Gun Control vs. Second Amendment

[caleb1633 1,418]

Gentlemen/Ladies,

In light of the recent school shooting in Parkland, FL, I was curious as to what all of your opinions were regarding the never-ending debate between gun control vs. second amendment rights.

Go!

[creed 1,650]

I voted for increased regulation and ban certain weapons, but I want to add that the regulations should be self funded through annual fees not administered by the federal government. I don't think it's fair for people who choose not to own guns to pay for an organization to monitor ownership. 

[Strychnine 1,804]

4 hours ago, creed said:

I voted for increased regulation and ban certain weapons, but I want to add that the regulations should be self funded through annual fees not administered by the federal government. I don't think it's fair for people who choose not to own guns to pay for an organization to monitor ownership. 

 

Something similar already exists via the ATF with the NFA process.

[LakeBum 187]

On 2/19/2018 at 9:53 AM, creed said:

I voted for increased regulation and ban certain weapons, but I want to add that the regulations should be self funded through annual fees not administered by the federal government. I don't think it's fair for people who choose not to own guns to pay for an organization to monitor ownership. 

Do you think it is fair for people who don't break the law to pay for prisons?

[creed 1,650]

2 hours ago, LakeBum said:

Do you think it is fair for people who don't break the law to pay for prisons?

No, but it beats having criminals walking the streets.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

3 hours ago, creed said:

No, but it beats having criminals walking the streets.

Does that apply to illegals who are here breaking the law?

[autigeremt 6,711]

I'm beyond tired of the failed argument that more bans and regulations will stop gun violence. The Second Amendment is one of the few things left to protect the citizen from an over oppressive government. If the people want to strip me of that right do so by passing and ratifying an amendment. Until then attack the real issue.....a declining moral compass and a disregard for human life. 

[alexava 6,973]

13 hours ago, autigeremt said:

I'm beyond tired of the failed argument that more bans and regulations will stop gun violence. The Second Amendment is one of the few things left to protect the citizen from an over oppressive government. If the people want to strip me of that right do so by passing and ratifying an amendment. Until then attack the real issue.....a declining moral compass and a disregard for human life. 

Please let me know who has argued more bans and regulations will STOP gun violence. I’ll wait. 

[homersapien 11,450]

15 hours ago, autigeremt said:

I'm beyond tired of the failed argument that more bans and regulations will stop gun violence. The Second Amendment is one of the few things left to protect the citizen from an over oppressive government. If the people want to strip me of that right do so by passing and ratifying an amendment. Until then attack the real issue.....a declining moral compass and a disregard for human life. 

I get the fantasy, but how's that supposed to work practically?

 

[AuburnNTexas 7,174]

There is no simple solution. In the latest shooting the ball was dropped multiple times. The shooter was not diagnosed as having an issue by a counselor despite multiple issues at school , being involved in cutting, etc., home was visited by police 36 times with no action taken, FBI didn't follow through on warnings. Current regulations would have stopped this person from buying a gun but people did not do their jobs. The church shooter a while back would have been prevented from buying a gun but Air Force didn't download its information to the database to prevent him from getting a gun.

So in some cases the Law would have prevented these incidents if people had been properly vetted so a new Law would not have changed anything if the agencies that dropped the ball were to drop the ball on a new law.  Doctor patient confidentiality needs to be visited is there a way a Doctor can put a patient on a no gun list without explaining why and could patient request to be taken off at a later time. Better Background checks would be nice but is only as good as the information that is put in.  I am not totally opposed to regulations on how many rounds a gun can fire per minute but regulations don't stop people from circumventing the regulations on their own.

Limiting the types of guns people could buy would seem like a solution but a shotgun with a few modifications would be an extremely deadly weapon in a public space.  For those who want a total ban it would be unenforceable there are so many guns out there and many very good, law abiding people would not comply with a gun ban. Trying to enforce would probably result in multiple violent confrontations.

What about all the violence on TV, Movies, Games, News, etc. How much has that eroded peoples sensitivities to violence. The internet where people no longer socialize person to person has had some impact. Common courtesy with the breakdown of families and the values that were taught by Parents, Churches, schools, etc. All these things have a part in the increase of violence.  

[autigeremt 6,711]

4 hours ago, homersapien said:

I get the fantasy, but how's that supposed to work practically?

 

It’s only fantasy for those who do not believe in the republic and why this is so important. I’m sure the patriots and minuteman were told of their fantasy in 1775.

[AUFAN78 3,926]

5 hours ago, AuburnNTexas said:

There is no simple solution. In the latest shooting the ball was dropped multiple times. The shooter was not diagnosed as having an issue by a counselor despite multiple issues at school , being involved in cutting, etc., home was visited by police 36 times with no action taken, FBI didn't follow through on warnings. Current regulations would have stopped this person from buying a gun but people did not do their jobs. The church shooter a while back would have been prevented from buying a gun but Air Force didn't download its information to the database to prevent him from getting a gun.

So in some cases the Law would have prevented these incidents if people had been properly vetted so a new Law would not have changed anything if the agencies that dropped the ball were to drop the ball on a new law.  Doctor patient confidentiality needs to be visited is there a way a Doctor can put a patient on a no gun list without explaining why and could patient request to be taken off at a later time. Better Background checks would be nice but is only as good as the information that is put in.  I am not totally opposed to regulations on how many rounds a gun can fire per minute but regulations don't stop people from circumventing the regulations on their own.

Limiting the types of guns people could buy would seem like a solution but a shotgun with a few modifications would be an extremely deadly weapon in a public space.  For those who want a total ban it would be unenforceable there are so many guns out there and many very good, law abiding people would not comply with a gun ban. Trying to enforce would probably result in multiple violent confrontations.

What about all the violence on TV, Movies, Games, News, etc. How much has that eroded peoples sensitivities to violence. The internet where people no longer socialize person to person has had some impact. Common courtesy with the breakdown of families and the values that were taught by Parents, Churches, schools, etc. All these things have a part in the increase of violence.  

You should copy and paste this in the gun conversation on the smack forum. Excellent points.

[autigeremt 6,711]

I have no problem raising the age to 21 for long guns. I've seen this floated out there and that's something I would support.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

41 minutes ago, autigeremt said:

I have no problem raising the age to 21 for long guns. I've seen this floated out there and that's something I would support.

I have no problem with raising the age also BUT will we raise the age from 18 to 21 for young soldiers being sent to Afghanistan and other hell holes at the same time?

[homersapien 11,450]

On 2/21/2018 at 6:57 PM, autigeremt said:

It’s only fantasy for those who do not believe in the republic and why this is so important. I’m sure the patriots and minuteman were told of their fantasy in 1775.

No actually, it's fantasy to anyone who really thinks about it. 

First, this is not personal.  In fact, I totally empathize with that feeling.  

I can relate to the "resistiance to tyranny" argument as much as anyone.  In fact, that's part of what I consider to be home defense.  For example, if a 'SWAT team" kicks in my door and shoots my dogs, I'll shoot to kill.   In fact, that's one of the few reasons I could actually rationalize owning an AR-15.   

But, I figure I'm going to die in any case, so a 12 ga. with the appropriate shot will suffice.  

As far as using privately-owned weapons to resist the national government, that's a totally different proposition.  You cannot defeat a modern army with heavy weapons and technology with whatever is hanging over your fireplace.  That's fantasy.

Our security resides in our political system, not personal arms.

[autigeremt 6,711]

17 hours ago, Proud Tiger said:

I have no problem with raising the age also BUT will we raise the age from 18 to 21 for young soldiers being sent to Afghanistan and other hell holes at the same time?

No because those young men, just like the drinking age, are only subject to that law inside the United States or a state where the law requires it. I get the argument but it's apples and oranges......just like an 18 year old using a grenade. 

[autigeremt 6,711]

12 hours ago, homersapien said:

No actually, it's fantasy to anyone who really thinks about it. 

First, this is not personal.  In fact, I totally empathize with that feeling.  

I can relate to the "resistiance to tyranny" argument as much as anyone.  In fact, that's part of what I consider to be home defense.  For example, if a 'SWAT team" kicks in my door and shoots my dogs, I'll shoot to kill.   In fact, that's one of the few reasons I could actually rationalize owning an AR-15.   

But, I figure I'm going to die in any case, so a 12 ga. with the appropriate shot will suffice.  

As far as using privately-owned weapons to resist the national government, that's a totally different proposition.  You cannot defeat a modern army with heavy weapons and technology with whatever is hanging over your fireplace.  That's fantasy.

Our security resides in our politcal system, not personal arms.

I contend it resides in both....and I would rather have the opportunity to resist with whatever weapon I was able to utilize. Technology is only good if it is in place 100% of the time. History has shown that an armed civilian population is much, much harder to defeat when you are fighting on their ground. 

[stoic-one 1,549]

On your poll list, I don't see:

- Better training for SRO's

- Increase the number of SRO's

- Address local and federal guidelines regarding the handling/investigation of reported individuals

To name a few...

In the wake of the most recent shooting, it's pretty obvious there were plenty of complete failures to go around. I don't believe any one thing on anyone's list is going to "prevent" everything (short of a national ban, repeal the 2A, and buyback program, not going to happen in America). I'm sure there are arguments  to be made for things that "can" be done on the federal level, which is pretty much all this poll covers, but there were a LOT of local failures here as well.

I know I'm mostly addressing school shootings in general here, but I haven't seen many discussions that offered solutions, which could be implemented,  that actually would have prevented non-school shootings either.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

2 hours ago, autigeremt said:

No because those young men, just like the drinking age, are only subject to that law inside the United States or a state where the law requires it. I get the argument but it's apples and oranges......just like an 18 year old using a grenade. 

I guess my question is should the law(s) be changed?

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

I went with ban certain weapons and increase regulations, I also would want mental health reform.

[AUFAN78 3,926]

Increased regulations/mental health reform/increase armed citizenry (school security measures)

 

[caleb1633 1,418]

On 2/24/2018 at 2:12 AM, autigeremt said:

I contend it resides in both....and I would rather have the opportunity to resist with whatever weapon I was able to utilize. Technology is only good if it is in place 100% of the time. History has shown that an armed civilian population is much, much harder to defeat when you are fighting on their ground. 

Ok, let's the just go ahead and set the record straight on the whole argument of "Well, the Afghans beat that superior technology with AKs and Pitch Forks! The Viet Cong beat us! The Americans vs. the British.", etc. First of all, there is a SIGNIFICANT difference between defeating an invading force versus defeating an occupying force. Secondly, every successful insurgency has had two critical similarities: 1- Significant geographic features which greatly hindered the superior force from asserting its dominance. 2- The support of a power that was of near or equal capability as the insurgency's opponent. 

If you want a better example, look at the Civil War. The states rose up in defiance of a "tyrannical" government insistent on taking their right to own slaves. They said, "You can have my slaves when you pry them from my cold, dead fingers!" And guess what? They pryed their slaves from their cold dead fingers.

Furthermore, do you really think the military is gonna pillage and burn their own homeland? Get real.

I agree with @homersapien. The opposition of a tyrannical government by the populace is nice in theory, and so is communism, but neither will work in practice.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

8 hours ago, caleb1633 said:

 

If you want a better example, look at the Civil War. The states rose up in defiance of a "tyrannical" government insistent on taking their right to own slaves.

Thank you for noting that the Civil War started over state's rights. Many here don't get that.

[caleb1633 1,418]

1 minute ago, Proud Tiger said:

Thank you for noting that the Civil War started over state's rights. Many here don't get that.

Yes, the states rights to own slaves haha. Though that wasn't really as prominently discussed until the emancipation proclamation. Lincoln implementing that is what won the war. Slaves fled the south in droves, crippling their economy, and it prevented the British from siding with the Confederacy due to Britain having just outlawed slavery themselves. Nonetheless, slavery was the one common thread among most of the documents the states submitted to succeed from the union.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

2 minutes ago, caleb1633 said:

Yes, the states rights to own slaves haha. Though that wasn't really as prominently discussed until the emancipation proclamation. Lincoln implementing that is what won the war. Slaves fled the south in droves, crippling their economy, and it prevented the British from siding with the Confederacy due to Britain having just outlawed slavery themselves. Nonetheless, slavery was the one common thread among most of the documents the states submitted to succeed from the union.

Agree.