Right to bear arms - Yah or nay

Right to bear arms - Yah or nay


  • Total voters
    127

Dogbert

Helsinki Smash Rod
Joined
Nov 15, 2008
Messages
6,458
Location
N38? 43', W90? 22'
Car(s)
Roger Dean's Rocks
Well, if you want to get into the "reducing death" debate of the argument, how many accidental deaths each year are caused by firearms? How many of those could have been prevented with basic instruction?
 
Last edited:

LeVeL

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
12,910
I'm curious. Are all murderers, or people who're willing to commit crimes with the aid of a firearm, mentally unstable? Would more licensing and instruction really weed any potential killers out? Is it something that a generic test could identify? Because it seems to me that most crime is the result the poverty or possibly greed. Insisting on more licenses and instruction would probably just make the killers more proficient with their weapons. I doubt you'll weed out any killers or reduce deaths. Felons and the mentally unstable are already banned from owning weapons.
Most crimes are commited using unlicensed/stolen firearms
 

TC

aka TomCat
Joined
Dec 11, 2005
Messages
11,436
Well, if you want to get into the "reducing death" debate of the argument, how many accidental deaths each year are caused by firearms? How many of those could have been prevented with basic instruction?
True, which is something I could support. But how exactly would that go? It would be less then a dozen questions long really and it's all common sense.
 

Momentum57

worships the 2010 Prius like a god
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
2,204
Location
Denver, CO
Car(s)
It's A HONDA! Clarity Plug In Electric
Well, if you want to get into the "reducing death" debate of the argument, how many accidental deaths each year are caused by firearms? How many of those could have been prevented with basic instruction?
I don't want to get into the reducing death debate but your right it should be added to the education curriculum for elementary schools.
 
Last edited:

Dogbert

Helsinki Smash Rod
Joined
Nov 15, 2008
Messages
6,458
Location
N38? 43', W90? 22'
Car(s)
Roger Dean's Rocks
True, which is something I could support. But how exactly would that go? It would be less then a dozen questions long really and it's all common sense.
But it would include instruction as well. I'm not talking about just giving people a basic test; I'm talking about the general requirements for a concealed-carry permit, which usually include classroom instruction on basic firearm handling and responsible gun ownership.
 

Momentum57

worships the 2010 Prius like a god
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
2,204
Location
Denver, CO
Car(s)
It's A HONDA! Clarity Plug In Electric
I'm curious. Are all murderers, or people who're willing to commit crimes with the aid of a firearm, mentally unstable? Would more licensing and instruction really weed any potential killers out?
Exactly it would just be costly, increase crime, and interfere with the rights of law abiding citizens
 

idk

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2007
Messages
1,836
Location
SW Germany
Car(s)
Hyundai i30N Performance
I'd be interested in a poll like this.. but separated into continents. Mainly because I'd like to see how the percentage i Europe is.
 

TC

aka TomCat
Joined
Dec 11, 2005
Messages
11,436
But it would include instruction as well. I'm not talking about just giving people a basic test; I'm talking about the general requirements for a concealed-carry permit, which usually include classroom instruction on basic firearm handling and responsible gun ownership.
CCW is a different animal. Being able to conceal carry a gun in public at all times is not the same as keeping a gun locked up at home, to occasionally shoot paper targets with at the gun range. No doubt that more education is always a good thing, but it becomes a slippery subject when discussing a constitutional right. Should you be required to take tests and instruction on proper use of your freedom of speech? Or your freedom to vote? Proper gun handling and responsible ownership is not a complicated subject. It's very much common sense and being forced to attend a class, which you'll no doubt be forced to pay for, is a bit OTT.
 

jetsetter

Forum Addict
Joined
Dec 11, 2005
Messages
7,257
Location
Seren?sima Rep?blica de California
Car(s)
1997 BMW 528i
It's very much common sense and being forced to attend a class, which you'll no doubt be forced to pay for, is a bit OTT.
You can also add that if one were forced to take the class one would most likely end up on some governmental database. I would be more comfortable with the government not knowing what weapons I possess.
 

shesquint

Active Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2009
Messages
379
Location
NoVA
Car(s)
I call it Dammit.
I'm of the belief that when the Constitution of the States was written they didn't have any conception of the weapons that you can get now also most people back then needed guns to kill things for tea, whereas now you just go to the fridge/freezer, and open the door.
Apologies if something like this has already been said. If it has, just consider this my agreement. :)

Lemme get this out of the way up front: I don't like guns. I don't like fanaticism over the right to own them. I just don't. Frankly, I wish we could outlaw the damn things and/or retrain our population to not need them, not think they're cool, etc.

That said, I don't actually want to take away the right to own them (yes, I know I'm contradicting myself; this isn't a black and white issue). Ethical hunters? Yes, have some guns. Certain high-risk government employees? Sure. People in crime-ridden areas who can justifiably keep them for self defense? Go nuts! (Well, don't go nuts. Have some sense. If everyone in your crime-ridden area had some sense, maybe you wouldn't need a gun at all.)

The real problem I have with outlawing them, though, is that doing so would set a really bad precedent and leave the Bill of Rights open to other changes. The founding fathers showed a great deal of foresight when they wrote it, but damn I wish they'd left out the bit about the right to bear arms, or had somehow been endowed with the ability to see the mess it would cause 230 years down the line. Yes, it was pertinent in 1776; not so much in 2010.

Anyway, the way I see it, guns do buy us our freedom, but not in the sense the gun nuts would have us believe. I believe they buy it because by keeping the right to own them sacred, we are forced to keep the rest of the rights set out in the first 10 amendments sacred, too.
 

jetsetter

Forum Addict
Joined
Dec 11, 2005
Messages
7,257
Location
Seren?sima Rep?blica de California
Car(s)
1997 BMW 528i
I do agree in a way with some of your argument. Those who seem all to ready to do away with the second amendment should ponder how they would feel if some were calling to do away with the first amendment. I consider both amendments equally important.
 

Momentum57

worships the 2010 Prius like a god
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
2,204
Location
Denver, CO
Car(s)
It's A HONDA! Clarity Plug In Electric
You do have to give it those founding fathers. Their words were well thought out, well written, and fully debated. It took 202 years after its initial submission but the 27th amendment passed in 1992 if you can say one thing we take the constitution seriously.
 

shesquint

Active Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2009
Messages
379
Location
NoVA
Car(s)
I call it Dammit.
You do have to give it those founding fathers. Their words were well thought out, well written, and fully debated. It took 202 years after its initial submission but the 27th amendment passed in 1992 if you can say one thing we take the constitution seriously.
Yep, which is precisely why I'm not calling for the 2nd Amendment to be changed or abolished even though I, personally, don't like guns at all. :D
 

BlaRo

Little Nudger
Joined
Aug 18, 2005
Messages
18,177
Location
New England
Car(s)
Moto Guzzi V7 Special, Fiat 500 1957 Edition
So your not policing guns, your policing thoughts. Even more difficult and despicable, what you would have is people less willing to seek help from qualified mental health professionals out of fear they would lose the right to operate any dangerous instrument (like a car).
Hardly. You're arguing two extremes here: either give everybody a gun like passing out candy at a fair or have the Thought Police intrude in people's homes to determine whether they swore loudly in the last 72 hours. And in a country where 90% of depression cases go untreated, I don't think the "psychopath" problem is as strong a case as the criminal aspect.

So your solution is to take away the freedom of speech. Just because a person makes such a list does not mean that they will act on it. Rather your further criminalizing freedoms and attaching penalties of removing freedoms for exercising your rights. The first argument has nothing to do with the other. An automobile is a dangerous instrument; yet we are not asked about our mental history. For that matter whether we eat a diet high in cholesterol which could lead to a heart attack and we could lose control of our vehicle.
The "hit list" was just a hypothetical, you're reading into it too much. The worn-out automobile analogy is shaky in nature: cars aren't designed to specifically kill like guns are. Yes, it's a cliche argument, but asking for guns to be licensed a little more stringently is a matter of controversy?

This is the Internet, everybody else is wrong, but I concede that you made some good points that I hadn't thought of. Obviously widespread mental health screenings are difficult and even outlandish, and should be reserved for other fields. But the whole concept of "gun rights in theory" and "gun rights in reality" is markedly different.

You can also add that if one were forced to take the class one would most likely end up on some governmental database. I would be more comfortable with the government not knowing what weapons I possess.
This isn't just a slippery slope, it's a slippery 500-foot plummet to the bottom of the Grand Canyon. And I suppose Obama's cronies will wiretap into their houses and find out what pizza toppings they're ordering for dinner?
 

jetsetter

Forum Addict
Joined
Dec 11, 2005
Messages
7,257
Location
Seren?sima Rep?blica de California
Car(s)
1997 BMW 528i
This isn't just a slippery slope, it's a slippery 500-foot plummet to the bottom of the Grand Canyon. And I suppose Obama's cronies will wiretap into their houses and find out what pizza toppings they're ordering for dinner?
This has nothing to do with the current administration. I suspect they will not touch on the issue if they can.
 

Peter3hg

Forum Addict
Joined
May 3, 2006
Messages
5,949
Location
Manchester, UK
Car(s)
Audi A3 1.4 TFSI Honda Hornet CB600S
Proper gun handling and responsible ownership is not a complicated subject. It's very much common sense and being forced to attend a class, which you'll no doubt be forced to pay for, is a bit OTT.
It is common sense, but a lot of people don't possess common sense. A few simple questions won't make people think about it, whereas a few hours of classroom instruction might. Proper instruction is actually one thing you don't need to have had to possess a firearm in this country, but the way I have seen people waving loaded guns around, I wish it was.

You can also add that if one were forced to take the class one would most likely end up on some governmental database. I would be more comfortable with the government not knowing what weapons I possess.
What do you think the government is going to do with the information? Kill you first when they turn oppressive?

You do have to give it those founding fathers. Their words were well thought out, well written, and fully debated. It took 202 years after its initial submission but the 27th amendment passed in 1992 if you can say one thing we take the constitution seriously.
I've always thought the 2nd amendment is actually quite clumsily worded, although its meaning is clear. That is probably just differences in the language of the time, as most of the original amendments are as bad.
 

BlaRo

Little Nudger
Joined
Aug 18, 2005
Messages
18,177
Location
New England
Car(s)
Moto Guzzi V7 Special, Fiat 500 1957 Edition
This has nothing to do with the current administration. I suspect they will not touch on the issue if they can.
Of course they won't (despite the sentiments of evidently every gun nut out there who rushed out and armed themselves to the teeth when Obama became president, because of the zombie army he will inevitably unleash). I just wanted to mention that it's not healthy to treat everything in life as a slippery slope. ;)
 

Momentum57

worships the 2010 Prius like a god
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
2,204
Location
Denver, CO
Car(s)
It's A HONDA! Clarity Plug In Electric
but asking for guns to be licensed a little more stringently is a matter of controversy?

This is the Internet, everybody else is wrong, but I concede that you made some good points that I hadn't thought of. Obviously widespread mental health screenings are difficult and even outlandish, and should be reserved for other fields. But the whole concept of "gun rights in theory" and "gun rights in reality" is markedly different.
Thank you. Whats the point of debate if you don't listen to the other side. I understand your point that guns should be treated seriously and not given out at ballparks like promotional baseball bats. What I do like to get to is that many feel that because it would near imposable to remove the second amendment that anything short of that is constitutional or wise.

Take for example Massachusetts and pepper spray which in its borders requires a Firearm Identification Card and Licence to Carry firearms card. People do not comply with the law, obtain it illegally, many still carry it illegally, or don't know that they carry it illegally. The law was not thought out well enough for people to comply so they don't.

With guns the danger is even greater when you have people who would be legally carrying a firearm who then become afraid that they will be fined and do something stupid as a result.
 

BlaRo

Little Nudger
Joined
Aug 18, 2005
Messages
18,177
Location
New England
Car(s)
Moto Guzzi V7 Special, Fiat 500 1957 Edition
Take for example Massachusetts and pepper spray which in its borders requires a Firearm Identification Card and Licence to Carry firearms card. People do not comply with the law, obtain it illegally, many still carry it illegally, or don't know that they carry it illegally. The law was not thought out well enough for people to comply so they don't.
Right, and that's asinine. Plenty of girls will feel like they'll be treated like criminals if they go through the legal hoops to apply for one, and then that increases the risk of not being able to carry it in the first place.

You'll find this sort of law-flaunting everywhere with any sort of regulated good, from buying alcohol to minors to not re-registering your car to running coke across the Mexican border. But while the same thing is with guns and criminals, it's to a far more elevated extent.
 
Top