CDZ Do You Support Gun Control?

[Mr. H.]

I think that is is unconscionable that properly permitted Americans can not carry a concealed handgun in all 57 states.
There needs to be uniformity of law in this regard. You know, like same-sex marriage.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Yes, absolutely! A history of mental health issues and a criminal background is the one condition that I believe permits the repudiation of gun rights. For the sake of human happiness, we must do more to prevent guns from getting into the hands of those who are mentally unstable or have the intent of harm the innocent.

Yes I support gun control.

Defined as hitting the intended target with every shot.

Denying ownership of firearms to convicted FELONS is acceptable to me.

The problem with mental health issues is that the term is too broad and vague to define so that it can literally apply to everyone.

Psychiatrists and psychologists have quite deliberately defined mental illness in such a way so that only an opinion of one such professional qualifies as a diagnosis. Literally anyone can be diagnosed with any mental illness for any reason, such as not voting for the right candidate or believing in the wrong deity or no deity or not following preferred lifestyles. Enjoy NASCAR? you can be diagnosed as mentally ill. Never watch reality TV? That's a mental illness.

Until the mess within that profession is cleaned up then such standards should never be used to control anyone in any way. Psychology has long since labeled itself a science yet such standards as they use do not apply to science. Until they do adopt such standards many Americans are quite correct not to trust the profession and consider them to be quacks

 

[D Truth]

I completely support gun control.

What kind of idiot would not precisely aim their firearm?
Gun control means aiming with absolute focus on one's target.
To do otherwise is dangerous.

Aim true my friends.

 

[jasonnfree]

I think that politicians who push gun control laws on the rest of us, should accept protection only from unarmed secret service personnel.

 

[2aguy]

Hmmm....again...a legitimate discussion, a polite discussion on gun control....and I haven't seen one person post here who takes the side of more gun control....we know who they are and they are absent.

 

[2aguy]

Still no response from the anti gun posters.

 

[Pogo]

Yes, absolutely! A history of mental health issues and a criminal background is the one condition that I believe permits the repudiation of gun rights. For the sake of human happiness, we must do more to prevent guns from getting into the hands of those who are mentally unstable or have the intent of harm the innocent.

Depends on what you mean by "gun control". I'm not a fan of throwing laws at social problems, even if the cause is noble -- because it's an approach that doesn't work. In an earlier time a Temperance movement tried to address another social problem by banning alcohol; that was a colossal failure and had to be undone.

The sobering reality is that if God Herself came down at noon today and declared, "that's it, no more gun manufacturing, anywhere, ever", we'd still have more than enough to arm every man, woman and child in this country. That fact alone tells us what an obsession we have. We're simply not ever going to get on top of that "if we just pass the right laws", and I see that approach mostly as opportunistic politicking to make it look like "we're doing something". We really are not.

This is a social problem, not so much a legal issue. It's a legal issue insofar as laws protecting against assault, murder, armed robbery etc, and as far as responsible regulation. But the underlying dynamic is an extremely unhealthy obsession with guns and death. As a culture our knee-jerk reaction to any issue that comes up is to shoot it, destroy it, obliterate it, overpower it. The "might makes right" mentality. THAT is what needs to be addressed.

Social values are a FAR more effective behavioural influence than legal deterrents. We've done much with, for example, smoking, which used to be pervasive, socially acceptable, even socially expected. That's been turned around. We've made strides with racism, sexism, homophobia and other prejudiced mindsets. These were by and large not done with laws but with attitudes. Laws can render an assist -- drunk driving for example -- but the goal is to make the attitude a voluntary one. It's no longer socially acceptable to drunk-drive, smoke, or refer to a black person as "******". It can be done -- if it wants to be done.

Social values are certainly not absolute prevention; gun violence happens in other cultures that don't share this gun fetish like we have. But it can reduce the phenomenon from the epidemic it is to a rare crime.

 

[Pogo]

Still no response from the anti gun posters.

What are you, some kind of play-by-play announcer? You gonna actually participate with content here, or are you just gonna count heads? Personally I just saw this thread for the first time.

 

[Vastator]

No. Absolutely, "no".

 

[2aguy]

Still no response from the anti gun posters.

What are you, some kind of play-by-play announcer? You gonna actually participate with content here, or are you just gonna count heads? Personally I just saw this thread for the first time.

I have provided content here and everywhere else on this issue........

 

[Preacher]

Yep. 2 hands required at all times. Must control that gun's movement!

 

[kaz]

Yes, absolutely! A history of mental health issues and a criminal background is the one condition that I believe permits the repudiation of gun rights. For the sake of human happiness, we must do more to prevent guns from getting into the hands of those who are mentally unstable or have the intent of harm the innocent.

I'm a strong gun rights supporter. However, Constitutionally, gun rights can be restricted like any other rights through the due process of law. I'm not sure I see the issue with your restrictions as long as that is followed

 

[M14 Shooter]

Yes, absolutely! A history of mental health issues and a criminal background is the one condition that I believe permits the repudiation of gun rights. For the sake of human happiness, we must do more to prevent guns from getting into the hands of those who are mentally unstable or have the intent of harm the innocent.

I'm a strong gun rights supporter. However, Constitutionally, gun rights can be restricted like any other rights through the due process of law. I'm not sure I see the issue with your restrictions as long as that is followed

Indeed.
The right to arms can be restricted in the same manner and through the same means as the right to vote, the right to free speech and the right to an abortion.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Yes, absolutely! A history of mental health issues and a criminal background is the one condition that I believe permits the repudiation of gun rights. For the sake of human happiness, we must do more to prevent guns from getting into the hands of those who are mentally unstable or have the intent of harm the innocent.

I support gun control, but we have enough already and the things being proposed now would not decrease criminal use of guns, but only harass legal gun owners.

When they come up with laws that actually take guns from the hands of criminals and leave the law abiding unmolested, then I would get behind it, not otherwise.

And who the hell defines who has 'mental health issues'? A bunch of commie bastard libtards who got started in the mental health career path because they are trying to understand their own mental health issues themselves.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Yes, absolutely! A history of mental health issues and a criminal background is the one condition that I believe permits the repudiation of gun rights. For the sake of human happiness, we must do more to prevent guns from getting into the hands of those who are mentally unstable or have the intent of harm the innocent.

I'm a strong gun rights supporter. However, Constitutionally, gun rights can be restricted like any other rights through the due process of law. I'm not sure I see the issue with your restrictions as long as that is followed

So if the government legally passed a law that confiscated guns, then you are all OK with that?

 

[kaz]

Yes, absolutely! A history of mental health issues and a criminal background is the one condition that I believe permits the repudiation of gun rights. For the sake of human happiness, we must do more to prevent guns from getting into the hands of those who are mentally unstable or have the intent of harm the innocent.

I'm a strong gun rights supporter. However, Constitutionally, gun rights can be restricted like any other rights through the due process of law. I'm not sure I see the issue with your restrictions as long as that is followed

So if the government legally passed a law that confiscated guns, then you are all OK with that?

Why would I be? That directly contradicts what I said.

Maybe you don't understand what due process of law means. It means your rights are restricted because you are convicted of a crime. Congress passing a law restricting your rights when you have been convicted of nothing is not due process of law

 

[JimBowie1958]

Yes, absolutely! A history of mental health issues and a criminal background is the one condition that I believe permits the repudiation of gun rights. For the sake of human happiness, we must do more to prevent guns from getting into the hands of those who are mentally unstable or have the intent of harm the innocent.

I'm a strong gun rights supporter. However, Constitutionally, gun rights can be restricted like any other rights through the due process of law. I'm not sure I see the issue with your restrictions as long as that is followed

So if the government legally passed a law that confiscated guns, then you are all OK with that?

Why would I be? That directly contradicts what I said.

Maybe you don't understand what due process of law means. It means your rights are restricted because you are convicted of a crime. Congress passing a law restricting your rights when you have been convicted of nothing is not due process of law

They could pass a law that everyone, for the sake of the little children, must store their guns in public armories, and then penalize those who refuse. They aren't confiscating their guns, just making sure that they keep them safe.

My point is that 'through the due process of law' is a very broad statement with little real restrictions on what the state can do to peoples gun rights.

 

[kaz]

Yes, absolutely! A history of mental health issues and a criminal background is the one condition that I believe permits the repudiation of gun rights. For the sake of human happiness, we must do more to prevent guns from getting into the hands of those who are mentally unstable or have the intent of harm the innocent.

I'm a strong gun rights supporter. However, Constitutionally, gun rights can be restricted like any other rights through the due process of law. I'm not sure I see the issue with your restrictions as long as that is followed

So if the government legally passed a law that confiscated guns, then you are all OK with that?

Why would I be? That directly contradicts what I said.

Maybe you don't understand what due process of law means. It means your rights are restricted because you are convicted of a crime. Congress passing a law restricting your rights when you have been convicted of nothing is not due process of law

They could pass a law that everyone, for the sake of the little children, must store their guns in public armories, and then penalize those who refuse. They aren't confiscating their guns, just making sure that they keep them safe.

My point is that 'through the due process of law' is a very broad statement with little real restrictions on what the state can do to peoples gun rights.

You don't know what due process of law mean

 

[JimBowie1958]

Yes, absolutely! A history of mental health issues and a criminal background is the one condition that I believe permits the repudiation of gun rights. For the sake of human happiness, we must do more to prevent guns from getting into the hands of those who are mentally unstable or have the intent of harm the innocent.

I'm a strong gun rights supporter. However, Constitutionally, gun rights can be restricted like any other rights through the due process of law. I'm not sure I see the issue with your restrictions as long as that is followed

So if the government legally passed a law that confiscated guns, then you are all OK with that?

Why would I be? That directly contradicts what I said.

Maybe you don't understand what due process of law means. It means your rights are restricted because you are convicted of a crime. Congress passing a law restricting your rights when you have been convicted of nothing is not due process of law

They could pass a law that everyone, for the sake of the little children, must store their guns in public armories, and then penalize those who refuse. They aren't confiscating their guns, just making sure that they keep them safe.

My point is that 'through the due process of law' is a very broad statement with little real restrictions on what the state can do to peoples gun rights.

You don't know what due process of law mean

It means whatever the law says it means, dude.

 

[kaz]

I'm a strong gun rights supporter. However, Constitutionally, gun rights can be restricted like any other rights through the due process of law. I'm not sure I see the issue with your restrictions as long as that is followed

So if the government legally passed a law that confiscated guns, then you are all OK with that?

Why would I be? That directly contradicts what I said.

Maybe you don't understand what due process of law means. It means your rights are restricted because you are convicted of a crime. Congress passing a law restricting your rights when you have been convicted of nothing is not due process of law

They could pass a law that everyone, for the sake of the little children, must store their guns in public armories, and then penalize those who refuse. They aren't confiscating their guns, just making sure that they keep them safe.

My point is that 'through the due process of law' is a very broad statement with little real restrictions on what the state can do to peoples gun rights.

You don't know what due process of law mean

It means whatever the law says it means, dude.

You're too lazy to google it, aren't you? Congress passing a law is not due process