informal poll–how many favor limits on certain firearms

Okay. I can’t resist. This is the conversation that is happening, so here is my bit.

Arms are already restricted. Citizens cannot have anti-aircraft guns, right?

There are already lines drawn. So there is no debating that. There is only the debate about WHERE that line is drawn. I don’t have any affection for guns. I don’t really get the attraction myself, and if I could just push a button and be done with it, I’d just get rid of ownership of guns altogether because a gun’s purpose is to kill, and I just don’t really consider killing a recreational activity, and I don’t think guns are actually used for self-defense anywhere near as much as gun advocates would have us believe. That’s how I “feel” about guns.

But, having said that, I don’t “advocate” banning gun ownership anymore (I did 30 years ago) because I can sort of empathize with the “thrill of the hunt,” and I can’t see a moral distinction between hunting down a deer and a livestock slaughterhouse, and I like pepperoni. I also understand that there are some kind of legitimate issues surrounding population control of wild animals though I don’t know much about that. Handguns creep me out, but I’m content to live with you all owning them because I know I am not likely to be affected personally by those guns. You are much more likely to be affected by those guns – negatively, btw – but you are an adult, and you can run that risk if you want, and expose your family to that risk, I guess. I don’t think it is wise, but I don’t think it’s wise to get drunk and have unprotected sex with a stranger either, but go for it if you want.

Now I don’t know anything about guns to speak of. I don’t know what the exact classifications are, or anything really. But I haven’t heard any argument justifying citizen possession of AR-15s, and guns like that. They are bad news, and it amazes me they are legal. I would get rid of those in a second, and I would probably draw the line at clips bigger than 6 rounds or so.

And for the love of god – this I don’t understand – I would have a process for this. I mean we all have to take an education course and pass a test, then get trained and practice for months of driving before we get a license to drive a car. Why on earth do we not do that for the possession of a lethal device? I would mandate education on the care, use, storage, etc. of guns by a certified instructor, and require a written test. Then I would have training in a firing range and a test of a person’s ability to properly handle the weapon before granting a license for that gun. And I would require licenses for different categories of guns the same way there are different licenses for cars, motorcycles, big rigs, and so on. I seriously can’t believe anybody can walk into a Wal-mart and buy a gun. That is so completely ridiculous it boggles my mind.

You get a background check. You get educated. You get trained. You get a license. You go buy a gun.

So let it be written; so let it be done.

Pretty civil discussion about an emotional topic. Kudos. I see the heat, anger, frustration, and stuff, but you guys keep a good lid on it. The discussion usually devolves way before this.

Anyway, if I can weigh in with a point of view that has already probably been reflected, I will share my thoughts.

I don’t want to take away rights. This is a country that has guns. Guns are a part of this country’s culture and identity. I also don’t think there is any real campaign to take everybody’s guns away.

But I think there is a reasonable level of regulation, and it seems clear that tighter restrictions are in order. I think registering weapons, background checks, safety training, and that kind of stuff is just obviously in order. I am no expert on current regulations.

The argument against further regulations, when I have personally had the discussion, is that it isn’t fair to punish law abiding citizens for the actions of criminals. I understand that to mean that the registration, background checks, and stuff like that are taken as punishment. I don’t see it that way. I’m not claiming that that is the only counter-argument, or that I understand it correctly.

Also, I have heard it repeated that if a killer is going to kill, he doesn’t need a gun, and regulations and restrictions will be of no use. I don’t think tighter regulations will end all gun violence. But what if it reduces gun violence by some percentage? I think it is reasonable to expect that it would.

I’m not against concealed carry, because I know some concealed carry folks, and they are the people I feel comfortable carrying guns. That is an admittedly narrow-sighted view. But the training and education required for such a permit is a great idea, and I think gun owners should have to go through similar training and education. It is like saying: “yes, you have the right to own and operate this deadly weapon, but, because it is a deadly weapon, we can’t just take your word for the fact that you are good to go. So you can earn a permit.”

I don’t understand how anyone can rule out the fact that guns play a part in the problem of gun violence. I hear it repeated that it’s not the gun, it’s the person. Why wouldn’t it be reasonable to think it might be a little of both, or at least that maybe it would be a good idea to take steps to make it more difficult for the wrong people to access guns? Sure, it would make it more difficult for everyone, including law-abiding gun owners, but isn’t that a small price to pay?

Anyway, nice to see people fight nice.

We already have enough laws. Within the context of those laws no limits on firearms for law abiding citizens.

nittany ram wrote:

Guns should be registered and users should be licensed. Semi-autos should be banned.

Not sure if this breaks the informal rules of the thread, but I second Nittany. That was quick, concise, to the point. Something I struggle with on online forums.

;>)

zn wrote:

My view of all this: supreme court precedent has already established that reasonable limits and restrictions and controls on firearms are viable. And I am for that.

It’s all a matter of voting.

Other than that I think it’s a “religious conflict” between competing worldviews. No “fact” is going to win a debate like that. Neither is any particular quip or slogan.

That makes sense. It is a matter of voting. And it would appear that, with no majority to support Heller any longer, the SCOTUS may help further change the voting course. It already has, allowing two states to maintain their assault bans in recent days. My guess is, if Scalia were alive, we’d have a 5/4 ruling against those bans.

That said, even under Heller, restrictions and regulations are Constitutional. Even Scalia said the right was not unlimited and that government could impose limits.

But, yeah, religion.

You can have my 155mm artillery piece when you pry it from my cold, dead trailer.

I’d focus more on registration, psychological and back ground checks with a 30 day waiting period. I’d also mandate training and firearm safety.

• This reply was modified 7 years, 11 months ago by Ozoneranger.

I’m with Nittany, Billy and Zooey here.

Ban the big ones. Training and licensing for the rest. Of course, that’s an amalgimation of all their opinions, that’s what I’m going with.

I’ve thought about it and the ONLY answer is going to involve some measure of radical change in some fashion.

In this heavily polarized environment, there is no incremental change coming nor is any incremental change possible that can’t be overcome by persistence.

Insofar as that goes, there is no way for this to be solved where everyone is happy. This is NOT a case where Solomon can ask for a sword to split the baby in two and the real mother will reveal herself by surrendering her interest.

I’ll vote later. Point of this post is to say that I have no faith in any “middle ground” solutions. Even things like registrations are unlikely to happen because of the mythology that registration is how the government will eventually disarm the population once the One World Government comes to power. Thus, it’s NOT about any individual “right” or even the Constitution.

Many of these gun rights proponents are steeped very concretely in this prophetic One World Order and Biblical Prophecy orientation.

Thus, there is nothing rational possible to be had in any conversation about “gun rights”. Even the slightest restrictions must be fought because any impediment will be equated as a brick on the pathway to disarmament, an untenable situation for the coming trials ahead.