The Gun Control Laws The United States Needs

[Pilot1]

And M-60 machine gun is a weapon designated as dangerous and unusual by the Second Amendment..

You cannot cite a ruling from the USSC to this effect.

The U.S. government committed an illegal act with the 1936 machine gun ban, and 1986 full auto moratorium. However, as you know, many can own machine guns, and other full auto capable weapons, cannons, tanks, warplanes, etc if they do the right paperwork, go through the background checks, pay for the licenses and have the very large amounts of money to buy these things.

 

[TRFjr]

People can own thousands of things that can be used to kill people.

Little fact for you

There are an estimated 393 million privately owned firearms in this country.
About 11000 people get murdered by a person who uses a gun

You'll note I didn't say murdered by a gun because a gun cannot murder anyone

so .0027% of privately owned guns are used annually in murders

here's another little fact

.003% of the population are murdered annually by people using guns.

IOW you have a 99.997% chance of not being murdered by a person using a gun in any one year

We need to bring the number of privately owned firearms in the country down to roughly 1 million. The restrictions suggested in the first post should eventually achieve that goal.

No we don't. As I have already told you less than .0027% of privately owned firearms are ever used to commit murder

All we need to do if get guns away from people who are already legally prohibited from owning them

Lots of mass shootings occur with those legally owning firearms. The civilian population is already restricted from owning most weapons that the United States Military has in its inventory. This is simply a further restriction to bring down the number of deaths by firearms per year as well as reduce the number of mass shootings. Civilians don't need any firearms, but if they can pass the test and background checks, they may own a shot gun or an Air Rifle. That is safe and sensible Gun Control that will work well for the entire country.

Citizens are not required to ‘justify’ the exercising of a fundamental right as a ‘prerequisite’ to indeed do so.

Whether or not citizens ‘need’ to possess a firearm is legally and constitutionally irrelevant.

The Second is an archaic amendment that no longer applies. The Constitution was designed to be changed with the times. It is time for the Second to go.

yes the founding fathers gave us the mechanism to change the constitution its called a constitutional amendment process
now take your uninformed ignorant ass and look it up then come back and explain how you have a snowballs chance in hell to get rid of the second amendment

 

[M14 Shooter]

And M-60 machine gun is a weapon designated as dangerous and unusual by the Second Amendment..

You cannot cite a ruling from the USSC to this effect.

The U.S. government committed an illegal act with the 1936 machine gun ban, and 1986 full auto moratorium. However, as you know, many can own machine guns, and other full auto capable weapons, cannons, tanks, warplanes, etc if they do the right paperwork, go through the background checks, pay for the licenses and have the very large amounts of money to buy these things.

Of course it did.

 

[OldLady]

The 2nd amendment allows civilians to own firearms which kill people. Therefor, extra restrictions and test are needed to insure the public is safe from civilians that legally own such weapons. This is not an issue with the other amendments.

4 fatally injured in stabbing spree in Southern California, suspect nabbed

https://www.foxnews.com/us/southern-california-suspect-kills-4-injures-2-in-series-of-stabbings-robberies

oops....looks like we need restrictions for knives too.
And while we're at it....you know cars and trucks are gonna be used if guns are restricted sooooo

Actually, that is a perfect example of what I've been arguing all along--harm reduction. Limiting guns means people who want to murder (and we were talking about mass murders) will have to do a lot more work, will be a lot easier to stop because the killer will be within arms reach, etc. etc.
It took that man two hours over two cities in order to kill four people.
Imagine what he would have done with a long gun with a 100 round drum.

 

[TRFjr]

The Gun Control Laws The United States Needs

In order to purchase a firearm, an individual must do the following:

01. Attend three month class on firearms

02. Pass a written test when the class has been completed

03. Achieve at least 95% accuracy during a shooting-range test

04. Pass a Mental Health evaluation at a hospital

05. Pass a background check in which the government digs into their criminal record

06. Pass a background check involving interviews with friends and family

07. Only shotguns and Air Rifles may be purchased, no handguns

08. New magazines can only be purchased by trading in empty ones

09. When a gun owner dies, their relatives must surrender the deceased members firearms

10. Every three years, the individual must pass the above tests and investigations

Most – if not all – of these measures would be invalidated by the courts as an undue burden on the Second Amendment right, particularly where handguns are concerned.

There are also potential Fourth, Fifth, and 14th Amendment violations.

It is obvious that the Second Amendment would have to go.

Actually I don't think it does. After all, Civilians are currently now allowed to own the vast majority of types of weapons that the United States military has in its inventory. So, this is simply tightening the current restrictions a little bit with respect to that fact.

The 2nd amendment would remain allowing Civilians to own Shotguns or Air Rifles provided they pass certain tests and background checks.

Second Amendment case law is in its infancy – currently evolving; it could be another 100 years before the Supreme Court codifies a comprehensive jurisprudence as to what weapons are entitled to Constitutional protections and what weapons are not.

But in accordance with current Second Amendment jurisprudence, your proposals would not pass Constitutional muster.

evolving? best you look up District of Columbia v. Heller
its settled law that the right to own firearms is an individual right and what type of firearms includes so-called assault rifles

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Sorry, but the Constitution says otherwise.

The 2nd Amendment is freely infringed, just look at age restrictions, no sales to felon, no sales of nukes... But the good thing is, you can read, so there's hope for you yet.

Twit. Do you realize that if I had around $250,000 of disposable income, and if I was so inclined, I could buy a WORKING tank with 10 rounds of WORKING ammunition?
The 2nd amendment may be infringed, but only because libs have snuck those infringements through.
In Illinois, you had to pay for an FOID (Firearm Owners ID). m That was recently struck down. You do not have to pay the gubment to own a forearm.
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Do you know any civilians that own working tanks?

It’s appropriate to infer that your proposed measures apply to all firearms, including handguns – where the Supreme Court has designated handguns to be comprehensively immune from most government regulation, unlike long guns.

Because your proposed measures are not limited to weapons not entitled to Constitutional protections – weapons considered to be dangerous and unusual, such as tanks and machine guns – the courts would strike down your proposed measures as being in violation of the Second Amendment.

If need be, we can amend the Second Amendment. Throw it out entirely if need be. But simply tightening the restrictions when it comes to civilians owning firearms I think will work. The majority of the U.S. population will demand it, and through democracy will either change the 2nd ammendment or pick and appoint Supreme Court Justices who will agree with such restrictions.

Actually not.

Amendments cannot be ‘amended.’

The Constitution would need to be amended to repeal the Second Amendment, just as the 21st Amendment was ratified to repeal the 18th Amendment.

 

[OldLady]

We need to bring the number of privately owned firearms in the country down to roughly 1 million. The restrictions suggested in the first post should eventually achieve that goal.

No we don't. As I have already told you less than .0027% of privately owned firearms are ever used to commit murder

All we need to do if get guns away from people who are already legally prohibited from owning them

Lots of mass shootings occur with those legally owning firearms. The civilian population is already restricted from owning most weapons that the United States Military has in its inventory. This is simply a further restriction to bring down the number of deaths by firearms per year as well as reduce the number of mass shootings. Civilians don't need any firearms, but if they can pass the test and background checks, they may own a shot gun or an Air Rifle. That is safe and sensible Gun Control that will work well for the entire country.

Citizens are not required to ‘justify’ the exercising of a fundamental right as a ‘prerequisite’ to indeed do so.

Whether or not citizens ‘need’ to possess a firearm is legally and constitutionally irrelevant.

The Second is an archaic amendment that no longer applies. The Constitution was designed to be changed with the times. It is time for the Second to go.

yes the founding fathers gave us the mechanism to change the constitution its called a constitutional amendment process
now take your uninformed ignorant ass and look it up then come back and explain how you have a snowballs chance in hell to get rid of the second amendment

Having a bad day, dear?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Owning guns? What does that have to do with natural rights or liberty?

I have discovered the problem. See this quote.



.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Yes, it would do something to prevent criminals, etc. from obtaining firearms. Because if they weren't in circulation or available in this country, where would the bad guys get one?

They'd steal them. Or make them.

You can't steal what isn't there.

Law enforcement won't have guns? The military wont have guns?
People can't make guns?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Gun Control Laws The United States Needs

In order to purchase a firearm, an individual must do the following:

01. Attend three month class on firearms

02. Pass a written test when the class has been completed

03. Achieve at least 95% accuracy during a shooting-range test

04. Pass a Mental Health evaluation at a hospital

05. Pass a background check in which the government digs into their criminal record

06. Pass a background check involving interviews with friends and family
07. Only shotguns and Air Rifles may be purchased, no handguns

08. New magazines can only be purchased by trading in empty ones

09. When a gun owner dies, their relatives must surrender the deceased members firearms

10. Every three years, the individual must pass the above tests and investigations

I agree with 1 2 and 5. To add to my list of those requirements, you must carry liability insurance the same as you would your car. Once insurance companies start paying out claims, watch how how fast firearms become more tightly controlled after that.

Rigtards might love their guns, but they love their money even more. Just put a rightards money in jeopardy, and you can change anything.

There is a right to possess a firearm, there is no right to possess or drive a car – consequently, laws requiring automobile insurance are justified; laws requiring gunowners to purchase liability insurance as a condition of gun ownership are not.

Again, amend the constitution and you can change the law.

You’d likely need to repeal more than just the Second Amendment – as your proposals are so overwhelmingly burdensome, representing such onerous government overreach, that they’d likely be invalidated by the courts regardless.

More laws, more regulations, and more restrictions is not the answer.

 

[OldLady]

The Gun Control Laws The United States Needs

In order to purchase a firearm, an individual must do the following:

01. Attend three month class on firearms

02. Pass a written test when the class has been completed

03. Achieve at least 95% accuracy during a shooting-range test

04. Pass a Mental Health evaluation at a hospital

05. Pass a background check in which the government digs into their criminal record

06. Pass a background check involving interviews with friends and family

07. Only shotguns and Air Rifles may be purchased, no handguns

08. New magazines can only be purchased by trading in empty ones

09. When a gun owner dies, their relatives must surrender the deceased members firearms

10. Every three years, the individual must pass the above tests and investigations

Sounds good to me. What's an air rifle? Can you hunt with one?

How many hoops do you want to jump through for your First, Fouth and Fifith amendment rights?

How many classes should you have to pay for and take?

How many permits should you get?

No 4th Amendment classes passed with a high enough score? Tough shit. Cops can search your home anytime they want.

No permit for your 8th Amendment rights? Tough shit. While the cops are ransacking your home searching for contraband they can torture you at the same time

We are talking about the Second. I don't see why it was ever put in the Bill of Rights as an "assumed" right. Owning guns? What does that have to do with natural rights or liberty? Guns are a weapon of war, designed specifically and solely to kill. Why did the Founding Fathers set us up as a country perpetually at war by granting a universal "right" to own guns? Now, the FF say it was to keep the militias ready for action. There was no standing army and the FF didn't want one.
The Second Amendment no longer applies because we do now have a gigantic standing army equipped with 100 times more powerful weapons than we civilians can own.

What applies to one right applies to all.

And we are not perpetually at war because civilians own guns.

Our military is not sanctioned to operate on US soil.

And the Constitution clearly states that the people ave the right to keep and bear arms

Don't like it then repeal the second amendment.

And just to remind you; you have a 99.997% chance of not getting murdered by a person with a gun how much closer do you want to get before you feel "safe"?

It's not about me. I live in an area where I'm more likely to die from stepping on a junkie's dirty needle than being shot. Or colliding with a moose on Route 1. Ten thousand people a year are murdered with guns. One hundred thousand a decade. That may be statistically insignificant but it is not insignificant from a human standpoint. And the countries that significantly limit citizens' access to guns have STATISTICALLY fewer deaths. Gun deaths are not like flu deaths which are germs we can't control and are not like car accidents, which are ... accidents. Gun deaths are entirely unnecessary because none of us needs to have a weapon. Not any of us except the trained police etc. who need them. In the U.K., there are so few guns and so few shootings that half the cops are not even armed with a gun. People notice if a cop is carrying; they apologize for it.

 

[sartre play]

We know that guns don't kill people, people kill people, now is not like the old days when from a young age people were taught the use of guns because guns were for hunting food or sport. there is a whole new breed of gun people who use guns as a form of power, not as a tool or an object of beauty history or form. these people need some to learn something about the use & care of guns.

 

[skews13]

We need to bring the number of privately owned firearms in the country down to roughly 1 million. The restrictions suggested in the first post should eventually achieve that goal.

No we don't. As I have already told you less than .0027% of privately owned firearms are ever used to commit murder

All we need to do if get guns away from people who are already legally prohibited from owning them

Lots of mass shootings occur with those legally owning firearms. The civilian population is already restricted from owning most weapons that the United States Military has in its inventory. This is simply a further restriction to bring down the number of deaths by firearms per year as well as reduce the number of mass shootings. Civilians don't need any firearms, but if they can pass the test and background checks, they may own a shot gun or an Air Rifle. That is safe and sensible Gun Control that will work well for the entire country.

Citizens are not required to ‘justify’ the exercising of a fundamental right as a ‘prerequisite’ to indeed do so.

Whether or not citizens ‘need’ to possess a firearm is legally and constitutionally irrelevant.

The Second is an archaic amendment that no longer applies. The Constitution was designed to be changed with the times. It is time for the Second to go.

yes the founding fathers gave us the mechanism to change the constitution its called a constitutional amendment process
now take your uninformed ignorant ass and look it up then come back and explain how you have a snowbyalls chance in hell to get rid of the second amendment

The founders also gave us the ability to interpret the four corners of the Constitution. The Judicial branch. Of which on two of its most recent decisions involving the 2nd amendment, of which a private citizen has the right to keep a firearm for protection in the home. In that same decision, also reaffirmed the states right to prohibit certain types of firearms, to restrict and prohibit their carrying and possession outside of the home.

Nobody has an absolute right to any type of firearm they want, or the right to carry or handle that firearm any way they want.

That is an adolescent fantasy, which in and of itself shows you are to immature to be in possession of a fire arm, and should be prohibited from doing so on that basis alone.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Actually, that is a perfect example of what I've been arguing all along--harm reduction. Limiting guns means people who want to murder (and we were talking about mass murders) will have to do a lot more work, will be a lot easier to stop because the killer will be within arms reach, etc. etc.
It took that man two hours over two cities in order to kill four people.
Imagine what he would have done with a long gun with a 100 round drum.

You have absolutely NO CLUE why we have a 2nd Amendment do you?

You think it's so that people can shoot up walmarts ....don't you?

 

[OldLady]

Owning guns? What does that have to do with natural rights or liberty?

I have discovered the problem. See this quote.



.

Now you understand me!

 

[M14 Shooter]

It's not about me. I live in an area where I'm more likely to die from stepping on a junkie's dirty needle than being shot. Or colliding with a moose on Route 1. Ten thousand people a year are murdered with guns. One hundred thousand a decade. That may be statistically insignificant but it is not insignificant from a human standpoint.

Look at you, demonstrating for the class that your position on guns is, indeed, driven by your irrational fears rather than any rationale or reason.

And the countries that significantly limit citizens' access to guns have STATISTICALLY fewer deaths

THERE it is - the post hoc fallacy.
Well done.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

To those who love your country......

What more PROOF than this thread do you need that these Communists Gun Grabbers are willing to give up all your Constitutional Rights in exchange for your oppression?

We are truly already in a Civil War. But through it ALL....remember this......

The exact same day they take your means of self defense, is the exact same day they take your soul and your freedom also.

MANY will lay down their rights without as much as a whimper......
Don't be one of them.

 

[Taz]

Yes, it would do something to prevent criminals, etc. from obtaining firearms. Because if they weren't in circulation or available in this country, where would the bad guys get one?

They'd steal them. Or make them.

You can't steal what isn't there.

Law enforcement won't have guns? The military wont have guns?
People can't make guns?

Hillbillies can make 'shine, but it's still illegal.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Yes, it would do something to prevent criminals, etc. from obtaining firearms. Because if they weren't in circulation or available in this country, where would the bad guys get one?

They'd steal them. Or make them.

You can't steal what isn't there.

Law enforcement won't have guns? The military wont have guns?
People can't make guns?

Hillbillies can make 'shine, but it's still illegal.

 

[OldLady]

It's not about me. I live in an area where I'm more likely to die from stepping on a junkie's dirty needle than being shot. Or colliding with a moose on Route 1. Ten thousand people a year are murdered with guns. One hundred thousand a decade. That may be statistically insignificant but it is not insignificant from a human standpoint.

Look at you, demonstrating for the class that your position on guns is, indeed, driven by your irrational fears rather than any rationale or reason.

And the countries that significantly limit citizens' access to guns have STATISTICALLY fewer deaths

THERE it is - the post hoc fallacy.
Well done.

There it is - the ad hominem attack.
See, I can speak Latin, too.