How do we stop gun violence? Is getting rid of the second amendment the answer?

[sagegirl]

Sage if you feel the need to get some background on the effects of gun control programs in other countries, I recommend you research both England and Australia. I did that a few months ago and the picture isn't pretty. Both countries have seen an increase in home burglaries which are perpetrated while the occupants are on the premises. Criminals, no longer fearing armed owners, are getting more brazen.

But I do agree that background checks and gun registration are good things. On the other hand, allowing states like Massachusetts to prohibit hand guns is not desirable. I don't think that a state should be allowed to pass ordinances which violate the constitution.

I am not recommending any sort of gun control, other than registration.....it does hold true "if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns". I know some people who carry a weapon all the time, and not a one of them has ever shot anyone. I also know some people who would never own ,much less carry a weapon, and not a one of them has been shot.

 

[manu1959]

interesting......if all these laws and rules ahad been in place in california....it would not have stopped over 100 guns hitting the streets....they simply robbed the gun stores.....

arm everyone or arm no one.....

 

[Annie]

If you are an adult, with no felonies, there should be no reason for registration or licenses. It's a second amendment issue.

Yeah, I've decided to 'quote' myself, a better audience cannot be found. I agree with myself, with that said I would never own a handgun. I've never fired one. When my brother has come into my home, while on duty, I've made him lock the gun up. (My kids were kids then. )

I guess it's kind of like the freedom from religion establishment. I may not agree with atheism, agnosticism, deism, voodoism, etc., but YOU do have a right to it.

 

[no1tovote4]

I am not recommending any sort of gun control, other than registration.....it does hold true "if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns". I know some people who carry a weapon all the time, and not a one of them has ever shot anyone. I also know some people who would never own ,much less carry a weapon, and not a one of them has been shot.

That's what they said in Australia just before they took the registry and showed up at people's houses to get their guns.

 

[5stringJeff]

I am not recommending any sort of gun control, other than registration.....it does hold true "if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns". I know some people who carry a weapon all the time, and not a one of them has ever shot anyone. I also know some people who would never own ,much less carry a weapon, and not a one of them has been shot.

I will never register my firearms. It's not the government's business how many guns I own.

 

[Hobbit]

Not true. If you are a licensed gun dealer you have to do all the paper work, not so if you are a private citizen, you can sell a gun without any paperwork, I dont know if this varies state to state but I know thats how it is here.
You can voluntarily register the sale but it is not required by law.

Must be a state thing. I know that here, if the cops come to your house looking for a gun registered to you, and you have neither the gun nor a VERY good excuse for not having it (stolen, dropped it in a river in the woods, etc.), you can be arrested.

Oh, as far as pistols go, they also have hunting applications (finishing off a wounded deer at close range, for example) and they're excellent for self-defense. While most people here in Arkansas only have a pistol for target practice, people in New York know the police can't be everywhere, and carry a pistol to defend themselves from hooligans.

 

[no1tovote4]

Must be a state thing. I know that here, if the cops come to your house looking for a gun registered to you, and you have neither the gun nor a VERY good excuse for not having it (stolen, dropped it in a river in the woods, etc.), you can be arrested.

Oh, as far as pistols go, they also have hunting applications (finishing off a wounded deer at close range, for example) and they're excellent for self-defense. While most people here in Arkansas only have a pistol for target practice, people in New York know the police can't be everywhere, and carry a pistol to defend themselves from hooligans.

It depends on where you sell your gun. If you put an ad in the paper you can sell the gun to whomever you wish, if you take it to a gun show you have to use the services of one of the bigger gun show participants in order to get a background investigation. If the sale is private, no registration or background check is necessary.

Also if you sell the gun online at one of the e-bay like services for guns a background check is necessary.

 

[Johnney]

Sage if you feel the need to get some background on the effects of gun control programs in other countries, I recommend you research both England and Australia. I did that a few months ago and the picture isn't pretty. Both countries have seen an increase in home burglaries which are perpetrated while the occupants are on the premises. Criminals, no longer fearing armed owners, are getting more brazen.

But I do agree that background checks and gun registration are good things. On the other hand, allowing states like Massachusetts to prohibit hand guns is not desirable. I don't think that a state should be allowed to pass ordinances which violate the constitution.

hunters use handguns for hunting also, not jsut killing people

 

[Johnney]

I will never register my firearms. It's not the government's business how many guns I own.

they only know about 2 of the ones i have. good thing too

 

[Johnney]

personally getting taking out the 2nd amendment isnt going to do anything. i think i seen in here something like its only going to keep guns out of the law abiding citizens hands. which is true. as i have stated before in other gun posts, last time i was at the police station to get my license to aquire, im pretty sure i didnt see a seperate line for felons. if a bad guy wants one bad enough hes going to get it.

the gun control laws in the US are lacking thats for sure. but tougher penalties would be a good start. they need to expand it a bit. just using it for crime is a good start. but if you get caught carrying one should carry the same penalty. no plea bargins, deferments, or ass kissing should be allowed to influence a judge or jury. crime is crime and should be dealt with severly when it comes to weapons.

 

[Merlin]

They are. Before you can legally sell a firearm, you have to have a liscence, which costs an arm and a leg to get. You must then keep all background checks on record for a certain number of years and send them to the FBI. If the FBI has a serial number, they can tell you every single person who has legally handled that gun right down to the assembly line workers who made it. Whenever they find a gun used in a murder, they always go and interview the last legal owner. If he hasn't reported it as stolen and doesn't come up with a decent excuse as to why he no longer has it, he goes to jail for illegal arms sale, possibly murder

In the above scenario, if the police ever found out you were no longer in possession of the gun, you'd be arrested in a heartbeat.

Which state are you talking about here? Certainly not in the states I've been associated with. I've bought, sold, have guns given to me, and traded things for them. In my 6 + decades, I've never seen a registered gun, much less owned one.

 

[mattskramer]

I like debates about the 2nd Amendment almost as much as I like debates on gay marriage. Let's face it, the degree of gun ownership is all relative. I don't think that the "average private citizen" should be allowed to own 200 un-registered, fully-automatic, machine guns capable of holding 200-clip magazines each (assuming that such items could exist). Does that make me anti-gun? I think that law-abiding citizens should be allowed to own at least 1 simple shotgun. Does that make me pro-gun?

The issue is not "all or nothing". The issue is where to draw the line. Where do you draw the line (ICBMS, bazookas, anti-aircraft missiles, tanks, pistols, tommy-guns, etc)? What limits would you impose (limit ownership to 2000 guns per person or to 1 gun per person, registration, licensing, safety-locks, etc)?

 

[5stringJeff]

I like debates about the 2nd Amendment almost as much as I like debates on gay marriage. Let's face it, the degree of gun ownership is all relative. I don't think that the "average private citizen" should be allowed to own 200 un-registered, fully-automatic, machine guns capable of holding 200-clip magazines each (assuming that such items could exist). Does that make me anti-gun? I think that law-abiding citizens should be allowed to own at least 1 simple shotgun. Does that make me pro-gun?

The issue is not "all or nothing". The issue is where to draw the line. Where do you draw the line (ICBMS, bazookas, anti-aircraft missiles, tanks, pistols, tommy-guns, etc)? What limits would you impose (limit ownership to 2000 guns per person or to 1 gun per person, registration, licensing, safety-locks, etc)?

Frankly, I don't think there should be a limit on guns. Now when you talk about ICBMs (hyperbolically) or anti-aircraft missiles, those things are not guns, in that they don't involve a projectile being fired out a barrel. I think it goes without saying that such things fall outside the scope of "bearing arms."

That said, why should the government be able to tell me how many guns I can or can't have? If I want 200 guns, who cares? I can only use two at a time anyway. And if the rest of the nation is (or potentially could be) armed as well, then I'm going to be really careful with using my guns.

 

[Johnney]

I like debates about the 2nd Amendment almost as much as I like debates on gay marriage. Let's face it, the degree of gun ownership is all relative. I don't think that the "average private citizen" should be allowed to own 200 un-registered, fully-automatic, machine guns capable of holding 200-clip magazines each (assuming that such items could exist). Does that make me anti-gun? I think that law-abiding citizens should be allowed to own at least 1 simple shotgun. Does that make me pro-gun?

The issue is not "all or nothing". The issue is where to draw the line. Where do you draw the line (ICBMS, bazookas, anti-aircraft missiles, tanks, pistols, tommy-guns, etc)? What limits would you impose (limit ownership to 2000 guns per person or to 1 gun per person, registration, licensing, safety-locks, etc)?

are you even aware of what has to happen in order for you to own something (autos, silencers, machine guns, AOD) like that? it takes alot more than jsut getting a license to aquire. the BATF takes it seriously. and it costs a bunch of money. first you have to check whether or not they are even allowed to be own by a private person. some states say gun dealers can own, some say up to private collectors can own. very long and drawn out process. you should figure at least 6 months...at least.

as for the limiting the number of guns a person can own, what good is that going to do? and why just a simple shotgun? why not a handgun? or rifle? if its about what the gun is for, some argue that handguns are easily concealed and are for killing. ok, lets examine that. yes they are small and one can hide it on their body quite easily. but take your simple shotgun. which someone can cut the barrel off of, then cut the stock down. know what you have? about 14 inches or so of mean shotgun. capable of an outstanding pattern about 5 foot from the barrel. granted some people might not be a good shot with a handgun, but with your simple shotgun slightly modified, you can hit a whole lot more.

 

[mattskramer]

are you even aware of what has to happen in order for you to own something (autos, silencers, machine guns, AOD) like that? it takes alot more than jsut getting a license to aquire. the BATF takes it seriously. and it costs a bunch of money. first you have to check whether or not they are even allowed to be own by a private person. some states say gun dealers can own, some say up to private collectors can own. very long and drawn out process. you should figure at least 6 months...at least.

as for the limiting the number of guns a person can own, what good is that going to do? and why just a simple shotgun? why not a handgun? or rifle? if its about what the gun is for, some argue that handguns are easily concealed and are for killing. ok, lets examine that. yes they are small and one can hide it on their body quite easily. but take your simple shotgun. which someone can cut the barrel off of, then cut the stock down. know what you have? about 14 inches or so of mean shotgun. capable of an outstanding pattern about 5 foot from the barrel. granted some people might not be a good shot with a handgun, but with your simple shotgun slightly modified, you can hit a whole lot more.

Okay. You define “arm” as a barrel through which a projective is fired”. By that definition, an ICBM is an arm. Let’s go down this list of arms. Which ones, if any, should a citizen not be allowed to own:

(1.) ICBMs
(2.) Bazookas
(3.) Fully-automatic machine guns
(4.) Tanks

 

[OCA]

Everybody read the 2nd amendment again, there is no ambiguity there nor is it vague. An armed citizenry is the best deterrent to a tyrranical government.

Now as for the ridiculous arguments about IBCM's and bazookas, let me know where the common citizen can get his hands on one....until then we'll consider that argument to be foolish.

 

[mattskramer]

Everybody read the 2nd amendment again, there is no ambiguity there nor is it vague. An armed citizenry is the best deterrent to a tyrranical government.

Now as for the ridiculous arguments about IBCM's and bazookas, let me know where the common citizen can get his hands on one....until then we'll consider that argument to be foolish.

The argument is that if there is no limit to the 2nd amendment, should citizens be allowed to own bazookas. Let us have a straight answer – (yes or no). It isn’t a difficult question.

An answer …. I’m waiting… I didn’t so.

 

[Johnney]

Okay. You define “arm” as a barrel through which a projective is fired”. By that definition, an ICBM is an arm. Let’s go down this list of arms. Which ones, if any, should a citizen not be allowed to own:

(1.) ICBMs
(2.) Bazookas
(3.) Fully-automatic machine guns
(4.) Tanks

icbm i can see.
but bazookas full autos and tanks can be collected. there is nothing wrong with owning them. just because you dont see a need to own one, im betting a collector out there has a reason to own one.
i collect guns, never had any problems with any of them. never had one stolen, never had an accidental discharge. oh, and ive never killed anyone with one of them either (although there are a number of people that are alive just because murder is illegal). just like everything else there are some bad apples that like to fuck it up for everyone else.

 

[Johnney]

The argument is that if there is no limit to the 2nd amendment, should citizens be allowed to own bazookas. Let us have a straight answer – (yes or no). It isn’t a difficult question.

An answer …. I’m waiting… I didn’t so.

if they can be classified as a collector, and pass a BATF background check, and its legal for them to own in whatever state they reside, then yes.

 

[mattskramer]

but bazookas full autos and tanks can be collected.

Okay. Thanks for the straight answer. I can respect that. I’m sorry to say that with OCA, trying to get a straight answer is like trying to get blood from a turnip. Oh well.