sort by best latest
Best Answer junkseller says
After a shooting spree junk always wants to put restrictions on the 80 million gun owners who didn't do it. Not a single thing he wants would have stopped today. But that is what passes as "common sense" in todays world. Feelings, baby, feelings.
I completely agree with this. There is absolutely no reason reasonable people should be opposed to proving their ability to responsibly own and use a weapon.
I agree with Cristian... There is absolutely no reason reasonable people should be opposed to proving their ability to the government to responsibly, rationally and logically compose a letter to the editor before they send it off.
Jack, that's stupid. Weapons are designed to kill and they are dangerous. Writing a letter to an editor is not dangerous and does not kill people. Be rational - seriously.
Freedom is freedom, christin. It's not parceled out by which ones you like or don't like.
Freedom is freedom. It's not parceled out piecemeal based upon the ones you like and don't like.
the populace should also have the "freedom" to live peacefully without worry that mentally ill, ill prepared, and untrained people are running around with guns Jack. Freedom isn't just for you either. No one is trying to take your guns away.
I'm free to vote for representatives who will enact gun control legislation. And I will. How do you like that freedom Jack?
that "freedom" is non existent christin. You're depending upon other people to do your bidding so that you "feel safe". True freedom does not require actions or non-actions from others. What u want is servitude to your desires. Desires (not =) rights
You are without reason Jack, your arguments make no sense. When a system is broken it is the duty of all of us to work to fix what's broken. You can't or won't see that truth so I'm done discussing it with you.
less than .001 percent of gunowners hurt people with their guns. This is christinas idea of "broke". And this is the "common sense" that she thinks she is able to apply to the issue of protecting others from those who seek to do harm to innocents.
- See all 11 commentsHide extra comments
Christin Sander says
Surely u realize that virtually all the mass shootings, just like the one today, were done in "gun free zones" where those with CCWs wouldn't take their guns. Don't u think this might make a difference in how effective CCW can be in these situations?
I also realize most citizens don't have the hours of training it takes to learn to shoot in crisis situations. Tell me one time a cc permit holder stopped a mass shooting Jack.
U know full well that virtually all mass shootings have taken place where those with CCWs are banned. yet u repeat yourself. Why?http://www.volokh.com/2012/12/14/do-civilians-arme...
and you know full well an improperly trained citizen with a gun is a further danger yet you repeat yourself - why?
8,000,000 ccw holders in dozens of states across decades and christin can't quite bring any evidence that they are a "danger" to anyone, let alone themselves. She should have hundreds of thousands of examples. Or tens of thousands. Or thousands.
8,000,000 million ccw holders across decades in dozens of states and christin can't find the evidence to back up her claim about them being "dangerous". But it makes her feel good to post it and that is all that counts.
It's not about my "Feelings" it's about common sense methods to help the mentally ill and yes, to reasonably control who has access to guns and to ensure they have the proper training to not endanger others. Your arguments are all "feelings" based.
Chyristin apparently doesn't know that the adjudicated mentally ill are not legally allowed to have firearms. She wants to make it "double illegal." I gave the numbers... she gives bupkis. Which of us depends upon "feelings."
There should be accountability for those who legally own and allow their guns into the hands of the mentally unstable. Also, the aurora shooter purchased guns/ammo. current laws need to be better enforced - any sane person can see that.
Not all gun sales require background checks. Not all background checks include mental health checks. Most mental health checks are not affirmative.
It is illegal to privately sell a gun to someone who is unable to have one because of mental health issues. We can make it doubly illegal to stop people from doing this. And make it doubly illegal for mentally ill people to purchase or steal a gun.
Wrong as usual Jack. It's illegal to get CAUGHT selling a gun to someone with a DOCUMENTED mental illness. Doesn't do anything if no one is watching, or checking, or if someone is undiagnosed. Plus not all states submit their records to NICS.
That's like saying that it is only illegal to rob a bank if u get caught. You'll go far with that argument. And my phrase "unable to have" means "unable to have." If Junk doesn't like something then it is "wrong". Facts don't matter to him
It isn't illegal if you never know. You might not have to check (some private sales) or check but have incomplete databases. Virginia Tech shooter shouldn't have been sold a weapon. No one got in trouble for that.
BATF states that u can't sell a gun to a person u know can't own one or to buy a gun if u know u cannot have one. If EITHER one knows, it's an illegal sale. The seller is off the hook criminally if he doesn't know but can face a personal lawsuit
- See all 15 commentsHide extra comments
I share your sentiments and it's very unfortunate that those of us who are rational can't seem to ever dominate a conversation over the screaming lunatic fringe. Sad.
What is really sad is the rational outnumber the fringe, but they scream louder!
Gallup reports A record-low 26% of Americans favor a legal ban on the possession of handguns, while 70% are against it. It is clear who is extreme and who is the majority. Screaming lunatic fringe = someone who bests me in a argument.
Jack no one here said a BAN - reasonable CONTROLS are NOT a BAN. Why can people not comprehend this?
This why you can't have a discussion on the subject, even those who just want a sensible discussion get shouted down by the people who seem to think control mean a total ban or at least tries to convince the ignorant of it.
I hear you Sivie, but this mentality is precisely the reason we NEED to have these conversations and we need to stand up to the bullies who think their gun freedoms trump our right to safety.
Okay, christin... then you are fully in favor of people owning AKs and ARs? And 100 round magazines. And owning as many guns as they like. Even ginormous .50 caliber rifles. Even tiny small guns that are easily hidden. I am happy to hear that.
no reasonable person needs to have those kinds of weapons. You can have standard weapons as people always have there is no need for the average citizen to need military grade weapons. Get real.
hmmm.... christin first said "no one here said a BAN - reasonable CONTROLS are NOT a BAN" and THEN she says she wants to determine that people can only have certain firearms that she approves of. Sure sounds like she wants to "ban" a bunch to me.
Again that is why there are no solutions, because your words already start the discussion with a STOP! You want it all! No compromise no ears for another solution!
Okay, just... then you are fully in favor of people owning AKs and ARs? And 100 round magazines. And owning as many guns as they like. Even ginormous .50 caliber rifles. Even tiny small guns that are easily hidden. Or do you say "stop"?
- See all 11 commentsHide extra comments
Jack Burton says
It's Christin - and the ammendment talks about a militia - a citizen militia - which equates to properly trained. I'm sorry but I don't trust that everyone who has a gun permit is properly trained in dealing with crisis situations. Prove me wrong!
Doesn't work that way Christin... if you want to take away people's rights the burden of proof is on you to show that there is some special reason to. And the word regulated doesn't mean "government controlled". Actually the g-word is not in the 2nd
I think all of the gun accidents and mass shootings in this country meets that burden of proof. What is so wrong with regulation to prove you know how to properly own and handle weapons? We have to prove we can drive cars safely for crying out loud.
80,000,000 gunowners in America. Yesterday 79,999,000 did no harm to anyone. And you think it is "reasonable" to burden those law abiding citizens who do no harm with need to "prove" something because of the actions of the .001 percent who do?
Yes I do, most car owners yesterday didn't have accidents. They still have to be licensed and prove their ability to drive safely. Guns are far too dangerous to not be regulated properly.
Find me cars in the Constitution and then we'll discuss it further. BTW, cars don't have to be registered if kept on your own property. People don't need a license to drive on their own property. This is known as "basic research about a subject"
how many people are you killing with your car on your own property? to have it in public you indeed have to be licensed and prove your ability. The constitution doesn't say you have the right to endanger others
And that is exactly the way virtually all CCW laws work. The person has to be licensed by the state to carry the gun in public. But you're not posting about that... you want EVERYONE to be registered and licensed. Even the 78,999,000 who do no harm.
and how much training do they have to get before being issued the ccw permit? I'm quite positive it's possible to get a ccw permit without proper training which puts everyone around that person in potential danger should they overreact
Quite sure does not equal reality. Some people are "quite sure" the world is flat. Again, you are able to offer no proof that there is danger from the 8,000,000 ccw holders regardless of the training they've had. You only "feel" about it. No reason.
- See all 10 commentsHide extra comments