Gun control

@maxdog,

If you lock your car, you will prevent 90+% of car robberies. That doesn't mean that someone who really wants to break into your car can't, it just makes the energy required much higher. Same with assault weapons. If you make it harder, only someone really determined will go through the significant cost in time and risk to find an illegal "AK from a gang member".

2 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

A week?!? There is no reason why background checks cannot be carried out instantly.

If you want my support for HR 8, it is going to have to be modified to limit all background checks to 24 hours.

As you noticed I said at the most a week - if it can be done sooner then all the better - but as I stated people wait over a month to get a passport - I think waiting a day, two days or even a week is reasonable.

1 Reply

@Linkat,

I don't think it's reasonable. If anyone wants my support for HR 8, it will have to be modified to give the government a maximum of 24 hours to conduct their background checks.

Otherwise, I oppose HR 8.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

If I have a complaint about something that the right is doing, I'll be sure to address it appropriately.

However, it is certain people on the left who are trying to violate people's civil liberties for fun here, so this particular complaint is being correctly addressed to those particular leftists.

I don't think most are trying to violate people's civil liberties (some are or might not care - I agree) - most want common sense laws/rules whatever you want to call them put in place that will help prevent such mass shootings.

President Trump himself is calling to have background checks - I do not look at this as a left/right issue - I look at it as common sense. Having an appropriate background check is no more violating your right as taking a driving test to get a drivers licence, applying for a passport, supplying proof of citizenship or work visa prior to being hired for a job...there are various things that done in every day life that is no more intrusive than having a background check for obtaining a gun.

My husband was a pistol instructor in the marines so he definitely has familiarity with guns and their safety. Also he grew up in Montana so he is familiar with hunting and more "freedom" in a sense with guns. And he is still a proponent of limiting the types of guns that average citizens should be allowed to own and those to which they should not.

1 Reply

@engineer,

I agree with this.

0 Replies

@Linkat,

Linkat wrote:

I don't think most are trying to violate people's civil liberties (some are or might not care - I agree) - most want common sense laws/rules whatever you want to call them put in place that will help prevent such mass shootings.

Whether it is most or just a large minority, I can't say. But for those who want to ban pistol grips on rifles, what motivation for this is there other than the joy that they get from violating people's civil liberties?

If someone uses the words "common sense" to justify their proposal, that is a sure sign that they want to violate people's civil liberties.

1 Reply

@maxdog,

maxdog wrote:

Like i said , a man could easily bring an AK from a gang member and do crazy rampage no matter how strict is the law , and this without mention knives that you can find them at home and stampade with a car . So no matter the laws unfortunately .

Easily? Well right now it is much easier to walk into a gun store and obtain this weapon. Someone savvy with the ways of gangs it might be easier - but the average nut job it would be more difficult. Do you think that a person that lives in a rural area knows where to go to meet a gang member that is willing to sell them an AK? You think they just walk up to someone that appears to be a gang member in a "bad" area of city and say hey I want to buy an AK? Or maybe there is a gang store where they walk in get such a gun.

Getting a driver's licence does not mean a driver is going to be a safe driver, follow the laws, etc. However, we still require people to be tested to get such a licence - well at least we know they know the rules, can meet certain requirements to drive a car and this takes months/years - through getting a driver's permit, to having so many drivers hours --- to passing a test. But we will hand out a deadly weapon to whoever can walk in a store and pay for it.

As pretty much any reasonable person on here stated - this is not going to prevent killings, it is an easy to implement deterrent and one we use for other means of to licence people (ie driving)

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

I don't think it's reasonable. If anyone wants my support for HR 8, it will have to be modified to give the government a maximum of 24 hours to conduct their background checks.

Otherwise, I oppose HR 8.

Well then don't try to get a passport.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

Linkat wrote:
I don't think most are trying to violate people's civil liberties (some are or might not care - I agree) - most want common sense laws/rules whatever you want to call them put in place that will help prevent such mass shootings.

Whether it is most or just a large minority, I can't say. But for those who want to ban pistol grips on rifles, what motivation for this is there other than the joy that they get from violating people's civil liberties?

If someone uses the words "common sense" to justify their proposal, that is a sure sign that they want to violate people's civil liberties.

I can't vouch for pistol grids - I know nothing about them. I don't take joy about violating people's civil liberties - I support having the right to bare arms for those people that are competent to handle these weapons.

I also support the right for people to be able to LIVE and for the victims civil liberties of life - which they lost.

Do you support people having to be tested to get a driver's licence?

1 Reply

A young man went Walmart last night, with an assault rifle and a hundred rounds, wearing body armor. He was spotted in time and arrested. Background checks and taking away assault rifles and no longer selling the bullets are the bare minimum of necessity.

2 Replies

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

taking away assault rifles and no longer selling the bullets are the bare minimum of necessity.

Violating people's civil liberties for no reason is not in any way necessary.

0 Replies

@Linkat,

Linkat wrote:

Do you support people having to be tested to get a driver's licence?

Yes.

0 Replies

@Linkat,

i think a person can find a way if is going to pay good money .

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

didin t heard this story , things are getting bad

0 Replies

@maxdog,

maxdog wrote:

i think a person can find a way if is going to pay good money .

Yes but as noted - it is not easier - it is still a barrier whereas now they can walk into a store and get it.

Like anything in life if it is easier to do - there is more likely going to be more people doing it. If you make something more difficult there is less people going to do it.

If you leave your car unlocked with the keys in the car, it is much more likely to get stolen than one locked without keys.

As pretty much everyone stated on here - it will not stop all - but it will stop some - which is better than a free for all.

I just read a post from a friend of mine about this mental health and availability of getting guns. It personally hits her as she has adopted children with mental health issues.

She stated how if you have mental health issue that qualify you to receive government benefits (this is due to you being unable to hold a job) - shouldn't this disqualify you from owning a gun? (not to mention this would be a very easy check as there would be paperwork the government has as a result.

So someone else thought not necessarily because it does not mean that you would be violent and as you and many are saying it is taking away your ownership rights.

My friend's point to this makes complete sense. She has 2 children when they become adults will qualify for this - and she is completely against them having access to firearms - not because they would be violent in any way - but they lack the emotional stability to understand the safety around it. They may give it to someone or sell to someone that is violent for example.

This is for their own safety, and the safety of those around them.

Do you allow a blind person to drive? No - common sense will tell you they cannot see the road - is it fair that they do not have the same rights in this regard as those that can see? No - but we still do not allow them to drive for their safety and those around them.

2 Replies

@Linkat,

If they are a danger to themselves or others, that should be the basis for depriving them of guns. Receiving government benefits is not justification for depriving someone of their guns.

The government is already doing this to our war veterans, and it is outrageous. The officials behind this program belong in prison.

0 Replies

@Linkat,

If you leave your car locked it will be 90% safe to not get stolen but, you have to add that the same locked car will be more at risk in certain places and chances could get down to 50%.
So other factors could contribute to the safety with controlled gun laws and not just themselves . But yes i agree it s better not to bring a weapon so easy.

1 Reply

@maxdog,

Keep in mind that it is unconstitutional to make it difficult for people to exercise their rights.

If a restriction is not too burdensome and there is a good reason for it, that is one thing.

But a restriction that is too burdensome, or that has no real justification, will not pass muster with the Constitution.

1 Reply

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

Quote:
There is a difference between reasonable gun control and elimination of guns completely.

I think the quantity and types of weapons allowed to be owned by civilians should be restricted.

Good luck repealing the 2nd Amendment.

0 Replies

@engineer,

engineer wrote:

If you lock your car, you will prevent 90+% of car robberies. That doesn't mean that someone who really wants to break into your car can't, it just makes the energy required much higher. Same with assault weapons. If you make it harder, only someone really determined will go through the significant cost in time and risk to find an illegal "AK from a gang member".

There are two cases I can think of immediately in which an assault weapon could be useful to an ordinary person. The first is a home invasion by multiple armed people and the second is defending yourself against a tyrannical government. I await the standard responses to this argument.

1 Reply

Quick Links

My Account

able2know