothing about what tI think the government ought be able to own.
Yet, you've studiously avoided my question three times now. So, I'll phrase it another way:
If you could determine the law in the United States on this one matter, would you forbid the U.S. government from owning nuclear arms (thus forbidding them for citizens), or would you allow nuclear arms for the government (thus allowing them for citizens).
arkirk
Veteran Member
DBT
Contributor
Presumably, given they are deemed to be of sound mind and are considerate of the needs and wishes of other people, they would respect your wishes and would not bring guns into your home.
Crazy Eddie
Veteran Member
At the 25.
Anywhere there's people.
There are certain groups of people who have demonstrated such a high degree of imbecility, such overwhelming stupidity, such epic failure to demonstrate the faculties of basic responsibility that they should UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES ever be allowed to own firearms.
Our Congressmen are such a group.
No. Guns have become much more powerful and lethal over the years to the point that their ownership should be a privilege, not a right.
No.
HELL no.
Hockey fans are another such group that should never be allowed access to firearms, ESPECIALLY hockey fans en route to a hockey game.
Soccer fans are another such group, for similar reasons.
I agree. I also think that the licensing requirement should imply a certain minimum degree of proficiency and safety training so that you can reasonably claim that you can safely handle the firearm, that you know how to avoid accidental misuse, that you know how to keep it out of the hands of unauthorized users, and that we can be sure that if you DO need to use it, that you are likely to be judicious and rational in that use and that you will not pose a bigger hazard to the public than your NOT having a firearm would.
The Second Amendment was almost entirely an appeasement to the Southern states, who relied on private/local/state militias to deter and suppress slave revolts and/or slave escapes. The need for a "well-regulated militia" specifically addresses that issue of domestic insurrection in the early days of the United States and has now become entirely obsolete.
To be sure, the role of the "well regulated militia" imagined by Second Amendment fanatics (aka "Gun rights advocates") is accomplished by State National Guards. That is, IF it ever fell to the citizens to take up arms against a tyranical government, it would have to happen at the STATE level -- Jefferson Davis style -- and not at the level of "private/local/town militia." It would basically come down to the combined forces of, say, the Virginia, Alabama, Texas and Florida National Guard storming Washington D.C. and overthrowing the government because Obama. The National Guard IS the "well-regulated militia" the Second Amendment calls for; it is all our country needs, and it is the only segment of our population that actually NEEDS to have access to firearms. For the rest of us, they are sporting instruments or anti-pest devices, and you need to be able to demonstrate your suitability in either case.
EPresence2
Member
That would be true if straw purchasing etc. was less of a problem - it could be worth it to get more guns out of circulation. I seriously doubt you know it wouldnt be.
DBT
Contributor
Getting guns out of circulation is a good thing if the guns are in the wrong hands and likely to be used for the wrong reasons. Hence comprehensive background checks and legitimate reasons for ownership. Getting illegally owned firearms out of circulation being the aim.
EPresence2
Member
Reducing the potential for straw purchasing and gun show exchanges for illegal uses is the aim - the gun control metric being the relative proportion of guns purchased legally that end up being used illegally. The "law-abiding citizen" part of this tired old comeback: "Gun laws only take guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens" still applies to buyers that intend to sell them in straw purchases or gun shows. Obviously, you can't legislate against an intention, but there could be a means to identify straw purchase agents without infringing upon
Last edited:
T.G.G. Moogly
Traditional Atheist
This is the most reasonable, sensible and civilized option. It isn't a perfect solution and wackos right and left will scream the first time there is an incident, but such an arrangement does the most good for the most people. Coupled with property rights and professional responsibilities where an owner or a manager can prohibit firearms at his discretion I think it is the only arrangement that works.
It seems the reasoning for firearm ownership is twofold, personal protection and constitutional guarantee. Both of those are important imho and both can be accomplished by implementing such an arrangement. We do it for lots of other things so why not firearms?
T.G.G. Moogly
Traditional Atheist
No it isn't. But I can see how you would interpret it as so.
If I had to pass the same test to drive car I could say, "So I can get to work so I can feed my family. So I can engage in recreation. So I can buy food. Etc. In the case of guns if can be for personal protection and because of constitutional guarantee.
If I wish to own an arsenal of hundreds of guns and thousands of rounds of ammunition I should certainly have to measure up to a higher standard. This is the foundation of a civilized society. I should also be required to accept liability for those firearms, same as I do any other possession.
Are you claiming that firearm ownership is special and should not come with accountability?
EPresence2
Member
In other words, comprehensive background checks do nothing about illegally owned firearms. Someone could pass a comprehensive background check and then turn around and sell their firearm to someone who couldn't get one - thus moving more guns into the illegal portion of gun ownership. We need something really innovative to track guns used illegally back to their straw purchase agents to apply some liability (if they haven't reported their gun stolen or sold). I'd suggest having two serial number locations - one that can be easily seen and filed off and another you'd have to destroy the gun to get rid of.