U.S. Fire Arms laws and regulations

[ExpandMyMind]

How is the 2nd amendment obsolete?........Just for one of thousands of examples, the US was attacked ( 9/11 ).....When do we not need the protection of our guns?.....When will that be obsolete?

Can you tell me when world peace, and crime will no longer be around?......That is when it may be obsolete.

I'd like to see just 10 of these 'thousands of examples'. And 9/11? Please tell me how planes flying into buildings could have been prevented by more people having guns? Possibly you're advocating people carrying them onto planes? I see no other relevance, even slightly.

[Maizer]

Of course, no one knows how to stop these random " mass killings ", I doubt anyone will ever figure that out. There is no way to tell when someone is going to snap. ( usually )

Thanks for proving my point. We don't know when people snap, and when they do, guns are responsible for most tragic results and happen numerously.

Therefor, remove guns until we figure out how to keep people from snapping. Which won't happen for a long time.

[Maizer]

I can not seem to find a amendment that was there for slavery being legal, and was taken away......Can you point me to it?

Didn't say it was. I'm talking about the law in general. The 2nd Amendment is simply another law that can be outdated, and can be changed. Like slavery.

[Sakari]

I'd like to see just 10 of these 'thousands of examples'. And 9/11? Please tell me how planes flying into buildings could have been prevented by more people having guns? Possibly you're advocating people carrying them onto planes? I see no other relevance, even slightly.

No, I am saying as part of the reasoning to have guns, from the forefathers, is to protect ourselves from other Countries, and from our own Government if need be.

I was making a point that the US was attacked, not saying guns would have stopped that.That there are threats of being attacked, even today. And no, I am not some doomsday prepper that thinks we will be, I only have a shotgun, a pistol, and that is it for now. My other guns had been stolen, from a expensive, secure safe....From a ex-brother in law that had keys made for everything me and the ex wife had during our marriage. She informed me of this after the fact. Although we were never able to prove it, but it was obvious.....

10 examples...Just go back through the replies of this thread, and the other two recent threads, you will get over 30.

[AsteroidX]

The 2nd Amendment is not a Law. It is a Constitutional Right. It is actually one of the few Constitutional Rights backed up by the declaration of Independence which gives it even more weight in my book.

Edited December 18, 2012 by AsteroidX

[F3SS]

What if fingerprint technology was built into guns? They'd be more expensive but they couldn't be used in the wrong hands. Remember, this school shooter was denied a gun purchase and he couldn't have used his mothers guns with such tech. Would that appease you anti-gun nuts?

[ExpandMyMind]

Thank You....

It also lies in our Judicial System, and the sentencing. As I said, some things need stiffer penalties, such as possession of stolen guns, sales of stolen guns, and crimes with guns.

Stiffer penalties do not result in less crime. You think that when someone goes to kill someone they actually think deeply about the consequences of being caught? "Well, I wanna kill someone, but if I go to the next state over I won't get the death penalty so I think I'll do that".

[Sakari]

Thanks for proving my point. We don't know when people snap, and when they do, guns are responsible for most tragic results and happen numerously.

Therefor, remove guns until we figure out how to keep people from snapping. Which won't happen for a long time.

You love dodging facts and things you can not argue don't you?

Or do you just like seeing us repeat ourselves?

Guns are not the issue, the issue are the nut jobs doing this.......And,again, in red, in bold.....PIPEBOMBS< TRUCK BOMBS< CAR BOMBS<POISON, etc.

Those are used more then guns in mass murders......You are not thinking, and you are avoiding this.

[Maizer]

What if fingerprint technology was built into guns? They'd be more expensive but they couldn't be used in the wrong hands. Remember, this school shooter was denied a gun purchase and he couldn't have used his mothers guns with such tech. Would that appease you anti-gun nuts?

Virginia murders were done by a guy who bought his own guns.

And if we're going to imprint fingerprint tech on all 300 million guns, might as well remove them all. It's safer.

[Maizer]

You love dodging facts and things you can not argue don't you?

Or do you just like seeing us repeat ourselves?

Guns are not the issue, the issue are the nut jobs doing this.......And,again, in red, in bold.....PIPEBOMBS< TRUCK BOMBS< CAR BOMBS<POISON, etc.

Those are used more then guns in mass murders......You are not thinking, and you are avoiding this.

You're the one whose pretty much ignoring any facts and logic. Guns are by far the most used tools for murder.

You know, lets just stop arguing and agree to disagree.

[AsteroidX]

Fingerprinting violates the 4th Amendment . And what if my wife is home alone and an intruder breaks in. So now I have to own 2 guns a his and hers....

[Gunn]

I'm for a safer country for our kids with realistic measures.

Too many logical points have been made in this thread, against your arguments. You must think the U.S. can be like China in some way, or worse, old communist Russia . Brother, we've got a hellvua long way, long after you and I have passed on and even when our children's children have passed on, before that even happens. And other's here will say that will never happen without a civil war and I totally agree. So dream on buddy!

[Sakari]

Stiffer penalties do not result in less crime. You think that when someone goes to kill someone they actually think deeply about the consequences of being caught? "Well, I wanna kill someone, but if I go to the next state over I won't get the death penalty so I think I'll do that".

I thought we and I were talking about stricter gun laws.......Wait, I was, and I even said that.

And yes, I do believe stats show Countries with stiffer laws, have less crimes.

[ExpandMyMind]

No, I am saying as part of the reasoning to have guns, from the forefathers, is to protect ourselves from other Countries, and from our own Government if need be.

I was making a point that the US was attacked, not saying guns would have stopped that.That there are threats of being attacked, even today. And no, I am not some doomsday prepper that thinks we will be, I only have a shotgun, a pistol, and that is it for now. My other guns had been stolen, from a expensive, secure safe....From a ex-brother in law that had keys made for everything me and the ex wife had during our marriage. She informed me of this after the fact. Although we were never able to prove it, but it was obvious.....

10 examples...Just go back through the replies of this thread, and the other two recent threads, you will get over 30.

You have the most powerful military in the World and your country is not in any danger of being invaded. It is probably the country in the World that is least likely to ever be invaded. It is nothing more than paranoia this. If you really believe that without your guns your government would become tyrannical against its own people, then guess what... You don't even have a slither of freedom right now.

The Second Amendment was born through an age of tyranny and land contest. That age is now dead.

About your examples. You are now advocating that, what? Teachers should keep guns on them? College professors? Everyone? You honestly think more people carrying guns will result in less crime? Police are responsible for policing and carrying and using guns - and they are extensively trained in doing so. If every Tom, Dick and Harry shoulders this responsibility, you'll see far more innocents dying in this dystopian future you seem to be envisioning.

Edited December 18, 2012 by ExpandMyMind

[AsteroidX]

Please dont make me post all the relevant info regarding the 2nd Amendment again.

[Drayno]

That PRECAUTION is no longer needed. The deaths of 56 million people have nothing to do with this subject.

What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not get?

Their deaths have EVERYTHING to do with this! What planet are you from!?

[Gunn]

Please dont make me post all the relevant info regarding the 2nd Amendment again.

Which won't do you any good, because they're not reading it. Just like with Sakari

(or anybody else for that matter), they don't read anything he posts either. It's a lost cause, man.

[Sakari]

You have the most powerful military in the World and your country is not in any danger of being invaded. It is probably the country in the World that is least likely to ever be invaded. It is nothing more than paranoia this. If you really believe that without your guns your government would become tyrannical against its own people, then guess what... You don't even have a slither of freedom right now.

2 planes to the Twin Towers, and 1 to the Pentagon.....Nah, we are not in danger at all.

The Second Amendment was born through an age of tyranny and land contest. That age is now dead.

About your examples. You are now advocating that, what? Teachers should keep guns on them? College professors? Everyone? You honestly think more people carrying guns will result in less crime? Police are responsible for policing and carrying and using guns - and they are extensively trained in doing so. If every Tom, Dick and Harry shoulders this responsibility, you'll see far more innocents dying in this dystopian future you seem to be envisioning.

Where did I say people need to be carrying guns?.....Why do you people only know how to avoid facts, and make false accusations?....Is my spelling or grammar that bad?

I say, and said, people are not looking at the root cause, and are blaming the items used. Items used by many other people that use them safely, and legally. Just as I said, drunk drivers kill more people then anything ( close to the top, if not top ), so with this logic, we need to take away alcohol.....Or cars and trucks.

And you know what, yes, if a teacher there had a gun on them, there is a good chance less children would have died, very good chance. Hell, if teachers carried guns, and some dumb ass went in and got his brains blown off, the next guy will think twice before doing it....So, helluva good point. Not my idea, but good point.

And the future of the US, and the World...My opinion, yes, it is not going to get any better anytime soon, it is getting worse. No idea what is going to happen, but when millions of people get desperate enough, because they can not find jobs or get unemployment, I will be glad I have a couple guns in my home.( if I am around then )

[ExpandMyMind]

I thought we and I were talking about stricter gun laws.......Wait, I was, and I even said that.

And yes, I do believe stats show Countries with stiffer laws, have less crimes.

What? Are you being serious right now? You have some of the strictest laws in the World, with some of the harshest penalties, including the barbaric death penalty, yet you have the highest incarcerated population in the World. 5% of the World's population and 25% of the World's incarcerated population. Do you honestly believe what you are saying here?

Then take a look at Sweden. They have the least 'severe' penalties for crimes. They instead spend the time properly rehabilitating their criminals (with a majority success rate) and they have amongst the lowest crime rates in the entire World, if not the lowest for a country with their size of population.

To state that harsher laws result in less crime is actually the complete opposite of the truth of the matter. Go and take a look at the countries with the death penalty and tell me if that is a group you like to be lumped in with.

[Drayno]

You have the most powerful military in the World and your country is not in any danger of being invaded. It is probably the country in the World that is least likely to ever be invaded. It is nothing more than paranoia this. If you really believe that without your guns your government would become tyrannical against its own people, then guess what... You don't even have a slither of freedom right now.

The Second Amendment was born through an age of tyranny and land contest. That age is now dead.

About your examples. You are now advocating that, what? Teachers should keep guns on them? College professors? Everyone? You honestly think more people carrying guns will result in less crime? Police are responsible for policing and carrying and using guns - and they are extensively trained in doing so. If every Tom, Dick and Harry shoulders this responsibility, you'll see far more innocents dying in this dystopian future you seem to be envisioning.

I'm not worried about foreign powers, I am worried about domestic powers, which is a wise thing to be worried about..

The age of tyranny is never dead. People either get wise or dumb. Governments stay the same.

And governments have no conscience, only policy.

Governments have been the same since Machiavelli destroyed the morals inherent in politics in the 1532.

Governments aren't going to change and be your friend just because they promise you entitlements.

Edited December 18, 2012 by Drayno

[preacherman76]

Of course, in the case of the Cafe Racer mass murders in Seattle a few months ago, the killer of 5 innocent people, DID buy his guns legally and they were all registered to him, and it was well known that he was mentally unstable.

Not only that, in the past, he'd been CHARGED with a few violent felonies (mainly domestic) but never actually convicted. His family and friends had been trying to have him committed for years.

I guess my point is that I'm not pro or anti guns. I'm pretty sure the laws of ownership do need to be tweaked, but I don't have any concrete ideas at this time. What I DO know is that mental health care in this country SUCKS. Really really sucks.... that's where the root of the problem for these kinds of things lie. Something has to be done about that first.

And, it's no surprise that the vast majority of people who jealously guard their guns are the same ones who aren't interested in available heath care for everyone. Yep, I said that.

Hey Miss.

I dont think anyone is against health care being available for everyone. We just dont see how forcing Americans to buy health insurance from private for profit companies still keeps us on the side of constitutional freedom.

The mental health issue is definitly one thing that should be addressed when it comes to buying guns, but I dont know how to go about that and not have perfectly sane folks denied thier rights.

[Sakari]

Please dont make me post all the relevant info regarding the 2nd Amendment again.

They do not read facts, or even answer logical posts.....They twist them, and make them what they think they are. It is really a waste of time, but I am bored as hell.

Just thank someone these type of people are not in our Government, and most do not live in the US anyway.

Funny also, I have pointed out numerous times, no other Countries ( very few ) have a ban on guns. Just stricter permitting ( some not much stricter really ).......Yet, the US needs to ban guns all together.

This is what frustrates me so bad....That alone shows it is not the guns that are the issue, it is the people who have them, and how they are getting them....I have no issue with stricter permitting, and back ground checks.....And no individual sales either.

[Sakari]

What? Are you being serious right now? You have some of the strictest laws in the World, with some of the harshest penalties, including the barbaric death penalty, yet you have the highest incarcerated population in the World. 5% of the World's population and 25% of the World's incarcerated population. Do you honestly believe what you are saying here?

Then take a look at Sweden. They have the least 'severe' penalties for crimes. They instead spend the time properly rehabilitating their criminals (with a majority success rate) and they have amongst the lowest crime rates in the entire World, if not the lowest for a country with their size of population.

To state that harsher laws result in less crime is actually the complete opposite of the truth of the matter. Go and take a look at the countries with the death penalty and tell me if that is a group you like to be lumped in with.

Different topic brother.....And I agree with a lot of it.....Different topic though, not discussing it here.

I also stated I " believe ".....( as not many do here ). I was / am not sure of the facts on that......Either way, different topic...." Sentencing to harsh, or not harsh enough in the US ".......

I am discussing ways to get numbers down on gun violence. Every other Country ( most ) allow citizens to have guns, they have permitting and such, possibly stricter, possibly less. They are doing something right, because they have guns, and they have less kill per capita......The guns are not in the equation there.

Edited December 18, 2012 by Sakari

[ExpandMyMind]

Thanks for making it so difficult for me to quote you by the way.

2 planes to the Twin Towers, and 1 to the Pentagon.....Nah, we are not in danger at all.

Do you understand the definition of invasion? Do you actually consider 9/11 an invasion. An invasion is when another army sends troops to occupy your country. This is the only time a country would need guns to protect themselves from an outside force. The U.S. is literally the most impregnable nation in the World in this respect. Literally no danger.

Where did I say people need to be carrying guns?.....Why do you people only know how to avoid facts, and make false accusations?....Is my spelling or grammar that bad?

I say, and said, people are not looking at the root cause, and are blaming the items used. Items used by many other people that use them safely, and legally. Just as I said, drunk drivers kill more people then anything ( close to the top, if not top ), so with this logic, we need to take away alcohol.....Or cars and trucks.

And you know what, yes, if a teacher there had a gun on them, there is a good chance less children would have died, very good chance. Hell, if teachers carried guns, and some dumb ass went in and got his brains blown off, the next guy will think twice before doing it....So, helluva good point. Not my idea, but good point.

And the future of the US, and the World...My opinion, yes, it is not going to get any better anytime soon, it is getting worse. No idea what is going to happen, but when millions of people get desperate enough, because they can not find jobs or get unemployment, I will be glad I have a couple guns in my home.( if I am around then )

You suggested to me that all would need to carry guns when you stated that I look up the '30' examples of your country being attacked. I assumed you were referring to civilian attacks (unless you actually believe your country has been attacked from the outside 30 times?). You brought these points up in a manner that suggested you thought that people - civilians - having their own guns during these events might have prevented it. For this to be the case, carrying a gun would have to be a widespread action, ergo, all people carrying guns. I don't put words into people's mouths.

And there you have actually advocated TEACHERS carrying guns. I have never heard anything as downright ill thought as this. Guns in schools, in the hands of teachers, no less. You seriously cannot see problems arising from such a ridiculous policy? Let's ignore the obvious possible outcomes of that (like a kid getting a hold of one) and concentrate on the possibility of a particularly mentally unstable teacher going on to carry out the exact crime he was given a gun to prevent. What happens after that first event? A ex-cop security guard in every classroom to then make sure the teachers don't abuse the use of their gun?

If this whole issue was not as serious as it is, I would seriously laugh right now.

[MissMelsWell]

Thank You....

It also lies in our Judicial System, and the sentencing. As I said, some things need stiffer penalties, such as possession of stolen guns, sales of stolen guns, and crimes with guns.

Make it harsh enough where people will second guess themselves.....

Of course, no one knows how to stop these random " mass killings ", I doubt anyone will ever figure that out. There is no way to tell when someone is going to snap. ( usually )

Using another recent mass murder (Cafe Racer in Seattle) as a comparison... his family and friends were NOT surprised he snapped... not at all. Theyd been screaming at law enforcement and the health community about it for years! No one listened. If I'm not mistaken James Holmes, the Colorado gunman also had fire arms registered to him, and he'd told a classmate that he planned to shoot up a bunch of people. But nothing could be done until both perps acted first. That is a PROBLEM. It is THE problem.

The point being that in the cases of these mass shootings... people who know the perps really aren't surprised! That has to stop, unfotunately, there is no way to stop it unless more can be done in terms of stopping these people before they act... right now, that's virtually impossible.

You love dodging facts and things you can not argue don't you?

Or do you just like seeing us repeat ourselves?

Guns are not the issue, the issue are the nut jobs doing this.......And,again, in red, in bold.....PIPEBOMBS< TRUCK BOMBS< CAR BOMBS<POISON, etc.

Those are used more then guns in mass murders......You are not thinking, and you are avoiding this.

This is a bit of a non sequitur or a straw man. Guns ARE part of the issue.. they aren't the whole issue, but they are part of it. We have so few pipebomb, truckbombs, and mass poisoning that they aren't in the same category as gun violence.

Hey Miss.

I dont think anyone is against health care being available for everyone. We just dont see how forcing Americans to buy health insurance from private for profit companies still keeps us on the side of constitutional freedom.

The mental health issue is definitly one thing that should be addressed when it comes to buying guns, but I dont know how to go about that and not have perfectly sane folks denied thier rights.

People who are mentally ill are the LEAST able to pay for their own mental health care, they're also the least likely to seek help.