The case against guns

[Tero]

Why we need to limit the gun freedom as much as possible. Either limit gun ownership as much as we can (tests tests tests, levels of permits that start with .22 rifles for first 15 years) or repeal the amendment. If you use guns to hunt, you have to bring in some critter ears every year to prove you are still hunting.

Collection of nuts who were allowed to get guns:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Spector

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Aurora_shooting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook ... l_shooting

[FBM]

I think it's wise to limit gun freedom as much as needed, rather than as much as possible.

[Tero]

The US has sparsely populated areas and lots of rural land. Those states can have their guns. I would allow some states to ban all private guns. Or at least hand guns. This is only possible if we repeal the amendment.

[FBM]

The US has sparsely populated areas and lots of rural land. Those states can have their guns. I would allow some states to ban all private guns. This is only possible if we repeal the amendment.

The bit about "shall not be infringed" seems to me to be the sticking point. Strictly speaking, it could mean that no laws that restrict gun ownership in any way are constitutional.

[Tyrannical]

Why we need to limit the gun freedom as much as possible. Either limit gun ownership as much as we can (tests tests tests, levels of permits that start with .22 rifles for first 15 years) or repeal the amendment. If you use guns to hunt, you have to bring in some critter ears every year to prove you are still hunting.

Collection of nuts who were allowed to get guns:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Spector

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Aurora_shooting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook ... l_shooting

Crazy people make the news, but the majority of gun crime in the US is committed by Blacks even though they are only around 13% of the population. If you are serious about preventing crime and not just on a nutty gun tangent you need to recognize that Blacks are the problem.

[FBM]

[citation needed]

[rainbow]

Why we need to limit the gun freedom as much as possible. Either limit gun ownership as much as we can (tests tests tests, levels of permits that start with .22 rifles for first 15 years) or repeal the amendment. If you use guns to hunt, you have to bring in some critter ears every year to prove you are still hunting.

Collection of nuts who were allowed to get guns:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Spector

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Aurora_shooting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook ... l_shooting

Crazy people make the news, but the majority of gun crime in the US is committed by Blacks even though they are only around 13% of the population. If you are serious about preventing crime and not just on a nutty gun tangent you need to recognize that Blacks are the problem.

Actually no.
Stupid people are the problem, and from your remark above, you're clearly one of them.

[Rum]

Actually poverty is the problem.

[Tyrannical]

Actually poverty is the problem.

Poor white neighborhoods are not nearly as violent as poor black neighborhoods. The extreme of black poverty is largely self-inflicted through their much larger high school drop out and criminal conviction rate.

Western society would be much safer if all blacks were forcibly repatriated back to Africa. I know you find that shockingly evil, yet you are at a loss for words when it comes to countering that argument with facts.

[Coito ergo sum]

[JimC]

The gun meme is too deeply entwined in the American psyche to ever be excised...

A most successful parasitic meme indeed...

[FBM]

Actually poverty is the problem.

Poor white neighborhoods are not nearly as violent as poor black neighborhoods. The extreme of black poverty is largely self-inflicted through their much larger high school drop out and criminal conviction rate.

Western society would be much safer if all blacks were forcibly repatriated back to Africa. I know you find that shockingly evil, yet you are at a loss for words when it comes to countering that argument with facts.

When I was young, almost all the gun violence occurred in black neighborhoods. Where else was the KKK going to shoot them?

[Seth]

Why we need to limit the gun freedom as much as possible. Either limit gun ownership as much as we can (tests tests tests, levels of permits that start with .22 rifles for first 15 years) or repeal the amendment. If you use guns to hunt, you have to bring in some critter ears every year to prove you are still hunting.

Collection of nuts who were allowed to get guns:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Spector

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Aurora_shooting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook ... l_shooting

Let's see, that's 3 out of 300 million. I'd hardly call that a public health threat. Swimming pools kill more people.

[Tero]

I'm pretty sure there are 30 000 000 out there who would not get anything but a pea shooter permit in my dictatorship. Is it enough if they just point the things?

[Seth]

The US has sparsely populated areas and lots of rural land. Those states can have their guns. I would allow some states to ban all private guns. This is only possible if we repeal the amendment.

The bit about "shall not be infringed" seems to me to be the sticking point. Strictly speaking, it could mean that no laws that restrict gun ownership in any way are constitutional.

You are technically correct. However, even the Founders recognized that no right is completely unfettered and that "reasonable regulation in the public interest" is always possible for controlling the exercise of rights.

The problem with "reasonable regulation" when it comes to "keeping and bearing" arms is that anti-gun hoplophobes conflate "use and discharge" with "keeping and bearing." They aren't the same thing at all.

I have a constitutional right to keep and bear firearms, which means that I may own them, possess them and carry them about, that cannot be infringed by the government.

However, there is no constitutional right to discharge a firearm in any particular place at any particular time, so the USE of firearms (that is to say their discharge) is subject to reasonable regulations in the public interest. And there are some 50,000 laws nationwide regarding the "use" of firearms, including many unconstitutional laws that restrict the "keeping and bearing" of arms in a peaceable manner that does not include discharging it.

This is the cognitive disconnect of the firearms illiterati, they falsely assume that just because someone owns and carries a gun that they are going to discharge it in a reckless, careless or criminal manner, so they want to ban the device rather than simply regulate the user.

It's exactly like saying that we must ban cars because people get killed in and by them rather than regulating the physical behavior of the operator of the car and punishing him when he fails to act in a responsible manner.

And it's more than just stupidity or ignorance, the anti-gun elite know perfectly well that their arguments are complete red herring arguments, and they don't care. They forward the lie that because some few people misuse guns that no one is capable of safely keeping and bearing a firearm, which of course is complete, proven nonsense, and they do it because their ultimate agenda is far more nefarious and evil than the one that everyone sees on the surface.

Gun owners clearly see the stalking horse nature of their arguments and refuse to believe their lies, preferring instead to tell the truth.