How are those gun control laws coming along

[CELTICEMPIRE]

And don't forget hands. Lots of people have been killed by hands.

don't forget cars.

 

[NickyJ]

And don't forget hands. Lots of people have been killed by hands.

You're darn right! Ban 'em!

 

[emzie]

don't forget cars.

Which are regulated.

I have no problem with requiring people to demonstrate they're capable of using a firearm safely before allowing them to own one. And I have a hard time seeing why anyone would have a problem with that, unless they're worried that such testing would be used to exclude competent people. Really, if you don't think you can pass a standard safety test on firearm handling, you shouldn't be arguing for your right to own a firearm in the first place.

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

Which are regulated.

I have no problem with requiring people to demonstrate they're capable of using a firearm safely before allowing them to own one. And I have a hard time seeing why anyone would have a problem with that, unless they're worried that such testing would be used to exclude competent people. Really, if you don't think you can pass a standard safety test on firearm handling, you shouldn't be arguing for your right to own a firearm in the first place.

yes, I completely agree.

 

[NickyJ]

I have no problem with requiring people to demonstrate they're capable of using a firearm safely before allowing them to own one. And I have a hard time seeing why anyone would have a problem with that, unless they're worried that such testing would be used to exclude competent people. Really, if you don't think you can pass a standard safety test on firearm handling, you shouldn't be arguing for your right to own a firearm in the first place.

This I can agree with. However, I do not agree with people who think that all firearms should be banned.

 

[bhsup]

Which are regulated.

I have no problem with requiring people to demonstrate they're capable of using a firearm safely before allowing them to own one. And I have a hard time seeing why anyone would have a problem with that, unless they're worried that such testing would be used to exclude competent people. Really, if you don't think you can pass a standard safety test on firearm handling, you shouldn't be arguing for your right to own a firearm in the first place.

Let's transfer that over to some other guaranteed rights under our Constitution:

• The right of assembly: Should those OWS twerps be required to prove they can project a coherent message and platform before being allowed to assemble and protest?
• The right to vote: Should you be required to demonstrate an understanding of our political system and the current issues of the day?
• Eh, I was gonna do something with self-incrimination, but as I typed it, it just sounded silly.
• Should you have to prove you've nothing to hide before exercising your rights against unwarranted search and seizure?

 

[ParadigmShifter]

I remember all those massacres caused by people not knowing how to use the right of assembly/voting/unwarranted searches properly.

 

[emzie]

Let's transfer that over to some other guaranteed rights under our Constitution:

• The right of assembly: Should those OWS twerps be required to prove they can project a coherent message and platform before being allowed to assemble and protest?
• The right to vote: Should you be required to demonstrate an understanding of our political system and the current issues of the day?
• Eh, I was gonna do something with self-incrimination, but as I typed it, it just sounded silly.
• Should you have to prove you've nothing to hide before exercising your rights against unwarranted search and seizure?

I'm arguing what should be the case, and what a sensible take on guns would be. Not what is the case as guaranteed by the US Constitution. Now, despite the fact that you raised irrelevant points, I'll address what I said from a constitutional angle. As far as I'm aware, licensing for hand gun ownership isn't something the Supreme Court has said violates the second. An outright ban does. Requiring people to demonstrate they're competent for certain firearms (automatic rifles, semi-automatic hand guns) seems in line with the constitution. After all, you're still welcome to buy a bolt action rifle without any restrictions.

 

[warpus]

I have no problem with requiring people to demonstrate they're capable of using a firearm safely before allowing them to own one. And I have a hard time seeing why anyone would have a problem with that, unless they're worried that such testing would be used to exclude competent people. Really, if you don't think you can pass a standard safety test on firearm handling, you shouldn't be arguing for your right to own a firearm in the first place.

Quadrupleagree

Guns are dangerous, if you can't prove that you can use them safely, you shouldn't be allowed to go anywhere near them. If you can, go for it

 

[Defiant47]

The ridiculous parallels that are being drawn in this thread are ridiculous.

 

[bhsup]

Why? A Constitutional right is a Constitutional right. If you can make conditions for some, you can make conditions for all.

 

[Arwon]

Assembly is routinely curtailed by law enforcement agencies. Ask the guys occupying Wall Street about that.

Voting is restricted to people over 18, there are other restrictions imposed in the registration process.

Free speech is subject to consequences for things like incitement to violence, as well as to libel and defamation lawsuits.

No right is an absolute. They all carry concomitant responsibilities, and are subject to limitations specific to the potential harms that arise from them.

 

[NickyJ]

Assembly is routinely curtailed by law enforcement agencies. Ask the guys occupying Wall Street about that.

Voting is restricted to people over 18, there are other restrictions imposed in the registration process.

Free speech is subject to consequences for things like incitement to violence, as well as to libel and defamation lawsuits.

No right is an absolute. They all carry concomitant responsibilities, and are subject to limitations specific to the potential harms that arise from them.

Okay then, we make people have to get permits to use their hands. No biggie.

 

[Arwon]

What a sensible post.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Let's transfer that over to some other guaranteed rights under our Constitution:

• The right of assembly: Should those OWS twerps be required to prove they can project a coherent message and platform before being allowed to assemble and protest?
• The right to vote: Should you be required to demonstrate an understanding of our political system and the current issues of the day?
• Eh, I was gonna do something with self-incrimination, but as I typed it, it just sounded silly.
• Should you have to prove you've nothing to hide before exercising your rights against unwarranted search and seizure?

Agreed...ish.

Guns can be dangerous, and you don't want someone with the mental age of a 10 year old having one. On the other hand, them speaking out harms nobody.

That said, the test should be very easy to pass. It should simply determine that you are aware of when you are legally allowed to use it in self-defense, and that you haven't committed any crimes (I'd say within 10 years or so for a misdemeanor, and if you've committed a felony you can never have one.) But just arbitrary restriction? No.

And if you're qualified, ANY firearm should be on the table for you to buy.

 

[NickyJ]

What a sensible post.

Thanks. I just like to go with the flow.

Agreed...ish.

Guns can be dangerous, and you don't want someone with the mental age of a 10 year old having one. On the other hand, them speaking out harms nobody.

That said, the test should be very easy to pass. It should simply determine that you are aware of when you are legally allowed to use it in self-defense, and that you haven't committed any crimes (I'd say within 10 years or so for a misdemeanor, and if you've committed a felony you can never have one.) But just arbitrary restriction? No.

And if you're qualified, ANY firearm should be on the table for you to buy.

This.

 

[Arwon]

I don't understand how licensing and registration is even controversial.

 

[NickyJ]

I don't understand how licensing and registration is even controversial.

And that is precisely the reason why we should have licensing and registration for the use of hands.

 

[Cutlass]

Well if you are taking about mass-murder in general i'm not sure why gun laws would prevent them. If you are intent on killing as many people as possible i'm not sure why a gun law would stop you. Though if it did you would probably use alternate means. There have been mass killings with explosives, swords, even vehicles. I don't imagine anyone decided to kill a large number of people simply because they own or have easy access to a gun. Guns make things easier for the killer to be sure. Lack thereof certainly doesn't prevent them.

We should also remember the history of gun control in Europe and elsewhere was at its outset about keeping the elites in power and avoiding arming the average person. Gun control isn't always so benevolent.

Not having a gun would definitely lower the body count, though.

 

[cav scout]

Let's transfer that over to some other guaranteed rights under our Constitution:

• The right to vote: Should you be required to demonstrate an understanding of our political system and the current issues of the day?

Wow you are so paranoid, it's not like a voter test could ever be used as a pretext to limit liberty.