Societal Decay - Henson Ong

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

Already covered.

3) Permit owners to store guns at a licensed facility (like a gun range) so as to avoid invasive checks.

When I say 'permit' I actually mean coerce or subtly force.

Still would not happen. To many people feel its their right to own a gun and would be to periniod (sp) to turn them in or check them in for any reason. One of the main reason people do not want background checks is it lets the gov. know your purchasing a gun that they could trace.

[Daseal]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Still would not happen. To many people feel its their right to own a gun and would be to periniod (sp) to turn them in or check them in for any reason. One of the main reason people do not want background checks is it lets the gov. know your purchasing a gun that they could trace.

Those are the exact people I don't want to have guns. Gun ownership is not a right, a right is something that cannot be taken away -- guns are a privilege. Otherwise everyone regardless of felon status or mental health status would have the right to own one. If you're not willing to submit to a background check, the punishment should be steep.

[Alvin Walton]

Originally Posted by Daseal

Those are the exact people I don't want to have guns. Gun ownership is not a right, a right is something that cannot be taken away -- guns are a privilege. Otherwise everyone regardless of felon status or mental health status would have the right to own one. If you're not willing to submit to a background check, the punishment should be steep.

I'm all for background checks.....in todays modern society it has become necessary.
But you're wrong about the privelege part.
Its a right.

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court of the United States first ruled in 2008 that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by Daseal

Those are the exact people I don't want to have guns. Gun ownership is not a right, a right is something that cannot be taken away -- guns are a privilege. Otherwise everyone regardless of felon status or mental health status would have the right to own one. If you're not willing to submit to a background check, the punishment should be steep.

I understand how you feel but it is a "right" gauranteed by the Constitution but as I have said before it can't go unchecked.You have the right as all Americans to "Free Speach" yet the Surprem Court says it is not your right to scream "fire" in a crowded movie thearter.As always there must be checks and balances on everything,no way the founders of this country would sit back and justify the murder of 20 children it is the people (NRA) that believe that crap that scare me,they are not responsible gun owners.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by Giantone

no way the founders of this country would sit back and justify the murder of 20 children it is the people (NRA) that believe that crap that scare me,they are not responsible gun owners.

Please show any evidence you have for the NRA justifying the murders of 20 kids, or is this yet another of your poorly constructed sentences that adds nothing to the discussion?

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

Please show any evidence you have for the NRA justifying the murders of 20 kids, or is this yet another of your poorly constructed sentences that adds nothing to the discussion?

The NRA response to the killings in Conn and the Ad using the presidents children are proof enough for me.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Giantone

I understand how you feel but it is a "right" gauranteed by the Constitution but as I have said before it can't go unchecked.You have the right as all Americans to "Free Speach" yet the Surprem Court says it is not your right to scream "fire" in a crowded movie thearter.As always there must be checks and balances on everything,no way the founders of this country would sit back and justify the murder of 20 children it is the people (NRA) that believe that crap that scare me,they are not responsible gun owners.

Yelling "fire" is against the law just like killing people, carring a gun into a school, and stealing the gun so we do have a check and balance. If a person yelled "fire" would you then want to limit everyones freedom of speach? Also I'd say the member of the NRA are the responsable gun owners.

[firstdown]

What a dumb ass. He would tell his wife to take their double barrell shot gun out side and fire both rounds into the air to scare off an intruder. OK, if that does not work she is now out of ammo. LMAO

Gun Joe Biden Says No Need To Own Assault...

[Daseal]

Originally Posted by Giantone

I understand how you feel but it is a "right" gauranteed by the Constitution but as I have said before it can't go unchecked.You have the right as all Americans to "Free Speach" yet the Surprem Court says it is not your right to scream "fire" in a crowded movie thearter.As always there must be checks and balances on everything,no way the founders of this country would sit back and justify the murder of 20 children it is the people (NRA) that believe that crap that scare me,they are not responsible gun owners.

I think I did a poor job of illuminating my initial thought. However, let's first clear up free speech. Firstdown mentioned you can't scream fire in a crowded theatre. We are not actually entitled to free speech in this country, what we are entitled to, is that the government can't make laws limiting free speech. Private establishments are free to regulate speech however they deem fit, but the government can not make laws concerning speech on government land (arguable with things such as cussing bans, etc).

What I was trying to argue -- is I think the word right should not be used. I consider a right something that everyone is entitled to, regardless of their situation. There are very few 'rights' in this world, and they can greatly vary based on location. If owning a gun were a true right, then everyone would be entitled to have a gun. Felons, mentally handicapped, prisoners, etc. Everyone would be allowed to own a gun. I don't think anyone is in favor of everyone being guaranteed access to a weapon.

The 2nd amendendment reads:
"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."

Like everything else in this document, it was written to be ambigious. I can see many interpretations being justified different ways. All I was trying to say, is that calling it a right is a dangerous path. To me, gun ownership is anagalous to driving a car. You should have to meet some minimum standard, there are multiple classes of ownership (Handgun, Rifle, etc etc), and if you don't treat it responsibly - it can be taken away. I consider those types of rules a priviledge, not a right.

Regardless of the words used (priviledge vs right) I think most of us are in agreement that certain people should not be given access to firearms.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by Daseal

If owning a gun were a true right, then everyone would be entitled to have a gun. Felons, mentally handicapped, prisoners, etc. Everyone would be allowed to own a gun. I don't think anyone is in favor of everyone being guaranteed access to a weapon.

I would agree. No one here is arguing that we arm everyone. You could also include NOT having to keep and bear arms.

Originally Posted by Daseal

To me, gun ownership is anagalous to driving a car. You should have to meet some minimum standard, there are multiple classes of ownership (Handgun, Rifle, etc etc), and if you don't treat it responsibly - it can be taken away. I consider those types of rules a priviledge, not a right.

That's how it currently works. I had to pass a basic firearms exam, then if you opt for a CCW there are even more rigorous tests etc. Certain people lose their right to have a firearm, like felons.

Originally Posted by Daseal

Regardless of the words used (priviledge vs right) I think most of us are in agreement that certain people should not be given access to firearms.

And they're not. It's a right that your forfeit if you demonstrate you can't be responsible.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

I would agree. No one here is arguing that we arm everyone. You could also include NOT having to keep and bear arms.



That's how it currently works. I had to pass a basic firearms exam, then if you opt for a CCW there are even more rigorous tests etc. Certain people lose their right to have a firearm, like felons.



And they're not. It's a right that your forfeit if you demonstrate you can't be responsible.

So what about Gun shows and lets say I sell my guns to joe Smith next door nothing illeagel about is there,no,do I have to perform rigorous tests etc on them,no.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Giantone

So what about Gun shows and lets say I sell my guns to joe Smith next door nothing illeagel about is there,no,do I have to perform rigorous tests etc on them,no.

All Lic gun dealers have to do back ground checks at gun shows.

[Alvin Walton]

Originally Posted by Giantone

So what about Gun shows and lets say I sell my guns to joe Smith next door nothing illeagel about is there,no,do I have to perform rigorous tests etc on them,no.

It all depends on what kind of gun and what the state laws are.
Its not that simple.