Mass Shooting Las Vegas...

[Sparko]

No, it isn't. See my response to Rogue.

Your argument is that the very government that is infringing on the right is qualified to say that it isn't infringing on our right. I can't wait to see how your respond when that government decides that preachers can't speak out against homosexuality in the church like they did in Canada.

[TheWall]

To those who want to abolish guns how will you do it? I really want to know because to me it sounds like you would need armed fellows to accomplist such a task.

[Sparko]

To those who want to abolish guns how will you do it? I really want to know because to me it sounds like you would need armed fellows to accomplist such a task.

They seem to think if you outlaw them, then the problem magically goes away and all the guns go poof. At least that's what you would think listening to the various pundits on TV.

[Jedidiah]

And why should possessing and using firearms be any different than possessing and using a car?

Read the Constitution of the United States.

[TheWall]

They seem to think if you outlaw them, then the problem magically goes away and all the guns go poof. At least that's what you would think listening to the various pundits on TV.

See I have a problem with folks who say they are against guns but want cops and the government to have guns, namely they aren't anti gun they just want gun ownership to be in very specific hands.

[Teallaura]

The underlined can be equally, if not more so applied to cars. People in general can often be really, really stupid. Oh, and guns are already regulated more than cars are, and by a rather large margin too.

Granted on the first point, disputed on the second. But even if I conceded both, how does that make gun control a bad idea?

[Teallaura]

Your argument is that the very government that is infringing on the right is qualified to say that it isn't infringing on our right. I can't wait to see how your respond when that government decides that preachers can't speak out against homosexuality in the church like they did in Canada.

Until incorporation, states had EVERY right to regulate guns however they saw fit. The Court, both pre and post incorporation has found that government, now Federal, has the power to regulate fire arms. It has never been otherwise. So while regulation can overstep into infringement, it is not necessarily infringement.

[Adrift]

See I have a problem with folks who say they are against guns but want cops and the government to have guns, namely they aren't anti gun they just want gun ownership to be in very specific hands.

I don't see why that should be an issue. Just because one might be anti-gun doesn't mean that they're anti-law enforcement or that they're pacifists or something.

[TheWall]

Granted on the first point, disputed on the second. But even if I conceded both, how does that make gun control a bad idea?

Again what do you mean by control? How will you implement it?
Personally I would include depression on background checks, increase waiting time, and in general espoused that responsibility is prevalent every time you put your hand on the gun.

[Teallaura]

See I have a problem with folks who say they are against guns but want cops and the government to have guns, namely they aren't anti gun they just want gun ownership to be in very specific hands.

I've yet to meet a gun owner that thinks felons and mentally ill persons should be able to have guns.

[Sparko]

Until incorporation, states had EVERY right to regulate guns however they saw fit. The Court, both pre and post incorporation has found that government, now Federal, has the power to regulate fire arms. It has never been otherwise. So while regulation can overstep into infringement, it is not necessarily infringement.

actually they didn't. They were infringing too. It just never was tested in court until recently and decided that it was infringing and the the 2nd took precedence, that was why it was incorporated: to make it official.

[rogue06]

Again what do you mean by control? How will you implement it?
Personally I would include depression on background checks, increase waiting time, and in general espoused that responsibility is prevalent every time you put your hand on the gun.

Ask the folks who ran out to buy a firearm to protect their home and family during rioting what they think of waiting periods. Or the woman who was just threatened by a deranged ex.

[Teallaura]

Again what do you mean by control? How will you implement it?
Personally I would include depression on background checks, increase waiting time, and in general espoused that responsibility is prevalent every time you put your hand on the gun.

It's BEEN implemented.

I'd like to see mandatory certification on gun handling for the weapon (type/class) purchased and certification on gun safety. I'd actually tweek the civil side - you (general) show that you made every reasonable effort (gun safe, locked doors) to keep your weapon secured when it wasn't on your person or you face liability for any and all damages resulting from its use for up to one year after the theft and not subject to bankruptcy protection. Any harm done while in your possession is also not subject to bankruptcy protection.

You are responsible for the weapon. You are responsible for any ammunition it discharges.

[TheWall]

Ask the folks who ran out to buy a firearm to protect their home and family during rioting what they think of waiting periods. Or the woman who was just threatened by a deranged ex.

I see rioting and home defense in a different category.

[Teallaura]

Ask the folks who ran out to buy a firearm to protect their home and family during rioting what they think of waiting periods. Or the woman who was just threatened by a deranged ex.

No training, no prior ownership - yeah, that makes for a great plan. Not.