Wonky on Guns (for my fans)

[Wonky Pundit]

Mindful of all the hoopla around gun control laws right now, I decided to weigh in for those of you who are interested in the Pundit's take on the issue.

Well before the current wave of mass shootings, I've held that Americans in general should have every right to keep as many weapons for hunting and/or personal protection as they want. I have many friends who own guns, and I've practiced with them myself. The only reasons I don't own one are (1) I have a dog, (2) I don't live in a rural area, and (3) I'd rather not deal with the headaches of keeping my skills fresh and keeping the gun cleaned and maintained.

That said, there are a few things about the current gun laws that do need to change, although most of what I'm proposing would affect only a tiny fraction of gun owners.

1) Gun licensing and registration records should be held by law enforcement and obtainable only through a warrant or subpoena.

2) Felons cannot be given or keep a license. Neither can any member of their household.

3) Anyone failing a psychiatric exam cannot be given or keep a license. The same applies if any member of their household fails or refuses to take the exam.

4) Instead of focusing on "assault weapons," there should be a ban on weapons that are designed with the primary purpose of killing more than one person in a short time (under 60 seconds). There is no logical reason for any civilian to have something like this. If you're truly concerned about multiple criminals targeting you or your home, a weapon like this isn't the answer: you need to hire an armed security detail.

 

[OODA_Loop]

There is no logical reason for any civilian to have something like this. If you're truly concerned about multiple criminals targeting you or your home, a weapon like this isn't the answer: you need to hire an armed security detail.

Not acording to SCOTUS.

Couldn't ask for a better home defense weapon than an AR15.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

There is no logical reason for any civilian to have something like this. If you're truly concerned about multiple criminals targeting you or your home, a weapon like this isn't the answer: you need to hire an armed security detail.

Not acording to SCOTUS.

Couldn't ask for a better home defense weapon than an AR15.

Link to the decision?

 

[OODA_Loop]

There is no logical reason for any civilian to have something like this. If you're truly concerned about multiple criminals targeting you or your home, a weapon like this isn't the answer: you need to hire an armed security detail.

Not acording to SCOTUS.

Couldn't ask for a better home defense weapon than an AR15.

Link to the decision?

Youre kidding right ?

 

[Wonky Pundit]

Why would it be such a problem to cite the case? I'm sure that inquiring readers would want to know.

 

[OKTexas]

Short summation, your a freaking idiot. What if two people break in, do ya just bend over and kiss your ass good bye? Also your forgetting the reason the states insisted on the 2nd Amendment in the first place, hint, it wasn't for personal protection.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Why would it be such a problem to cite the case? I'm sure that inquiring readers would want to know.

Hard to take someone opining on gun law in the US seriously without knowing Heller.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

 

[PoliticalChic]

Mindful of all the hoopla around gun control laws right now, I decided to weigh in for those of you who are interested in the Pundit's take on the issue.

Well before the current wave of mass shootings, I've held that Americans in general should have every right to keep as many weapons for hunting and/or personal protection as they want. I have many friends who own guns, and I've practiced with them myself. The only reasons I don't own one are (1) I have a dog, (2) I don't live in a rural area, and (3) I'd rather not deal with the headaches of keeping my skills fresh and keeping the gun cleaned and maintained.

That said, there are a few things about the current gun laws that do need to change, although most of what I'm proposing would affect only a tiny fraction of gun owners.

1) Gun licensing and registration records should be held by law enforcement and obtainable only through a warrant or subpoena.

2) Felons cannot be given or keep a license. Neither can any member of their household.

3) Anyone failing a psychiatric exam cannot be given or keep a license. The same applies if any member of their household fails or refuses to take the exam.

4) Instead of focusing on "assault weapons," there should be a ban on weapons that are designed with the primary purpose of killing more than one person in a short time (under 60 seconds). There is no logical reason for any civilian to have something like this. If you're truly concerned about multiple criminals targeting you or your home, a weapon like this isn't the answer: you need to hire an armed security detail.

"Felons cannot be given or keep a license. Neither can any member of their household."

How about anyone who knows a felon?

"Female friend bought guns for upstate fireman killer: cops"
Gal bought guns for upstate fireman killer: cops - NYPOST.com


Maybe we should include anyone who knows someone who knows someone who knows a felon....?

 

[Wonky Pundit]

Short summation, your a freaking idiot.

Short summation, you don't have a decent counterargument, so you have to resort to "childish" name calling.

What if two people break in, do ya just bend over and kiss your ass good bye?

Like I said: if that possibility truly worries you, hire armed guards.

Also your forgetting the reason the states insisted on the 2nd Amendment in the first place, hint, it wasn't for personal protection.

Are you saying it was to form a militia? (The states already did that; it's called the national guard.)

 

[Wonky Pundit]

Why would it be such a problem to cite the case? I'm sure that inquiring readers would want to know.

Hard to take someone opining on gun law in the US seriously without knowing Heller.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

What makes you think I don't? Did it occur to you that I may have wanted the case linked in this thread for reference? (Hint: I did.)

 

[Wonky Pundit]

"Felons cannot be given or keep a license. Neither can any member of their household."

How about anyone who knows a felon?

"Female friend bought guns for upstate fireman killer: cops"
Gal bought guns for upstate fireman killer: cops - NYPOST.com


Maybe we should include anyone who knows someone who knows someone who knows a felon....?

"Living in the same house" is good enough for me, thanks. Of course, there are other penalties for giving or selling firearms to someone who isn't supposed to have them...

 

[OODA_Loop]

Why would it be such a problem to cite the case? I'm sure that inquiring readers would want to know.

Hard to take someone opining on gun law in the US seriously without knowing Heller.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

What makes you think I don't? Did it occur to you that I may have wanted the case linked in this thread for reference? (Hint: I did.)

Great !!

So you just disregard the affirmations in Heller ?

 

[OKTexas]

Short summation, your a freaking idiot.

Short summation, you don't have a decent counterargument, so you have to resort to "childish" name calling.

What if two people break in, do ya just bend over and kiss your ass good bye?

Like I said: if that possibility truly worries you, hire armed guards.

Also your forgetting the reason the states insisted on the 2nd Amendment in the first place, hint, it wasn't for personal protection.

Are you saying it was to form a militia? (The states already did that; it's called the national guard.)

Now your showing how truly ignorant you really are. First if your going to restrict my ability to defend myself, you hire the armed guards for me, can you really afford that? Second, the intent of the 2nd Amendment was to give the power to the people to maintain a FREE state, which has nothing to do with the national guard. If you notice it says the "right of the people" not the right of the government, not the right of the state, to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Any more questions?

 

[Yurt]

Why would it be such a problem to cite the case? I'm sure that inquiring readers would want to know.

Hard to take someone opining on gun law in the US seriously without knowing Heller.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

what language in heller supports your claim?

 

[Wonky Pundit]

Hard to take someone opining on gun law in the US seriously without knowing Heller.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

What makes you think I don't? Did it occur to you that I may have wanted the case linked in this thread for reference? (Hint: I did.)

Great !!

So you just disregard the affirmations in Heller ?

Many SCOTUS decisions have statements with which I - or any other thinking American - would disagree. What's your point?

 

[bobcollum]

Short summation, your a freaking idiot. What if two people break in, do ya just bend over and kiss your ass good bye? Also your forgetting the reason the states insisted on the 2nd Amendment in the first place, hint, it wasn't for personal protection.

If you would ever proofread your comments, for goodness sake, do it when you're accusing someone else of being an idiot.

 

[hazlnut]

Couldn't ask for a better home defense weapon than an AR15.

we now know you are clueless ....

 

[OODA_Loop]

Why would it be such a problem to cite the case? I'm sure that inquiring readers would want to know.

Hard to take someone opining on gun law in the US seriously without knowing Heller.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

what language in heller supports your claim?

Heller affirms the individual right to bear weapons in common usage.

There is an AR15 in practically every cop car in America. Thousands of the 4,000,000 estimated in circulation are in competitions every weekend and I bought mine at WALMART.

Pretty common.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Couldn't ask for a better home defense weapon than an AR15.

we now know you are clueless ....

I couldn't ask for a better home defense weapon that an AR15.

It is not for everyone.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

Short summation, your a freaking idiot.

Short summation, you don't have a decent counterargument, so you have to resort to "childish" name calling.

Like I said: if that possibility truly worries you, hire armed guards.

Also your forgetting the reason the states insisted on the 2nd Amendment in the first place, hint, it wasn't for personal protection.

Are you saying it was to form a militia? (The states already did that; it's called the national guard.)

Now your showing how truly ignorant you really are.

Do you have any idea how funny it is when you accuse someone of ignorance and can't even spell the sentence correctly?

First if your going to restrict my ability to defend myself, you hire the armed guards for me, can you really afford that?

Sure. Next you'll be demanding the right to defend yourself by putting a missile silo on your property.

Second, the intent of the 2nd Amendment was to give the power to the people to maintain a FREE state, which has nothing to do with the national guard. If you notice it says the "right of the people" not the right of the government, not the right of the state, to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Any more questions?

The 2nd Amendment says no such thing. Thanks for playing.