US Government wants to take firearms away by force!

Post Reply New Topic

Anti-gun gun owners aren't that uncommon and are the worse kind of gun grabber since we assume they can be trusted. I've smoked several of them out of hiding.
You are either pro-gun, anti-gun, or totally neutral.


Any gun owner knows that there are controls on gun purchases and possession. Somehow you fail even this common gun owner knowledge.
Besides, what measurable good has come from past and existing gun control and what measurable good would come from future gun control?


In your opinion it's alright to have national gun registration but you're against the government collecting other personal details.
Privacy is privacy in my book because information can be abused. I have my pit bull registered as an American bulldog because I don't want me or my dog to become the victims of knee-jerk legislation some time in the future and having to have my dog registered is one more thing that can potentially screw me over in the future.


Yep.


The them and us division where politics and ideology are concerned does exist and will continue to.

BTW, I thought you said you weren't going to post in this thread any more.

*Snort*

"Anti-gun gun owners aren't that uncommon and are the worse kind of gun grabber since we assume they can be trusted. I've smoked several of them out of hiding.
You are either pro-gun, anti-gun, or totally neutral."

I am pro gun. I just feel that there should be some actual gun control in place. Don't get me wrong, it is convenient that I could purchase my Mossberg 930 12ga at WalMart with only a driver's license, although there was the inconvenience of having to go back 5 minutes later to get shells, since I'm not allowed to buy them at the same time. And the .22 Rimfire that I bought at a pawn shop with no ID: easy for me. I just think that there should be a way to make certain only people who could own a gun safely are able to buy a gun. That way the people who get guns aren't those drunk jerk-offs who wander around the shooting guns in the air when I'm hunting, or someone who has committed crimes with firearms.

As for what good would come from future gun control, hopefully making the class of gun owner improve? I don't know how you'd measure that, though.

My personal opinion on the government data collection is "who gives a crap?" Is this really a surprise to anyone? Maybe I just remember when this decision was being made back in 2006. I just find amusing the contradictory fanatical beliefs that some people can have.

I don't see you complying with any registration laws, since you don't follow them with your dog, so why do you even care?

And as for posting on this thread, I couldn't help myself. I'm just curious to see how far you go with, to be honest.

*edit to fix typos

Last edited by sonofghandi on 18 Jun 2013, 9:53 am, edited 2 times in total.

No law will make certain of anything. In case you didn’t notice the country is already awash in existing guns. When your gun laws fail to reduce crime, and they will fail, the answer will be more gun control.


The drunk jerkoffs are but a small minority. I’m a volunteer range safety officer so I know from first-hand experience that some people should not have guns. I’m not willing to compromise my freedom and that of others with intrusive feel-good laws to keep that careless but small minority disarmed. I’ll live with the risks as the lesser evil.


It actually has improved. There is more standardized safety related training available now than in past generations. You cannot get them all, though, and never will.


Again, I don’t trust the government, any government, to have too much data on me.


I’d likely not abide by it except maybe for a few firearms that I could live without just to give the appearance of compliance. I lean toward not even doing that much. Either way, I still don’t like the idea of being a criminal or seeing a whole new class of criminal created to tax our entire justice system with for no useful purpose.
As for my dog, I pay for a new tag each year when it comes due so the county is still getting its money. I just “adjusted” her actual breed a little to prevent potential issues at a later date. That’s a product of mistrust learned from other areas that have adopted breed specific legislation, not paranoia on my part.


Uh huh….
If you look back over the past year or longer you’ll see several very long threads on gun control where the antis have consistently failed to bring anything of value to the debate. I’ve seen your kind here before and rest assured I already have a response for whatever you’re going to say next.

As far as I am concerned you have brought nothing of value to this debate either; you are just more persistant, which proves nothing in terms of gun control.

As for irresponsible gun owners being the minority, I have personally seen no evidence of that at all. I grew up with guns. I have a family full of people who agree with you wholeheartedly. I myself was a member of the NRA for nearly 10 years until I got sick of others assuming I am a fanatical gun toting extremist, fellow NRA members included.
I have seen many more people who I consider a danger to themselves or others than the other way around (but that is limited to my geographical region and may not be universal).

I do have some questions on specifics in terms of your viewpoints:

You propose having no laws whatsoever in terms of gun control, yet still claim that newer and improved safety courses make things better? How many people bother with gun safety courses, realistically?

I do not claim that gun control laws will solve all the problems by any means, just that accidental shootings could be severely reduced. Would you support a measure that requires a gun safety course (or proof of a prior gun safety course) prior to the purchase of a firearm? Or would that also infringe on your rights?

Are there any firearms that should be off limits or have controls?

That's because the pro-gun lobby disregard any evidence that goes the pro-gun dogma. It would be impossible for someone with a different opinion to you to "know what they're talking about" because you see any other positions as inherently bankrupt.

Working in a VA Medical Center, I can assure you that this question is asked of veterans to assist in the evaluation suicide risk. Nothing more sinister going on here.

"Anyhoo, I looked at several GP patient questionnaires that I found online and none of them, not one, asked such silly and invasive questions about sex life, mental state, number and type of pets, or guns in the home.
Every question was actually relevant to the individual's health and health history including family health history, meds, smoking and drinking (which actually are relevant), etc.

I would immediately cease doing business with any healthcare provider that stepped out of line by asking such personal questions that you claim are relevant.
But then again I don't go to them unless I really need to. The only healthcare provider I see on a regular basis is the vet I take my dog to."

Ummm . . . you obviously did not do a very thorough search. Have you been to a reputable GP? If they want their malpractice insurance (not to mention eligibility for Medicare re-imbursement) they need to do an extremely thorough patient history. Do you really believe that someone's sexual habits, their pets, and their mental state have nothing to do with their health. You may be fairly good at turning a phrase and somewhat witty, but your "facts" are crap. I would prefer for you to use your own logic and deductive reasoning, as your sources tend to include things like looking at several online questionaires, or obviously biased sources (and I agree wholeheartedly that the same can be said for the extreme opposite position).
If a GP asks you a question, it is for your benefit as a patient in order to recieve comprehensive health care. There are very clear and very extensive laws about patient privacy and the asking of unnecessary information, including the possibility of losing one's medical license/certification.

The onus of proving value added brought by further gun regulation is on you since you are the one that wants the laws, not me.


And I have observed irresponsible gun owners being the minority. As I said, I’m a range officer and our shooting range is open to the public on weekends so I get my share of exposure. Most of my hairy experiences on days when I’ve had RO duty or have just gone out there to shoot have been on the freeway between here and there.
I haven’t hunted in the past few years but when I did I didn't see enough carelessness to be of notable concern. Then again, I’m not out to save the world via the control of inanimate objects.


The better way would be to educate by example, not running from the NRA. I have issues with the NRA for reasons of my own and those reasons have nothing do do with what others might think of me. I do belong to the NRA and probably will continue to for several reasons to include sustaining my RO standing, the NRA’s meaningful contributing to safety education, and the simple fact that the NRA is the largest gun lobby.


Again, this has not been my experience and I’ve lived in and/or traveled several geographic regions.


We already have gun laws and while I don’t and never will think that the laws are of significant value we, most of the gun aficionados, grumpily accept them as status quo but we will fight tooth and nail prevent further infringements.

Hunter safety education is a prerequisite to getting a hunting license in most states. The same for carry permits in most states. Even for the ones not covered by this and other formal training there is informal training that is generally sufficient for the basics of safety. I’ve done a lot of that myself. Even with training, formal or otherwise, following that training is at the discretion of the user.


There’s room for abuse there and this isn’t event taking constitutional questions into considerations yet.
A few considerations and questions;
• Cost of training/certification?
• Qualifications of training entities
• Does the training have to be renewed?
• Is it universal?
• Pre-requisites to training/licensing?
• Arbitrary denial of permits
• System of appeals?


Are you trying to say “dangerous assault weapons” like AR-15’s and AK clones?


The million dollar question: Does this information go on record?
Anything on record carries a potential for distribution, intentional and otherwise, and ultimately abuse.
My employer and our current client agency have had instances of employee personal information being lost control of by the carelessness of a single person. It’s safe to assume that these are not isolated to just us.

Your story is so common to me I could reply in my sleep.

As for educating by example, that is just not feasible. You would have to assume that just as many people would learn from a poor example as a good one, which boils down to certain regions that have a better gun safety culture would continue to improve, while those areas that do not will continue to become increasingly more dangerous.
I will agree that the NRA has excellent safety and education resources. That being said, it is still a matter of whether they are used or not. As there is no mandate for any type of safety training to own a gun, the NRA's resources are of somewhat limited value to a culture of gun safety in this country. People who want to be safe are going to be, while those who could care less won't bother with it.

My biggest problem with the NRA is that the most vocal members are ones that paint a frightening view of gun owners. They attack anyone who even suggests that perhaps we should evaluate whether it would be possible to improve gun safety in some way. It drives a lot of fence-sitters the opposite extreme. Ditto with the “all guns are bad” crowd. And I just hate the attitude that if I don't share the exact same extreme views I am some sort of monstrous traitor to “the cause” who deserves to die.

Hunting licenses usually do require some sort of training/safety course, but a hunting license is a piece of paper that is not going to end someone’s life. I know an awful lot of people who don't even bother with a hunting license. And there are a large number of people who are not buying guns for hunting. Why a safety requirement for hunting animals, but not one for having a gun in your nightstand for protection?
I can't speak for concealed carry permits, because I don't have one and don’t know very many people who do.


“There’s room for abuse there and this isn’t event taking constitutional questions into considerations yet. “

There is room for abuse of any law, any regulation, any requirement, any system, any guideline. I’m afraid that your reasoning here holds no water unless you believe there should be no law. And as for specifics of training requirements, I was not proposing something specific, just asking if there was any type of requirement at all that you would support.
I personally feel that things like inconvenience and individual belief should be no excuse for letting someone obtain a weapon that does not know how to use one.
As for the constitution, it does not say that there shall never be any regulation of firearms, merely that you have a right to own them as a means to maintain a free state.
2nd Amendment:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
As long as there is a way to legally obtain and own a gun, your constitutional rights are not being violated. Even if the government passed some sort of extreme and bizarre law like only being able to purchase guns on the third Tuesday of each February and you could only take it home after signing a loyalty oath to the SPCA, it would technically not violate the Constitution. So don’t try to play like gun regulation is unconstitutional. And before you try to spin this, try looking up a few supreme court cases (unless you refuse to recognize the Supreme Court’s authority):
United States v. Cruikshank, the Supreme Court ruled that "the right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government."
District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd Amendment "codified a pre-existing right" and that it "protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home" but also stated that "the right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose". This decision also made it quite clear that many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession are consistent with the 2nd Amendment.


“Are you trying to say “dangerous assault weapons” like AR-15’s and AK clones? “

I am only asking if there are any firearms that you personally feel should be regulated. Do you think I should be allowed to go buy a fully automatic actual assault rifle at a gun show as long as I have cash? What about an RPG launcher? An armor piercing 50cal?


“The million dollar question: Does this information go on record?
Anything on record carries a potential for distribution, intentional and otherwise, and ultimately abuse.
My employer and our current client agency have had instances of employee personal information being lost control of by the carelessness of a single person. It’s safe to assume that these are not isolated to just us. “

Seriously? This is your argument? Yes the information does go into their private medical record. Yes there is the minimal possibility that the information may get out. And again I say that everything has the potential for abuse. Do you think a doctor should not put your health information in your medical record because the information might get out and someone could abuse the information?
By your reasoning it seems that we should not have any laws about who can drive a car because it would invade our privacy and could be used to seize our vehicles.
The reason that patients are asked about firearms is to evaluate suicide risk. Most suicides by veterans are done with a gun. If most suicides were from chowing down on rat poison, I’m certain that that would be asked of the patients as well.
Even if the vet owns a firearm, it isn't taken away. Not even if they are diagnosed with severe depression. The information is used to plan treatment, make recommendations, and ultimately to help prevent suicide. It is not some conspiracy by the government to secretly plot the confiscation of everyone’s firearms.

So now maybe you should take a nap so you can post some more responses in your sleep.

It wasn't of enough interest to me to drill down in to enough to call it “thorough”.


Only when I was a kid and since then only for occupational related purposes. None of them, assuming they were “reputable”, asked me about my guns, my dick, or my pets.
Other than that I was treated by a specialist for Morton’s neuroma in one foot. I referred myself to that specialist and there were no irrelevant questions asked.


You’ll be calling me a troll before long.


Do you think I care what you prefer?


I don’t do comprehensive healthcare except that which I provide to myself. If necessary, I’ll see a doctor to fix what’s broken and leave comprehensive thingy to those who lean toward hypochondria.
I do not automatically trust someone simply because they have MD in their title and I still guard certain information which I believe is irrelevant and beyond the scope of doctor-client confidentiality.
Take note that I use the term client in lieu of patient and that should tell you something about my mindset regarding conducting business with individuals of the sawbones trade.

Next

You still haven't blasted my post before this one.

Likewise, there’s nothing guaranteeing that the safety training received as required by this law you want so bad will be followed either. All there will be is a piece of paper showing that they have had the training and have demonstrated (at least while someone was watching) the ability to safely handle a firearm.


Oh please.
A frightening view of gun owners; the NRA on which planet? Certainly not the one I live on.
As an NRA certified RO at an NRA affiliated shooting range I’ve handed out cable locks and safety pamphlets provided by the NRA at no expense to us to whoever wanted them. The NRA has done more to promote gun safety than any lawmaker that you want to introduce some kind of mandatory gun safety bill that won't go through.


Your mandatory safety training isn’t going to end or save anyone’s life either.
BTW, hunting is a licensed privilege where the right to bear arms is a right.


Well, that certainly doesn’t surprise me.



May not violate but it does infringe and will eventually, for all practical purposes, become a ban.



Full auto anything and destructive devices like the RPG have been regulated since 1934, further regulated in 1968 and again in 1986, all on a federal level with state laws added.
If they repealed all of the above laws I’d lose no sleep over it and would be looking to grow my collection to add at least a few automatic weapons.
It would still be just as illegal to shoot people or destroy property with them as it is now.




Sure it is, I haven’t seen you bring anything worthwhile to this debate yet.


Of all the methods of suicide guns are only but one. Do you really think that if someone didn’t have a gun they’d have no way to kill themselves? If veteran suicide is done largely by using a gun it’s because so many veterans own guns. It might be the first tool reached for but certainly not the only option. Do I really need to make a list of methods for you?
I’m particularly guarded about being asked if I have any guns because gun control is a hot topic and that information more subject to scrutiny and abuse. I’d be more inclined to disclose what kind of car I drive, although also irrelevant, since there is no hysterical movement to ban Toyota SUV’s.
This gets back to my registration of my dog as en example. If she were a beagle or a lab I’d register her as such without a second thought. Being a pit, a breed that has been widely a victim of knee-jerk breed specific legislation (BSL), I felt it prudent to bend the truth a little.
Same thing applies to questions about guns.

So in short you want a law that makes pre-ownership safety training compulsory and is sure to be a legal and bureaucratic train wreck from the get-go.
That would mean tasking the entire justice system (police, courts, corrections) to dealing with violators of this law and all the expense that comes with that while real crimes go un-perused. For this same reason I’m against the “war on drugs”.

Gun laws fail to protect and the solution is always more gun laws since more is seen as better. One of your fellow anti-gun predecessors once posted a news story about a woman in Chicago who lost three of her kids to gun violence. He was trying to use that as an example of what happens in the absences of gun control only to have us joyfully bust his bubble once again by informing him hat Chicago has the strictest gun laws in the country, maybe in all of North America.


At least you admit you make it too easy for me, not that you could possibly make it challenging.

There are less than 1,000 accidental gun deaths in the US every year; for comparison, there are around 3,000 deaths from food poisoning. Explain why reducing such a small problem require such a tremendous infringement on our personal liberty, to say nothing of the expense.

Care to back that statement up with evidence? My position is evidence based, and I can show my work and have done so on multiple occasions; you have false comparisons and hypothetical futures. You've never had the freedom to own a gun, been fed a diet of anti-gun propaganda your entire life, and are positively enthusiastic about surrendering liberty for the illusion of security. When I say you don't know what you're talking about, I'm not making a value judgment because of the content of your opinion, I'm merely stating a fact; if you knew your stuff and came to a different conclusion, I'd respect your opinion, but you don't, so I don't.

An RPG is not a firearm, it's a destructive device, and those are very tightly controlled at the federal level, not to mention ungodly expensive, as are all automatic weapons. In any case, you won't be legally buying one for cash on the barrel-head, the process takes months and involves full set of finger prints and the permission of the chief law enforcement officer of your county. As to a .50 rifle, how useful do you suppose one of those is to average criminal? A 5 foot long 35lb rifle costing a minimum of $2500 on the legal market, that's expensive to shoot and difficult to shoot well, is not exactly the weapon of choice for most crimes. Could you cause some mayhem with one? Sure, but then again you could cause a lot of mayhem with some gasoline and wine bottles, like this fellow in China did:

http://www.latimes.com/news/world/world ... 4281.story

47 people dead, and I'll bet you never heard about it till just now. There isn't an anti-gasoline lobby around to sensationalize the story, so it flew under th radar, despite having a greater death toll than Sandy Hook and Columbine combined. That guy wasn't even the only one, another guy in China did the same thing in 2009, killed 28 people; good thing our madmen are uncreative and stick to inefficient old firearms.