NEW BILL WOULD REQUIRE GUN OWNERS TO GET 5 YEAR FEDERAL LICENSE

[McSull]

We were due for another troll

[free]

There are a lot of the complexities of this issue that have been mentioned in the last few posts....which are all very valid and generally contradicting points... which make this such a hard subject to solve:
Prison cost and fairness,
The personal rights of the mentally ill (and potentially mentally ill.... and the "who's right is it to declare someone else mentally ill"),
The rights of felon's who have served their time,
The rights of the wrongfully convicted,
The rights of parents who don't want their children shot in a Target or at church or school,
The rights of people to own whateverthehell they want to own,
The rights of gun shops and manufacturers to make a profit,
The rights of cops who have to do their jobs in a dangerous environment,
Original intent constitutional arguments vs living document arguments (one of my farthest right wing buddies insists that if he could afford to put a nuclear weapon in his back yard, he should be allowed to do it bc he should have the right to defend himself against a tyrannical gov't. - I believe we'd have problems if 300,000 american citizens had backyard nukes),
Due process arguments (go around it, save a life --- save that life, and it's arguable that the person in question never would have done anything and they were persecuted without reason)....

People quickly get mad at anyone who doesn't agree with their individual right that they happen to care about, and most don't understand that their right is stepping on someone else's right. No matter which side you're on, your right and belief generally steps on someone else's. That makes this an incredibly difficult subject - but it's important. And, it's a sign (either way we go) of who we are as a society.

I will read that national review article.... can't right now, headed out for the 19th anniversary with the wife, but will come back to it tonight or tomorrow. Always up for an interesting article.

I appreciate the reasonable discussion from those of you who contributed reasonably.

I think that if you don’t know how to properly use an apostrophe, you should keep your fucking mouth shut with respect to the rights of other people.

Doubly so for referring to anyone as “uneducated.”

Thank you.

[Noah_Zark]

When a drunk driver causes an accident resulting in injury or fatality while driving, nobody contests that it's his or her fault. No one thinks for a second that the vehicle driven by the impared, either owned, borrowed, or stolen, is responsible.

Yet when an individual either emotionally or mentally disturbed uses a firearm to shoot someone resulting in either injury or fatality, liberals and others who advocate for "common sense gun law reform" such as the OP say there's a need to get rid of evil black rifles and close the gun show loophole.

What happened to the responsibility of the individual in the case of the shooting?

I fail to see the difference between the two scenarios but the second one employs zero common sense.

Noah

[Bang]

Five year federal license when I already have the 2nd Amendment? I refuse.

[SevenMilePete]

I don't know the details of Booker's "plan".... so I'm not judging anything. When reading something about any gun control proposal on a forum, I always fully expect it to be twisted to make it sound worse than what it is. I love my guns, have hunted and collected all my life, and have started my children shooting from 5 years old (with heavy supervision obviously). I don't like where we are today. Special interest groups (largely the NRA, who I canceled my membership with) have put immense amounts of work and money into creating an us vs them mentality, where gun owners think if we give up the right for a 19 year old kid who has zero training and a criminal record to walk in and buy an AR-15 and 12 mags, it's a "slippery slope" to taking my great grandpa's exposed hammer SxS 12 gauge off my fireplace. It's just not. We NEED common sense gun laws. I don't know about Booker's plan, but I know we need something happening. I think some version of making sure people who are buying guns know how to safely fire them and have good intentions is a reasonable place to start.

How would you propose that someone has good intentions when purchasing a gun? Government funded mediums? Lie detector tests? Water boarding?

[SevenMilePete]

I understand that... This site was probably too far right wing for my post -- I didn't think that centrist shit from me was going to start an avalanche of crazy, or I would have kept it to myself. I assure you though, I'm not a troll.... for all the shit here implying I'm not what I say, I can go in my basement and take the pictures to prove it. I'm just one of those weird centrist type of people who apparently are lumped in with the socialists now. You didn't say this....your reply was less hatefilled than most, I'm just lumping this in to minimize my replies -- but for all the second amendment crap people posted -- there is more to the constitution than the second amendment, and I bet 98% of people who reply with that crap love to talk about the constitution but have never actually read it. This is a common thing of the uneducated right wing.... cite things based on what you want them to say instead of what they actually say (now bring on the quotes of people who can copy and paste small pieces of the second amendment to back up my point).

Are you serious? Evidently you have never read the Bill of Rights. Tell us how anyone could make small pieces of the following:


"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

That is the ENTIRE text of the Second Amendment. Look in a mirror to see an uneducated person. An educated person also wouldn't write a "sentence" like the following:

"You didn't say this....your reply was less hatefilled than most, I'm just lumping this in to minimize my replies -- but for all the second amendment crap people posted -- there is more to the constitution than the second amendment, and I bet 98% of people who reply with that crap love to talk about the constitution but have never actually read it."

BTW, hatefilled is either spelled hate-filled or hate filled.

[ShooterInPA1]

I think that it's important to understand that the gun control (I'm not going to go with "gun ban" for myself) crowd doesn't think it will "end a problem". They (we) think it will decrease a problem. If 300 mass shootings (using an overly liberal definition of mass shooting) a year can be turned into 150, it's a win. It's not an ended problem, but it's a big improvement if my kid's school shooting is one of the ones that didn't happen. It would take years, but we could turn 300 in to 200 in a few years, and get it down to 100 ten years after that, and down to 50 ten years after that. With good laws and great enforcement, gun collectors and sportsmen can have guns guns of any reasonable kind and we can minimize the non-terrorist (probably bad verbage) shootings. For the record, without going in to too much detail, my family has been heavily affected by gun violence.... the shooter was my best friend and close relative, and he shouldn't have had the gun. I loved him....but he shouldn't have had the gun.

Get a clue. Seriously.

In the 1800's, there were no:

Age restrictions for the purchase of a gun
No background checks
No limits on type of gun
No limits on ammo
No gun safes
No.one gun per month laws
No red flag laws


.........and still by and large there were no mass shootings. It's the culture stupid. It ain't the guns.

And in a previous post you mention canceling your NRA membership because you think they are the problem?

You have outed yourself as an enemy to all gun owners. Absolutely nothing common sense about the nonsense you are selling. I hate trolls.

[ShooterInPA1]

Where's that popcorn eating emoji when you need it.

Eta: starts off with "I don't know what's in the bill, but..." and then throws in "I'm a hunter". Where have we seen that before?

Maybe that is John Kerry posting under a pseudonym?
Or Bloomturd?

[ShooterInPA1]

Sooo... because I don't want my kids school being shot up by some asshole with a 439.00 AR from Walmart, I'm not a hunter now? I'll bet you $100 I spend more days in the field this year than you do.... This (and about 20 other stupid responses here) are making my point. Because I'm not for firearm anarchy, I'm attacked. This didn't used to be the case... this shit has started since the NRA turned from a hunter advocacy group to a manufacturers lobbying group. I'm nobody's enemy on a site like this....but one post saying I think gun owner's should know how to shoot guns and we should know who owns weapons based on military models, and I'm attacked like I'm a Russian (oh wait, they're our friends now....I mean attacked like a Canadian).

20,000+ state, federal and local gun laws is "firearm anarchy"

Just go away troll.

[pacodelahoya]

I've got no problem with #5... for people who are competent and qualified to have an AR... have them. I have no question you and your dad should be able to have them. That doesn't mean that EVERYONE should. I'd also go on a limb and bet you and your dad didn't build $400 hunks of plastic shit guns. You're competent people who know what you're doing. My few friends I have that are in law enforcement agree with the idea that they would prefer every asshole on the planet not be armed with assault weapons. They aren't liberals....they just don't want shot while trying to do their jobs.
#4.... I wasn't implying that they can right now, I was implying that the gun control debate always goes on the extremes. The NRA absolutely would argue that having a criminal record shouldn't stop you from buying guns. If you have $400, you should spend it on guns, period. That is the position of the modern NRA. If they don't openly make that argument, it's only because they would lose more of the center than they already have.

Yea, you're a troll.