This is such an awful argument, people who favor gun control are not anti freedom and they don't hate America. That's like me saying that because you support gun ownership that you are in favor of owning tanks and driving them through the street.
Guns don't need to be banned, but who can buy guns needs to be more regulated. Should be harder than a 5 minute form and 30 second background check to buy a gun. I walked out of the store with my handgun within 20 mins, and out of that I spent 5 mins looking for a cleaning kit. Even as a gun enthusiast I'm shocked by how easy it is to purchase one.
Go ahead, call me scum. This is the problem with you gun grabbers, you want to infringe upon rights, but resort to hyperbole and lies to justify your reasons.
No one is saying don’t change any gun laws. That is your straw man, because you lack a substantive argument.
Go ahead and change laws in a lawful way that doesn’t infringe upon an enumerated right.
It makes no sense and is a deprivation of due process for the government to deprive someone of a right when the government knows that the person is not a criminal.
If you truly care about saving lives, where is your outrage at the lack of enforcement of existing gun laws that take guns away from actual criminals? For example, California, alone, has a backlog of 20,000+ criminals the state hasn’t gotten around to taking guns away from. The federal government has tens of thousands of people commit felonies every year by lying on their background check forms, yet no enforcement.
When gun grabbers say they care about “just saving lives,” we don’t believe them when they only focus on infringement over enforcement.
Lol "gun grabber" you are a silly little fuck aren't you. I'm a gun owner like I said here before. I'm simply advocating for more regulation. Nobody is taking away your guns you lunatic?!
I see that you have a very easy time repeating brietbart (gun grabber) but you have not once even suggested how to fix this obvious problem we're having. No reasonable person would oppose modest regulation like I suggested before.
Don't tell me that in taking away your rights because I want regulation. Applying your flawed logic uniformly, there should be no chance for a defamation lawsuit at all. People would never be able to sue for child support either. Get out of here with your ultra right wing nonsense. Jesus
youName, honey, GPS triangulation is not quick by any means. For the gun's receiver to get a lock it would take at least 5-10 seconds by that time, you'd be out of power. A single bullet fires in a fraction of a second. A Dynamo wouldn't work even if it was the length of the entire barrel.
Plus, you'll be happy to know, that there are far more EFFECTIVE methods at triangulating gun shots. Many many cities, including San Fran, have gunshot listeners. These devices listen for gunshots and then triangulate the location based on multiple receivers capturing the sound and calculating the time it took for the sound to reach each listener. These are hidden in completely plain sight. You'd never even notice them unless someone pointed it out to you
We need tougher gun control laws. Obviously you can’t make them too tough or the good guys won’t be able to overthrow the government occasionally. But they should be tough on the bad guys that just want to kill because they are angry or don’t like someone
Dick's doesn't sell assault weapons anymore. I purchased a handgun. I also purchased mine 3 years ago, before the worst shootings.
I think there should be a medical eval requirement, a requirement to go through an extensive background check, a waiting period (of 1 day), and finally a limit of 1 gun (handgun and rifles combined) per day.
You can skip the background check before each gun if you have a concealed carry permit (for me, it required a gun safety course and fingerprinting; but should also require a visit with the local judge or sheriff's office). You should never be able to purchase more than 1 per day or skip the waiting period.
What I outlined here has extremely low barrier to access in a responsible way. There are minimal financial barriers save for the enhanced background check. The cost of the background check can be funded by a marginal tax on gun purchases if lawmakers wanted.
I don't believe any true American would or should oppose these rules. They're not coo coo like the NRA would have you think, nor are they unreasonable.
I really can't believe this thread. We are data driven people and I have not seen a single piece of data yet.
To the pro gun folks, where do you draw the line for "too much freedom?" Can I buy a fully automatic ar15 with every attachment possible? Can I make napalm at home? Can I bear nuclear weapons? Attack drones? It is "right to bear arms" and not "right to own a gun," so shouldn't that total freedom logic extend to *all* arms?
Help me understand because most people I know are staunchly anti gun and your arguments are confusing me. Not trying to be an asshole, actually curious.
I wonder too about why these people choose guns specifically. Is there additional satisfaction to shooting someone? I feel like you'd do way more damage with an explosive like Tannerite, which is totally legal to buy
The line is drawn at, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
When the government wants to restrict an enumerated right, the restriction must survive strict scrutiny.
In American constitutional law, strict scrutiny is the highest and most stringent standard of judicial review, and results in a judge striking down a law unless the government can demonstrate in court that a law or regulation: one, is necessary to a "compelling state interest"; two, that the law is "narrowly tailored" to achieving this compelling purpose; and three, that the law uses the "least restrictive means" to achieve the purpose.
Most gun laws fail this standard. They are overly broad and only serve to infringe upon the rights of lawful citizens engaged in lawful activity.
As to your specific questions, that could have been easily answered with a little bit of research (your questions are asked all the time by the disingenuous anti-gun crowd):
Yes, you can buy a fully automatic weapon. It is currently legal to do so today in every state with the right permits and justifications. Expect to spend $10K+ USD for it.
Napalm is not an arm. Nuclear weapons are not arms.
Attack drones would be fine, citizens used to own battleships and can currently own tanks.
It is the right to “keep and bear arms.” The logic does extend to all arms. That is why the anti-taser and knife laws get struck down.
People choose guns for a variety of reasons, including that they are easy and convenient. Why do people choose laser printers over hand copying? The same reasoning generally applies when exercising any right.
Hey OpenTable I am really thankful for such a well written and thought out response. We don't get to have discussions anymore, just shouting matches. When I am at a computer and have time to Google and grab sources, I will respond to this and hopefully we can *actually talk* about something.
Dont get me wrong.. i am american but i dont think i need protection from anyone to the extent it is made to believe. Sure there are assholes out there who will try to rob you or kill you..and your argument of people kill people is true.. but i would rather face someone with a knife rather than someone with a gun!