The OK case

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(04-05-2017, 12:26 AM)hollodero Wrote: 1. Well, obviously that latter point shoots the Constitution argument in the foot, just logically speaking. If a dealer denies anyone a gun, he would violate the constitution. Every time.
Yet he obviously still can.

Secondly, there have to be certain conditions where you would agree that although this person is a citizen, he should not own a gun. Children would be a good example, or blind people, 2. mentally ******** people, and of course people with a history of violence. Still citizens, though, still protected by the constitution, yet if you will stripped of their 2nd amendment rights.

Thirdly, it says "arms" in the amendment, but some arms are forbidden anyway. You could't own just any kind of weapon, say a dirty bomb, a tank, a grenade launcher, heavy artillery. All these are "arms", too, right? Which means there obviously is a line, the question is just where to draw it.

All of which combined shows to me that this amendmend is somehow open to interpretation and not that fundamental as it is portrayed. There is obviously nuance to that. And since there's wiggle room, 3. I would argue that a licence does not infringe one's right to bear arms. You can, anytime. Just get the licence. And if you can't get it, you're probably not given a gun right now, either.



That goes with anything from tax returns to divorces and then some. All your returns are registered, doesn't mean they get hacked. Sure, it can happen. But then I fail to see why this is a problem with said gun registry (I see taxes or bank accounts hacked as a far bigger problem, and all those things can actually happen). 4. So someone hacked gun ownership data from a police station, that doesn't endanger your gun or you particularly, does it?



5. Same could be said about driving a car. Still, licence.



Well, I am strictly against infants holding guns in their hands, by which I do not want to offend the younger you. 6. That is just dangerous. In general, American parents have the reputation of being very protective, and then you hand a gun to a four-year-old? That is one of the bizarre things to me.
And, out of curiosity I will ask, how often have you? I guess never, but I still ask.



I think it might help a little, but in general I guess you're right. Your violence problem doesn't just root in easy gun ownership. There's a bunch of roots. Why America has so much crime and murder is one of the stranger things for foreign eyes, and I don't really know either. But I don't solely blame gun laws.

On the other hand, 7. there's the Australia gun restriction example. By that I do not propose a gun ban, but it makes me think. From Wikipedia "Since the 1996 legislation the risk of dying by gunshots was reduced by 50% in the following years and stayed on that lower level since then." - Half the death count by firearms, no more massacres, that's something to consider.



Now that is true here, too. Citizens get taken advantage of in the process. Still, I think a driver's licence is a reasonable thing to have. One sure can see that differently, 8. are you against drivers licences?

1. You have a right to own a firearm. It doesn't mean that a firearm seller has an obligation to sell to you. Go find another person who will. You thinking that's a constitutional violation is the same people who think their first amendment rights of free speech are being violated when people criticize what they say. You have the right to say what you want, but it doesn't mean people can't make fun of you for it, or your employer can't fire you for it.

Honestly, when you read articles about "super gun owners" or whatever, it's very common to have guns handed down from grandparents and great grandparents. Like SSF mentioned, my family also had a Civil War cap-and-ball revolver and battle damaged regimental battle flag (currently on loan to a museum).  The right to buy it doesn't compel a salesperson to be required to sell to you. (Unless you're gay and are ordering a wedding cake. )

As for you starting to take it over-the-top with grenade launchers, tanks, and the like.. you can legally own all of that in the US. Just have to get the right permits, which generally means paying large amounts of money. Money shouldn't be the thing keeping you from Constitutional rights.

- - - - - - -

2. Who determines how mentally ******** you need to be in order to no longer be allowed your Constitutional right? Now you're giving a psychiatrist (are they a government psychiatrist, a police psychiatrist, a private practice one?) the ability to strip people of rights. This is already in action, though. If they're able to function in society, I don't mind them owning.

Convicted felons are stripped of their right to bare arms, though they can apply to have them reinstated by a judge, since felon doesn't automatically mean violent. How violent is a history of violence? A highschool fight? A bar fight in college? That seems silly.

- - - - - - -

3. I'm not sure why you think common sense (not giving firearms to blind people) means the door is open to force everyone to jump through hoops, pay fees, and register to use their rights. You can bet your ass it'd cost money to go through the course, training, and licensing you described. So you're basically not only wanting any poor people to be able to use their rights. Inherited firearms are a pretty big thing, so you don't even need to have ever spent money to buy a gun in order to own a gun.


- - - - - - -

4. Until someone posts that shit online and your house gets targeted for robbery while you're not there. It'd be like posting a "who owns real diamond jewelry" registry online and being shocked when their houses get targeted. Or protested, because there's already assholes with nothing better to do than sit outside a planned parenthood with signs all day long, or wear vagina hats and go marching around. You just know some gun owners in Seattle or LA would have people protesting outside their house.

That's not even taking into consideration the whole confiscation aspect. Before anyone pshaws about that, there was a mass shooting by some jackass in Connecticut. In response the state government shoved through a law without any vote or discussion retroactively making quite a few different types of weapons illegal to own (which is illegal to do). They made it the law to either sell them to the state (you wouldn't get anywhere near it's worth) or destroy them. Almost nobody complied, so the state technically made a huge portion of their citizens felons if they ever got found out.

What do you think would have happened if they had a registry?

Meanwhile just during this last election, California passed some new gun laws including passing a law making the ownership of magazines of any type more than 10 rounds as illegal. That shit got quietly removed because it it illegal to grandfather in your citizens into being criminals like that, and nobody would have followed the law.

What do you think would have happened if they had a registry?

(04-05-2017, 12:59 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: That's not necessary, just wait for a left leaning source to publish the data in the name of "public safety".

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/25/us/new-york-gun-permit-map/

Perfect example, sadly. Here's the awful quote from that article...

Quote:The newspaper also said it had wanted to publish even more information.
"We were surprised when we weren't able to obtain information on what kinds and how many weapons people in our market own," the newspaper said in a statement.
County clerks' offices had told the paper that "the public does not have the right to see specific permits an individual has been issued, the types of handguns a person possesses or the number of guns he or she owns," the statement said. "Had we been able to obtain those records, we would have published them."

- - - - - - -

5. Driving isn't a constitutional right.

- - - - - - -

6. It was a little .410 shotgun and the kids were shooting at targets put on haybales. Winner got a big turkey (already cleaned), I believe. America is a big place, dude. There's a lot of different cultures in it. I didn't personally grow up on a farm, but I have plenty of friends who did and were driving tractors on their land when they were 12 to do farmwork. Had a friend in youth rodeo when he was 10 or so, I think.

When I was young, I would hop on my bike and go ranging through woods and stuff miles away from home with my friends. I think the American parents you know of are the suburban or city folk. I would play in the woods, or go fishing, or play with fireworks or whatever. Had a Swiss Army Knife when I was young and my restriction to getting a bigger pocket knife was "when you can close the lock on your own with one hand" and was taught to never cut towards myself, always away. So I have carried a pocket knife for a really long time (you'd be surprised how often it is useful for just random things) and never cut myself because I was taught to not be an idiot with it.

Teach respect for the tool and understand it's dangerous so it's not a toy, and they won't be a jackass with it. You can immediately tell if someone has been taught properly, because when handed a gun they instantly check it's loaded/unloaded status, the barrel will be pointed nowhere near anyone, and their finger won't be close to touching the trigger.

I feel like guns/gun safety when you are young is a lot like alcohol. I wasn't getting drunk or anything, but when I was younger, beer wasn't really a big deal. Have a sip, or whatever. Then when I grew up, I noticed when all my friends were at college age, it wasn't the ones who were allowed a beer now-and-then who became the big party binge drinkers. It was the ones who were ignorant of alcohol because their parents sheltered the hell out of them. The people who were seriously sheltered from guns when they were young were the ones who handled them like dangerous jackasses at first when in Basic.

Oh, and it was mostly intended as rhetorical questions, but answer is 0, and I sure hope it stays at 0.

- - - - - - -

7. Australia isn't America. America has ~13.6x the population. Australia also only has 5 cities of at least 700,000 people. The US has 17 cities of at least 700,000 people. The US also has a much larger gang problem.

At the risk of summoning GMD (because I know GMD is just lurking, waiting for a chance to call someone racist), African Americans commit 22.4% of violent crime in America despite being 13% of the population.

If we're looking at just gun homicides, then African Americans commit 151 firearm homicides per 1m compare to 15 per 1m among whites. (Whites do commit suicide with a gun at almost 3x the rate, though. 75 per 1m vs 27 per 1m.)

- - - - - - -

8. I'm not quite that Libertarian, though the licenses sure as hell don't keep shitty drivers off the road, so who knows how I will feel in a few more years. Lol.. that said, we go back to the fact that driving isn't a Constitutional right.

EDIT: That said, it wasn't until 1959 that all 50 states in the US required drivers to pass an exam.