Gun Control

[Kalalau]

Re: Gun Control

Should people who contemplate suicide be denied gun ownership?

[Kaonohi]

Re: Gun Ownership Denial

Should people who contemplate suicide be denied gun ownership?

Most everyone contemplates suicide at one time or another in their lives. If you haven't, you just ain't there yet.

Most people who contemplate suicide do not end up even close to commission, for they recognize the downside and find alternatives to their despair. So, no. They should not be denied gun ownership.

If a competent professional determines a person is at risk for suicide, then yes, even though there are easier ways to suicide, we need to not encourage them.

[Kaonohi]

Re: Gun Control and Pot

Does guns and marijuana mix?
Pass the Dutchie on the left hand side.

I think you meant 'do.' IMHO, yes.

In Vietnam people were in 4 intoxication categories:

1. Abstainers
2. Drinkers
3. Pot smokers
4. Heavy drug users.

All the firearm incidents I witnessed in a year were perpetrated by drinkers. Friends would get drunk together, and suddenly they weren't friends anymore and guns came out.

Pot smokers 'mellowed out,' and there was not a single incident where pot smokers threatened anyone with firearms.

Heavy drug users were usually too down to care, and abstainers ended up stopping the fights.

Perhaps smoking pot should be a requirement for gun ownership?

[TATTRAT]

Re: Gun Control and Pot

Perhaps smoking pot should be a requirement for gun ownership?

It looks like Marijuana reformation laws will be changing a LOT faster than gun laws.

[lensperson]

Re: Gun Control

This issue has been chewed to bits.

There is no way that all the munitions can be swept out

of the collective American closet.

[Kalalau]

Re: Gun Control

Now the FBI is trying to find out how the Boston bombers got their guns. Unregistered. Seems like an infringement on their Second Amendment rights. The senate just killed a bill to prevent background checks, that seems to clearly state the will of the public. (note: irony)

It will be interesting to find out where the terrorists got their many guns. A gun show? Can't do background checks there! The NRA's senate says so. On the interwebs? No, its too important to protect Second Amendment rights to allow background checks there. I wonder if the surviving terrorist even has to answer FBI questions about exercising his legal rights to acquire guns. Hopefully the NRA will send some legal backup to help protect his Second Amendment rights from government intrusion.

[Kaonohi]

Re: Gun Control

It will be interesting to find out where the terrorists got their many guns. A gun show? Can't do background checks there! The NRA's senate says so. On the interwebs? No, its too important to protect Second Amendment rights to allow background checks there.

You are misinformed.

The following is directly from the NRA website (emphasis mine):

"Under current law, anyone who purchases a firearm through a retail channel — whether it's online, in a gun shop or at gun show — must first clear a check through the NICS. Federal law at this time prohibits more than 10 categories of individuals from purchasing firearms, including felons, the mentally ill, drug users and others."

You can go see yourself, here.

The position of the NRA is that they system of background checks is broken, overwhelmed, and is currently ineffective. Logically, NICS should be fixed before NEW laws and restrictions make it worse.

I support fixing it if it's broken.

I also support people doing their research and learning the truth before commenting on an issue.

[Kaonohi]

Re: Gun Control

When it comes to legal registration by veterans, most all were done as proposed, except for a few illegal - a minority, which were caught and prosecuted.

We tried to block illegal weapons from coming in.

No one can say we didn't, not even OBummer. It didn't work. How can we expect him to do better than the current NICS? We need to fix NICS FIRST!!!!

No one can say we didn't, not even OBummer.

I hardly know all the impacts,but I do know invisible PTSD keeps me from my guns. And I resent having fought for my country at age 19, and being denied the right to be part of the "well-regulated militia" at age 20.

I AM a part of the 'well-regulated militia' (every armed citizen is!) but what do they expect me to do? Throw rocks?

I hardly know all the impacts,but I do know invisible PTSD keeps me from my guns. And I resent having fought for my country at age 19, and being denied the right to be part of the "well-regulated militia" at age 20.

I'll stack up my rocks....

[lensperson]

Re: Gun Control

The crux of the matter is the portion of the second amendment which states

Well Regulated.

This condition has never been implemented.

______


Strict Gun control now

[Kaonohi]

Re: Gun Control

The crux of the matter is the portion of the second amendment which states

Well Regulated.

This condition has never been implemented.

Quite right, because it has been misunderstood for 200+ years.

In the late 1700's, "well regulated" often meant "sufficiently armed and trained", not, as many believe, 'well-controlled.'

"well regulated = according to an eternal standard, unspecified."

I belive that a 'WELL-REGULATED' militia was one that maintained its own firepower in good condition, with adequate ammunition, without external support. Since there was NO central control in those years, it is the only logical determination of those words.

In the years following freedom from Britian, there were many important things to which the colonists must attend, including the protection, by arms, of their new-found freedom. It was essential that the common man (and Woman) MUST PRESERVE THEIR LIbERTY AT LEAST PARTIALLY BY FORCE OF ARMS. Without a 'standing army' (many yeaRS in THE future), tHE COUNTRY DEPENDED UPON A Civilian militia, WELL REGULATed (armed) to protect it's interests.

[Kalalau]

Re: Gun Control

That explains so much!

[matapule]

Re: Gun Control

Gun nuts! STRICT GUN CONTOL NOW!

[Kaonohi]

Re: Gun Control

Gun nuts! STRICT GUN CONTOL NOW!

"CONTOL?" I think you're letting your temper get the best of you.

Like what do you propose?

We already have mandatory background checks for every commercial sale. There is no "gun show loophole," that is a lie perpetrated by, well, liars deliberately trying to deceive you - or ignorant followers. The only ways you can get a gun without a background check is via illegal acquisition (gift or sale), or by inheritance (that's a good place to insist on background checks!)

Several categories of people are already prohibited from owning guns: all those with felony convictions and some with misdemeanor convictions, veterans reported by the VA to have been treated for PTSD of any kind (whether adjudged to be a danger or not), people who have a record of treatment by a psychiatrist, and several other categories.

Most of the mass-killings were done with illegally-acquired weapons (laws which mandate secure storage of guns would be a good place to start), and strangely enough, most of the perpetrators of mass-murder were either registered Democrats, or from Democratic families, many were also progressive liberals. Should we add Liberal Democrats to the list of those denied gun purchase?

I suppose you would pull a 'Nancy Pelosi' and say "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them (guns) all in?" Unfortunately only law-abiding citizens would comply, which leaves all the illegal guns out there.

Sometimes, to solve a problem you have to look at the causes. These mass-killings are a relatively recent phenomenon, and they reflect something that is wrong with our society. Some were committed by estranged young people, which reflects our recent trend toward liberal, permissive upbringing. Some were protestations against overly restrictive government.

We need sensible solutions, not vitriolic rants of a discriminatory nature (like calling people "Gun Nuts" because they support a portion of the Bill of Rights).

Do you even have any sensible solutions? Or are you just going to whine until you get your way?

"Strict Gun Control Now" is meaningless, unless you spell out those controls.

[TATTRAT]

Re: Gun Control

Like what do you propose?

We already have mandatory background checks for every commercial sale.

Several categories of people are prohibited from owning guns: all those with felony convictions and some with misdemeanor convictions, veterans reported by the VA to have been treated for PTSD of any kind (whether adjudged to be a danger or not), people who have a record of treatment by a psychiatrist, and several other categories.

Most of the mass-killings were done with illegally-acquired weapons (laws which mandate secure storage of guns would be a good place to start), and strangely enough, most of the perpetrators of mass-murder were either registered Democrats, or from Democratic families, many were also progressive liberals. Should we add Liberal Democrats to the list of those denied gun purchase?

I suppose you would pull a 'Nancy Pelosi' and say "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them (guns) all in?" Unfortunately only law-abiding citizens would comply, which leaves all the illegal guns out there.

Sometimes, to solve a problem you have to look at the causes. These mass-killings are a relatively recent phenomenon, and they reflect something that is wrong with our society. Some were committed by estranged young people, which reflects our recent trend toward liberal, permissive upbringing. Some were protestations against overly restrictive government.

We need sensible solutions, not vitriolic rants of a discriminatory nature (like calling people "Gun Nuts" because they support a portion of the Bill of Rights).

Do you even have any sensible solutions? Or are you just going to whine until you get your way?

"Strict Gun Control Now" is meaningless, unless you spell out those controls.

[matapule]

Re: GE is onboard

GE Capital has moved to stop all loans to gun shops. It is nice to see that even corporate giants see how out of control the gun nuts are in the US.

STRICT gun control NOW!