Guns [Politics/Religion]

Not to make light of Seamie's post at all but he brought up the ease with which we may buy guns in the U.S.  Specifically handguns.

Thoughts?  Not to go all 2nd Amendment here 'cuz I'm not really "that guy" but I enjoy guns.  I don't want a CCW and I don't keep a loaded machine gun under my pillow.  I just like to shoot for sport.  It's a great deal of fun. 

Grew up hunting birds and shooting trap too.  Shotguns are a blast.  Need to get back into that.  Never been big on long guns other than owning the obligatory Utah boy's .22 rifle.

Pro guns.  Anti nut-jobs.

(I put the P&R tag on this just 'cuz but it's my hope this remains REALLY civil.)

I think I fall squarely where you are Wiskers.  I own a shotgun and and enjoy sport clay shooting.  Haven't done it a few years.


My take.  We need gun control.  Period.  I think what needs to happen is we need to take the blinders off, and stop pacifying some groups, and just take a hard line.

Identify the weapons, and make the change.  Period.

Both sides feign confusion.  Bull*feces*!

You can have this:



You don't need this.   And you know it.

I don't own a gun, but I don't support stringent gun control (read: bans).  I do think one should have a thorough background check before the firearm may be delivered.  And "thorough" takes in people who voluntarily check into mental health facilities as those who have sought mental health care within the last, say, three or five years.  You can do the latter by diagnosis codes rather than get deeply into private health records.

Stroh, one aspect of We The People being armed is to enable said People to stand up to the Government, with force if necessary.  Not that I think We stand a chance in hell, but that's a bedrock notion underlying the Second Amendment.  Between that and the fact that shootings really aren't being committed with AK-47s, the push to ban assault weapons seems more like the government trying to weaken the capabilities of the people they seek to prevent from throwing off a yoke of tyranny, should that situation arise.

And the NRA defends against it, realizing (correctly, I believe) that once Government and gun-control advocates are permitted to "line item veto" certain weapons, they will not be content with merely assault weapons and will target the next deadliest weapon ... and then the next ... and then the next ...  Ban assault rifles, watch the gun-related death rate not fall substantially, blame it on the most lethal weapon now available, ban that one too, rinse and repeat.  For this reason, otherwise rational people who themselves don't think assault rifles should be in private hands nonetheless find themselves forced to defend against a call for exactly that ban.

To my mind, the trick isn't keeping all guns away from people, it's keeping guns away from the wrong people.  I don't mean laws should make it harder to purchase a gun, but they should make it harder for people with documented mental imbalances and criminal records to obtain them.  Laws should mandate training in use and safety, including safe home storage.  Penalties for gun-related crimes should be stiff -- something like an automatic 50% surcharge on the sentence, for example.

Done rambling. 

I also grew up in a family that hunted.  I did the gun safety course thing as a youngster and fequently went dove, quail, geese and duck hunting up until I was near 16.  By then I pretty much lost interest and found other things to do with my time.  So I have no real problem with guns designed for sport be it shotguns or rifles.  I still have my over and under 20 gauge shotgun from back in the day.

But I agree with stroh that we need serious gun control and I don't feel automatic weapons are necessary at all.  The ease with which one can easily get an assault weapon is sickening.  And I think the idea that more people should legally own and carry them to make "us" safer is ridiculous.  I think an outright ban on assault weapons would be best.  Notice the VT kid got all his stuff legally.  At least make the loaner that has no friends and may someday snap try real hard to get one by finding the black market.  Not sure how that loaner with no friends can come up with one illegally.  We all know I buy certain black market items but would have no idea where to find all those black market assault weapons all the criminals supposedly have connection towards so says the NPR wingnuts.  Not to mention the guns that end up there were meant for legal sale of some sort.  

I also am not so naive as to say the issue is that simple.  We are terrible at addressing mental health in this country.  We sweep it under the rug and act as if it doesn't exist.  So many children and young adults have no access to quality help should they need it.  I think mental health should be near the top of our priorities when we strive for access to health care.  That is the real crisis that we aren't doing anything to solve.   So we have isolated masses often with undiagnosed or misdiagnosed health issues that can easily go out one day they snap and kill as many people that are in the room.  If anyone has seen someone on the wrong medication or combination of medicines for their mental illness.  It can make a "normal" person do crazy ass things.

Over here, to own a gun is a privilege not a right.
To buy a gun you need a license and need to be checked out etc etc.
Of course the unsavory scrum are going to get their grubby little hands on a gun, but I feel it stops the majority of nutcases from getting their hands on a gun and causing carnage.
I feel much safer with our gun laws.

Therein lies the problem with that particular interpretation of the 2nd Amendment--one of practicality. If We The People stand up to the government, whether it's with an AK-47 or a pea-shooter, we're going to get our asses kicked. What practical purpose does this amendment serve then? The ONLY way any individual (or a group of individuals) has any chance of standing up to a tyrannical US government would be with nuclear arms. Does the 2nd Amendment give me the right to put a ballistic missile silo in my backyard? If not, where is the line drawn in regards to what kind of "arms" are applicable to this amendment?

In this modern society, in which the vote, IMHO, is much more powerful than back in 1787 (simply because of our ability to exchange information), the 2nd Amendment's usefulness as a practical means to stand up to the government is obviated. All it is now, is a symbolic measure of freedom--nothing more.

completely agree.  Then why the "militia" part to the amendment.  If everyone was entitled to a handgun in their pants, why add the "well regulated militia" part?

Do you think the colonists were confident they'd defeat the Germans?

--John Blutarsky