Do you not know the definition of concerted?
And as for "severely limiting," anything that infringes upon a right that is guaranteed not to be infringed upon is astonishingly severely limiting.
A responsible gun owner......Not!
- Thread starter Ragman
- Start date
And as for "severely limiting," anything that infringes upon a right that is guaranteed not to be infringed upon is astonishingly severely limiting.
No, I'm saying there was a concerted effort by special interests and legislators to create those regulations.
If you are asking me straight up whether there should be no limits to gun ownership, my knee-jerk answer would be no, absolutely not, no limits on gun ownership whatsoever, that whatever weapons the government has at its disposal to use on its citizens the citizens should have at its disposal to defend itself. But the more reasoned answer would be, gun ownership should have the same types of limitations that our other rights have, like the limits on free speech (can't incite riot or panic, can't slander or libel others, etc.), and freedom of religion (can't sacrifice humans and most animals, cant refuse to hand out marriages licenses, etc.) where those rights infringe on the rights of others.
If you want to restrict gun ownership from the mentally ill and the violent felons, fine, but all the silly hoops that one has to jump through just to exercise the right to own a gun and buy ammunition is utterly retarded.
Imagine those same restrictions being applied to any other right that is guaranteed by the Constitution. "Well, you can speak your mind, but only after you pass a background check, and here's the list of words you can't say, and when you're not actually talking your mouth must be Superglued shut."
Private sellers are not required to adhere to the same standards as retail stores or FFL [Federal Firearms License] sellers. They don't need to even see ID to sell weapons to someone!
There are states that restrict such sales, but only 17, I believe.
One study found that 80% of guns were purchased from family or friends, not subject to any restrictions at all. If that's true, it's nuts. [As are many people buying the weapons.]
There are states that restrict such sales, but only 17, I believe.
One study found that 80% of guns were purchased from family or friends, not subject to any restrictions at all. If that's true, it's nuts. [As are many people buying the weapons.]
Imagine those other rights being used to cause an insane number of deaths, and massacre large groups of innocent people, and the restrictions would follow. And not because of the 'special interest groups', either, but because we are [supposedly] a civilized society.
You don't know what you're talking about. Among the many attempts at gun control legislation introduced in Congress, one in particular was The Gun Violence Prevention and Safe Communities Act of 2013, which would have raised the tax on firearms to 20% and the tax on ammo to 50%. The effect of this legislation would have primarily impacted law abiding citizens and legal gun owners. Needless to say this silly effort never saw the light of day but it still comes up occasionally in different forms, most recently with Obama's trial balloon to ban the sales of "green tip" ammo for 5.56 caliber AR rifles. It also fell flat when voters raised h*ll with their congressmen.
The 80% figure for gun sales refers to a study about guns used in crimes, and even that number is suspect and probably out of date by now since it's several years old.
Private Gun Sales: The Numbers, by Robert VerBruggen, National Review
I guess because nobody knows their own family and friends so they have no clue if they're honest, decent citizens or even who they are and therefore need to see ID to legitimize the transaction. Who knows. I was going to run full speed head first into the brick wall of the house to be able to think like a liberal but decided against it so it's all still unfathomable.
See, you're still focusing on the gun as if guns are a bad thing instead of just a thing books wrenches brooms hats watches bulbs furniture autos. Perhaps the proper point for you to be making and question for you to be asking is this woman should not have another human being so how do we keep that from happening.
One incident doesn't really prove irresponsibility, though, not in the scope of gun ownership (which, again, is a fundamental right that a lot of people are trying to take away from people - that's a dangerous and slippery slope). If all it took was one mistake, that didn't even infringe on the rights of others, for you to lose your rights, then everyone with an at-fault accident or a speeding ticket should be deemed proven irresponsible to vehicle drivership.
Hhhmmm, let's see... how do we prevent someone from exercising an unalienable right.... Well, I suppose that since we're throwing one unalienable right down the slope, might as well throw some other ones down there and go with the electric chair without even bothering with a trial by jury. That'll teach 'em.
The “unalienable rights” explicitly protected by the Bill of Rights include, but are not limited to, the rights of free speech and religion, the right to keep and bear arms, self-determination with regard to one’s own property, the right to be secure in one’s own property, the right to a trial by a jury of one’s peers, protection from cruel and unusual punishment, etc. These are among the central components of our “unalienable rights.” These are absolute rights that the government, or society, can take away, despite the near-relentless efforts of both to do so. The question of how do we as a society prevent her from exercising a particular unalienable right in the future is one that I find abhorrent.
You mean like the freedom of speech to say, "The only good Indian is a dead Indian?" Or "Kill all the Mormons!" Or, "Here, drink this Kool-Aid." ?
We as a civilized society are not the ones clamoring to outlaw guns and prevent we as a society for obtaining guns - that's the work of special interests. Sorry.
You can't guarantee that, though. Every person who has fallen and hit their head and then fallen into a pool and drowned was absolutely positive they would never accidentally fall into the pool. Accidents happen and there's a reason they're called accidents. They are all, each and every one of them, preventable. An accident is undesirable incidental and unplanned event that could have been prevented had circumstances leading up to the accident been recognized, and acted upon, prior to its occurrence. That includes falling into a pool, getting shot with a gun, or a railing at a sporting even collapsing under the weight of fans.
Poisons, vehicle collisions, fire and burn injuries, and falls are the most common causes of fatal injuries. You have a far, far better chance of dying from a fall on your own front porch than you do of being accidentally shot by a gun.
You have that exactly backward, or would if I had a pool. You could accidentally fall into anyone's pool whether you think so or not, accidentally being key. You nor anyone else could accidentally be shot by my gun unless you steal it and misuse it. Anyone shot by my gun, if there ever is such a person, will be no accident just a thief.
Last edited: