Journalist and interviewee shot on live television

[thebigabd]

so in others words disregard the constitution?

No... guns would still be allowed. But handguns, assault rifles, and their ammo would be banned. Under "thebigabd plan" you would still be able to own shotguns and hunting rifles.

The constitution doesnt say "all arms are allowed"... if that was the interpretation than you could have rocket launchers, mortars, full automatic machine guns, and all sorts of **** you aren't qualified to operate and have no use for.

 

[AdaSooner]

People always act like anybody can get a gun. There are restrictions, there is gun control in place. Could it be improved? Perhaps. But show me one person that acquired a gun and committed a mass murder that wouldn't be able to have gotten that gun under your recommended gun control. There probably aren't many.

You made an excellent point in the statement I highlighted. Every gun I have purchased in the last three years, for sport or home defense, has required a background check through the FBI before I was able to claim the weapon as my own. A round was even fired through the handguns so the FBI could keep the ballistics on file in case those weapons are used to commit a crime at some future date.

You're right, the controls are already in place for law abiding citizens like me. Does anyone really believe people who buy guns on the black market give a rat's rear end about laws or restrictions? Criminals will always have access to guns. If they can't buy them illegally, they will steal them, maybe even murder an innocent gun owner to get what they want. The notion that more restrictions on top of those already in place is the answer is beyond foolish.

Having said that, though, I wouldn't have any problem at all with requiring guns bought and sold at gun shows to go through a background check. My position is directly opposed to what the NRA preaches. I dropped my membership because I don't subscribe to everything that organization continues to fight tooth and nail for at any cost. The idea that if you give a little gun control advocates will take advantage of you is just as ridiculous as the answer to controlling guns is to tack on more restrictions.

 

[MsProudSooner]

You made an excellent point in the statement I highlighted. Every gun I have purchased in the last three years, for sport or home defense, has required a background check through the FBI before I was able to claim the weapon as my own. A round was even fired through the handguns so the FBI could keep the ballistics on file in case those weapons are used to commit a crime at some future date.

You're right, the controls are already in place for law abiding citizens like me. Does anyone really believe people who buy guns on the black market give a rat's rear end about laws or restrictions? Criminals will always have access to guns. If they can't buy them illegally, they will steal them, maybe even murder an innocent gun owner to get what they want. The notion that more restrictions on top of those already in place is the answer is beyond foolish.

Having said that, though, I wouldn't have any problem at all with requiring guns bought and sold at gun shows to go through a background check. My position is directly opposed to what the NRA preaches. I dropped my membership because I don't subscribe to everything that organization continues to fight tooth and nail for at any cost. The idea that if you give a little gun control advocates will take advantage of you is just as ridiculous as the answer to controlling guns is to tack on more restrictions.

Isn't purchasing guns over the internet a loophole as well?

 

[AdaSooner]

Isn't purchasing guns over the internet a loophole as well?

I believe that's true, unless the purchase is from a legitimate source such as a firearms or sporting goods company. In cases like that the guns you buy online have to be shipped to a licensed gun dealer in your area. I know that's the case from a personal experience I had once. I'm not sure how it works if the purchase is from an unlicensed individual? If there are no restrictions, then you're right about the online loophole.

One thing to remember, though, is that criminals don't need loopholes. Closing them might make it more difficult, but illegal or not, they will always find a way. Laws and restrictions mean nothing to them. That's why they're criminals.

 

[SoonerBounce13]

No... guns would still be allowed. But handguns, assault rifles, and their ammo would be banned. Under "thebigabd plan" you would still be able to own shotguns and hunting rifles.

The constitution doesnt say "all arms are allowed"... if that was the interpretation than you could have rocket launchers, mortars, full automatic machine guns, and all sorts of **** you aren't qualified to operate and have no use for.

well first off, the banning of assault rifles but allwoing hunting rifles is pretty funny.

secondly, I don't think you understand the reason for the second ammendment or you would see that this idea is pretty ridiculous

 

[stormspencer]

Most obvious is that Europe has very few murders by gun, as does Australia, and both have very strict gun laws. i have seen no evidence to support the idea that there may be as many accidental deaths in the US with firearms as there are total deaths by firearms deaths in some countries. When you constantly see stories about fathers accidentally shooting their kids showing them the new gun just outside the gun store, or hear that once again, a five-year old has shot his little brother, it should reveal that gun laws are much too lenient. The guy whose gun is used by his minor children to shoot someone accidentally has no business with a gun.

There is room for discussion on this issue, but anyone who subscribes to the NRA position is not a legitimate candidate for serious discussion. It is a problem.

There in lies the problem. We literally have hundreds of firearm regulations in this country already, so adding more is simply a symbolic gesture. We rarely prosecute the gun laws that are in place as of now. Additionally, I think it infers a very silly conclusion that "if you don't want more gun regulation, then you obviously support NO gun regulations"....which is, candidly, ridiculous. I don't know your exact view, but it's almost as if some on the "gun control" side advocate "all or nothing" as the only two options.

Regarding the example you provided above, gun laws are irrelevant to the issue. The problem, in your scenario, is ownership responsibility. Any law-abiding and responsible gun owner knows that you use any means necessary to keep firearms away from kids so as to decrease the probability of "accidents" like you described. I would even consider a mandatory safety class for the purchase of certain firearms or if it's a first-time purchase.

I believe that there are safety standards that we can still put in place with the regulations that we have currently.....without having to "add more laws".

 

[AdaSooner]

well first off, the banning of assault rifles but allwoing hunting rifles is pretty funny.

secondly, I don't think you understand the reason for the second ammendment or you would see that this idea is pretty ridiculous

I doubt if the average non-hunter knows that so-called "assault rifles" like the AR-15 are sold mostly to sportsmen who enjoy hunting and the shooting sports. Rifles that look the part get a bad rap. Except for the appearance, they are no different than the semi-automatic rifles sportsmen have used for many, many years.

As for banning handguns, people like me would look pretty silly trying to carry a "concealed" hunting rifle or shotgun. A shotgun or rifle may be fine as a home defense weapon. But, my wife and I would be at a huge disadvantage in trying to protect ourselves on a long trip, with a gun that can't be accessed fast enough to have any chance against some nutcase druggie who doesn't care if he shoots both of us to get his next fix.

Thanks, but no thanks! I like having my 9mm by my side, and the license to carry it in my wallet in case I'm stopped by the police.

 

[sybarite]

There in lies the problem. We literally have hundreds of firearm regulations in this country already, so adding more is simply a symbolic gesture. We rarely prosecute the gun laws that are in place as of now. Additionally, I think it infers a very silly conclusion that "if you don't want more gun regulation, then you obviously support NO gun regulations"....which is, candidly, ridiculous. I don't know your exact view, but it's almost as if some on the "gun control" side advocate "all or nothing" as the only two options.

Regarding the example you provided above, gun laws are irrelevant to the issue. The problem, in your scenario, is ownership responsibility. Any law-abiding and responsible gun owner knows that you use any means necessary to keep firearms away from kids so as to decrease the probability of "accidents" like you described. I would even consider a mandatory safety class for the purchase of certain firearms or if it's a first-time purchase.

I believe that there are safety standards that we can still put in place with the regulations that we have currently.....without having to "add more laws".

I think we need to revisit the idea of carrying handguns. For a long time, we had rifles and shotguns, and nobody really objected. Most of the accidental and mass murders are not carried out with rifles and shotguns. I know of a couple of murders that occurred because people had rifles in their pickups when angry, but it is rare.

Having a handgun makes it too easy to react to temporary anger with a permanent solution. Those who get involved in too many guns tend to be the type that would leave their guns where the kids might get them. Have a relative with thirty-two pistols. Surprised his kids lived to adulthood.

I would support a handgun if a legitimate reason (not just that I want one) is presented to a court for having it. Otherwise, I think I would be more inclined to do as they do in Europe. You can own a gun, but you can only have it in a club and fire it within the confines of the club. I consider it as too much of a risk to be distributed at will.

Reagan wanted them gone, incidentally. Assault weapons---nobody needs one in his own. Again, if you want one, keep it in a club. It would be a felony to possess it outside the club.

I think everyone needs to re-examine the NRA. Manufacturers love the idea of no restrictions, whether it be fossil fuel, illegal drugs, or weapons. When I was young, I was a member of the NRA, and I had a Remington rifle. Being in the Army cured me of ever wanting a gun in my hands again. I don't own one now. It seems to me that a lot of kids had Remington or Winchester single shot 22s. They were relatively harmless, except for the one that the College Station coroner said was used while committing suicide by shooting himself in the heart eight times with a single shot 22. There was a guy that wanted to commit suicide. But, there weren't many accidents, and the NRA did send out comic books that instructed on proper use and cleaning. I hardly remember any other manufacturers other than Marlin and Mossberg. Now, it seems that there are a thousand firms making mostly handguns. Are these made in the US? But, I don't want someone who stands to profit telling me what the rules ought to be. We'll be selling tapeworm cysts in diet pills again.

 

[SoonerBounce13]

I think we need to revisit the idea of carrying handguns. For a long time, we had rifles and shotguns, and nobody really objected. Most of the accidental and mass murders are not carried out with rifles and shotguns. I know of a couple of murders that occurred because people had rifles in their pickups when angry, but it is rare.

Having a handgun makes it too easy to react to temporary anger with a permanent solution. Those who get involved in too many guns tend to be the type that would leave their guns where the kids might get them. Have a relative with thirty-two pistols. Surprised his kids lived to adulthood.

I would support a handgun if a legitimate reason (not just that I want one) is presented to a court for having it. Otherwise, I think I would be more inclined to do as they do in Europe. You can own a gun, but you can only have it in a club and fire it within the confines of the club. I consider it as too much of a risk to be distributed at will.

Reagan wanted them gone, incidentally. Assault weapons---nobody needs one in his own. Again, if you want one, keep it in a club. It would be a felony to possess it outside the club.

I think everyone needs to re-examine the NRA. Manufacturers love the idea of no restrictions, whether it be fossil fuel, illegal drugs, or weapons. When I was young, I was a member of the NRA, and I had a Remington rifle. Being in the Army cured me of ever wanting a gun in my hands again. I don't own one now. It seems to me that a lot of kids had Remington or Winchester single shot 22s. They were relatively harmless, except for the one that the College Station coroner said was used while committing suicide by shooting himself in the heart eight times with a single shot 22. There was a guy that wanted to commit suicide. But, there weren't many accidents, and the NRA did send out comic books that instructed on proper use and cleaning. I hardly remember any other manufacturers other than Marlin and Mossberg. Now, it seems that there are a thousand firms making mostly handguns. Are these made in the US? But, I don't want someone who stands to profit telling me what the rules ought to be. We'll be selling tapeworm cysts in diet pills again.

if you do this, muggings, rape,etc will skyrocket

 

[thebigabd]

well first off, the banning of assault rifles but allwoing hunting rifles is pretty funny.

Why?

secondly, I don't think you understand the reason for the second ammendment or you would see that this idea is pretty ridiculous

Of course I do.... Militias were crucial to the Continental war effort during the Revolution. These were people who rebelled against their country/government and a "well regulated" militia was key to achieving it. So, as a form of "check" against the government they created the 2nd amendment, which gives us the right to a well regulated militia and to bear arms.

Problem is, there is nothing "well regulated" about our gun industry. When I hear the phrase "well regulated militia", I think of trained units of people. Not my next door neighbor the accountant with a stash of Assault Rifles and easy to conceal handguns.

“A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.”
-James Madison

You focus on the "right to bear arms" piece but not the "well regulated militia" piece. I can go buy a nicer assault rifle right now, better than some of the main service rifles used by national armies in the world, and walk away with no training. I don't belong to a militia group, I don't have to get trained, I don't have to do anything. I just have to walk in there and buy it.

The population of the US in 1776 was about 2 million. Today, it is 320 million. The population surge after electricity, oil, medicine, and the industrial revolution was not anticipated by the Founding Fathers.

Types of weapons today couldn't have been predicted by the founding fathers. When they wrote that they had crappy muskets that weren't very accurate and fired one shot before needing to reload, which took about 30-40 seconds. They had to line up 50 yards from each other, close their eyes, and shoot across an open field.

The Founding Fathers didn't anticipate cocaine, marijuana, meth, and drug wars.

The Founding Fathers didn't anticipate all the racial problems. When they wrote the document black people were property, THEIR PROPERTY, in fact. They couldn't vote, they couldn't own guns, etc. There weren't any Mexicans living in the colonies either. I am not saying crime happens because of black people or mexicans, but I am saying there is a lot of racial tension that they didn't anticipate between all the race groups.

The point is... it's a different world today. These were some of the most brilliant minds in history, but they didn't know what the world would look like 200 years later. Which leads back to my first point... The world wasnt THAT MUCH different technologically speaking, or from a population perspective, 200 years BEFORE the American Revolution, and wasn't THAT different 100 years after. Again, electricity, industrial revolution, medicine, oil, population boom... Changed the world. They couldn't have predicted that.

I mean, is that rule future-proofed? In 100 years what kind of guns will we have then? Do 300 year old concepts always stay true regardless of differences in time?

 

[SoonerBounce13]

wow. just wow. you don't understand it at all

 

[thebigabd]

wow. just wow. you don't understand it at all

Dare I ask you to tell me where I went wrong? Or are you just going to say that?

 

[SoonerBounce13]

its a tired argument.

Just seems rather selective to say you can have a rifle and a shotgun but we draw the line at handguns. Or hey you can own one but can't ever use it for defense...only at clubs.

Plus the whole deal that our military still has handguns and has far greater weapons than handguns. But they are still useful in certains situations.