Gun Control Middle Ground. Possible?

[Sapidus]

They did.



Using what criteria to form this conclusion? I can drive, vote and go into the military before then (I'm pretty sure the military is still a believer of letting a 17/18 year old carry)

I said it was my opinion.

Before that I believe a provisional license should granted to a parent or guardian like a learners permit.

 

[Sapidus]

Let’s say people agree to that, we won’t. But let’s say we do. How do you handle the millions of magazines out there that hold more than that?

Buy back programs are one option.

Obviously we can never remove what is out there already but we have to start somewhere if that is our end goal is to remove them from circulation.

 

[vraiblonde]

Yes. I think appropriate gun control is possible without infringing on the 2A.

That word..."control".

You're not going to "control" gun ownership. Period. If you could, wouldn't the folks who purchase them on the black market for drug selling or other criminal enterprise purposes be controlled already?

The simple fact is that you can ban all day long and make laws until you pass out from exhaustion, and the felonious among us will laugh and thumb their nose at you. Gun ownership will never be controlled.

So no, there is no such thing as "gun control" without infringing on our Constitutional right to protect ourselves. Gun bans and laws and what have you only curtail the law abiding, and they are not the problem.

 

[Sapidus]

That word..."control".

You're not going to "control" gun ownership. Period. If you could, wouldn't the folks who purchase them on the black market for drug selling or other criminal enterprise purposes be controlled already?

The simple fact is that you can ban all day long and make laws until you pass out from exhaustion, and the felonious among us will laugh and thumb their nose at you. Gun ownership will never be controlled.

So no, there is no such thing as "gun control" without infringing on our Constitutional right to protect ourselves. Gun bans and laws and what have you only curtail the law abiding, and they are not the problem.

So should we not control drug use and sales?

Crime control?

What about licensing , training and registration?


Let’s have a productive discussion.

All the people on the pro gun side so far have all basically said go to hell you have to pry them from my cold dead hands.

 

[black dog]

I said it was my opinion.

Before that I believe a provisional license should granted to a parent or guardian like a learners permit.

I wasn't aware that getting a driver's license was a given Right?
Please post where that is written...

 

[vraiblonde]

What makes you think criminals will obey gun laws when we cannot get them to obey any other laws?

 

[Gilligan]

Crime control?
.

What is that? You mean like how passing all sorts of very restrictive gun laws fixed the problem of rampant gun violence in places like Baltimore and Chicago?

 

[GURPS]

With the idea that we are all too close to the situation is there a list of common sense ideas ....

none of the alleged 'common sense' new gun laws would have stopped any of the mass shootings in the last 25 or 50 05 100 yrs

I believe that the well regulated militia portion can be taken to mean that there needs to be a training or regulating requirement prior to owning a gun.

'Regulated Militia' has NOTHING to do with the individual right to Posses a Firearm.

I believe that limiting high capacity guns in some capacity is necessary.

What exactly is a 'high capacity gun'
if you cannot familiarize yourself with the technical terminology how can we trust you to be specific with the laws

the time to reload takes 1 - 3 seconds wither it is a 30 round magazine or a 10 round magazine .... the shooter in the Parkland incident used 10 round magazines

I believe the age should be raised to 21 nationwide.

irrelevant ... the MAJORITY of mass shooters are well over 21

Buy back programs are one option.

where are you getting the money for this ?

I see no problems with expanding background checks, making mandatory training courses for ownership .....

how exactly would these 'reduce' gun violence .....
criminals by definition do not follow laws ...

how would these reduce mass shootings ...

 

[black dog]

Let’s have a productive discussion.

All the people on the pro gun side so far have all basically said go to hell you have to pry them from my cold dead hands.

It's so simple, but you have yet to grasp the simplest of paragraphs. When you can do that you will realize that there is not anything to change in the 2nd amendment.
It states it plain and simple.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.[/B]

 

[transporter]

In another thread two posters were discussing.


One ( This person)said that these students need to recuse themselves from the conversation about Gun rights as they are too close the situation to be objective.


The other ( Midnight Rider) said that in that case then gun owners should also recuse themselves as they are too close to the situation to be objective.


With the idea that we are all too close to the situation is there a list of common sense ideas we can agree should be enacted without infringing on peoples rights and still maintaning the spirit and language of the 2 amendment?



A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

My opinion: Feel free to disagree



I believe that the well regulated militia portion can be taken to mean that there needs to be a training or regulating requirement prior to owning a gun.

I believe that limiting high capacity guns in some capacity is necessary.

I believe the age should be raised to 21 nationwide.

Why are you even asking this question on here? You got the exact ignorant responses that you should have expected. The answer, on here, is no....it is no because the majority of folks on here aren't very bright. They only know what they are told by the NRA and Fox News. Christ Black Dog and Kyle can't offer anything more than idiotic slogans and Vrai offers her usual inspid thoughts.

As much as I despise the majority of his comments, Gilligan seems to be one of the few on here who has actually knowledge of actual firearms. Unfortunately, he has little ability to apply that knowledge or use any level of common sense.

Justice Stevens went way too far in his op/ed yesterday. 2a does not need to be repealed...but his statement about militias being a relic of the past is correct.

Yes, the age to own a gun should be raised. The points made about other things folks can do under 21 are irrelevant.

Limiting high capacity magazines makes sense and in no way infringes on the right to own a firearm.

Since so much of gun violence is perpetrated by young males (many under the age of majority), I think the owner of the weapon used should stand trial next to their kid. If you are a parent and uses your gun to injure or kill others, your ass should catch the same charges as your kid...because the firearm was the parent's responsibility. Throw a few irresponsible parents in jail for a few lifetimes...see if that doesn't get the message thru.

But no...there is no middle ground in America on any issue any longer...just read the crap that is posted on here every day all day long.

 

[GURPS]

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) and Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) authored the Ammunition Background Check Act. From The Sun-Sentinel:

Wasserman Schultz dismissed the argument that what she called “common sense gun safety laws” would infringe upon Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms.

“You do not have the right to bear bullets,” Wasserman Schultz said at a news conference at the Pembroke Pines Police Department, where she was joined by political leaders, a police representative and teachers and students from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.

 

[Sapidus]

I wasn't aware that getting a driver's license was a given Right?
Please post where that is written...

Again. I said it was my opinion.

I didn’t say it was a right.

I’m stating my opinion as I said at the beginning of the thread.

Feel free to disagree but don’t put worlds in my mouth

 

[GURPS]

I think the owner of the weapon used should stand trial next to their kid. If you are a parent and uses your gun to injure or kill others, your ass should catch the same charges as your kid .... because the firearm was the parent's responsibility. Throw a few irresponsible parents in jail for a few lifetimes ... see if that doesn't get the message thru.

considering how few are killed each yr, compared to gang violence what exactly would this accomplish :shrug:

 

[vraiblonde]

All the people on the pro gun side so far have all basically said go to hell you have to pry them from my cold dead hands.

I'm going to talk to you like you're a human until you get abusive and I lose interest.

That is not what they've said. Several posters, including me, have given valid reasons why laws and regulations won't work toward the intended purpose of eliminating, or even dramatically curtailing, gun crime and murders.

The right to protect and defend ourselves IS a right under our Constitution, and it shall not be infringed. But put that aside, and proposed regulations and bans STILL won't amount to squat because people who obey laws are not the problem.

That is pure common sense that cannot be denied.

 

[Sapidus]

Why are you even asking this question on here? You got the exact ignorant responses that you should have expected. The answer, on here, is no....it is no because the majority of folks on here aren't very bright. They only know what they are told by the NRA and Fox News. Christ Black Dog and Kyle can't offer anything more than idiotic slogans and Vrai offers her usual inspid thoughts.

As much as I despise the majority of his comments, Gilligan seems to be one of the few on here who has actually knowledge of actual firearms. Unfortunately, he has little ability to apply that knowledge or use any level of common sense.

Justice Stevens went way too far in his op/ed yesterday. 2a does not need to be repealed...but his statement about militias being a relic of the past is correct.

Yes, the age to own a gun should be raised. The points made about other things folks can do under 21 are irrelevant.

Limiting high capacity magazines makes sense and in no way infringes on the right to own a firearm.

Since so much of gun violence is perpetrated by young males (many under the age of majority), I think the owner of the weapon used should stand trial next to their kid. If you are a parent and uses your gun to injure or kill others, your ass should catch the same charges as your kid...because the firearm was the parent's responsibility. Throw a few irresponsible parents in jail for a few lifetimes...see if that doesn't get the message thru.

But no...there is no middle ground in America on any issue any longer...just read the crap that is posted on here every day all day long.

Unfortunately you seem to be right. I stated clearly it was my opinion I was putting forth and then everyone just screamed about No Never not over my dead body.


So I guess just keep letting kids get slaughtered. Mental health and more policing in every school would cost a hell of a lot more then instituting training and tracking for gun purchase.

To add to your list I would say that owning a liability and insurance policy would also be a necessary step to gun ownership as well as licensing and training.

 

[black dog]

Again. I said it was my opinion.

I didn’t say it was a right.

I’m stating my opinion as I said at the beginning of the thread.

Feel free to disagree but don’t put worlds in my mouth

Your opinion also ends at your nose. Be careful where you push, someone might push back.

 

[This_person]

I believe that the well regulated militia portion can be taken to mean that there needs to be a training or regulating requirement prior to owning a gun.

Common sense, general language usage, and I disagree. A well-regulated militia implies that the militia is what is to be regulated, not the people outside of the militia (i.e., before/after the militia is formed).

I believe that limiting high capacity guns in some capacity is necessary.

Then you are taking away that which is necessary for a free state - that being a militia composed of we, the people, with our own weapons. You would make America weaker by limiting the capacity of magazines or otherwise infringing upon the rights of the people to keep and bear arms.

I believe the age should be raised to 21 nationwide.

If you're going to raise it, why 21? Why not 25, when the brain is fully matured? Of course, the argument to do so would require raising a national drinking age (which doesn't exist), raising the national age to drive a car (which doesn't exist), and raising the age of being able to sign a legal contract or be held liable for one's actions.

We have chosen as a society that one is responsible for one's actions at the age of 18, allowing for limited driving privileges before that (depending upon state and circumstance). I think the argument could reasonably be made that arms are available to only those 18 or older in public (private use - like hunting on private land or target shooting on private land, etc. - is just that, private and should not be regulated at all). But, once 18, I cannot see a good reason to restrict any law-abiding, mentally-sound person from having any arms they choose, in plain sight or hidden.

 

[nutz]

I said it was my opinion.

But it needs to be readdressed because it did not fit your agenda?

Before that I believe a provisional license should granted to a parent or guardian like a learners permit.

So, at 18 I can enter into legally binding contracts but need mommies/daddies permission to get a gun? I can defend your rights, but I can't have my own?

 

[This_person]

I wasn't aware that getting a driver's license was a given Right?
Please post where that is written...

Tenth Amendment to the Constitution is the legally-binding spot that's written.

 

[Sapidus]

I'm going to talk to you like you're a human until you get abusive and I lose interest.

That is not what they've said. Several posters, including me, have given valid reasons why laws and regulations won't work toward the intended purpose of eliminating, or even dramatically curtailing, gun crime and murders.

The right to protect and defend ourselves IS a right under our Constitution, and it shall not be infringed. But put that aside, and proposed regulations and bans STILL won't amount to squat because people who obey laws are not the problem.

That is pure common sense that cannot be denied.

What about the 35,000 accidental deaths a year ?

What about the kid who took his parents guns. Maybe if those parents had a safety class that told them the statistics and likelihood involved with not locking up your guns they would have secured them.


If you go back you will see posters saying NO MORE compromise.

That is not reasonable in the face of uneccaeart deaths of any kind. We can always find ways to limit the amount of dead unnecessarily.