Survey: America wants stronger gun laws by huge margin

[jet57]

Name me any other Right in which people have to prove that they are responsible enough to exercise that Right. One. Single. Right. Name it.

Name me any other right that facilitates killing people. One. Single. Right.

 

[apdst]

But he claimed that an AR-15 is the same as a tank so it must not be a firearm either.

Apples and oranges.

 

[apdst]

Name me any other right that facilitates killing people. One. Single. Right.

There's no constitutional right to kill people.

 

[Chillfolks]

So then what? What are you afraid is going to happen? If the list of people with drivers' licenses gets hacked, what's gonna happen? How is this different?

Is the best you have so what? If it gets hacked my name all in my household name addresses birthdays socials brand of gun caliber quantity probably even storage method ... would be out. If you think any database wouldn't have that info you are underestimating what would be required. I challenge you to put any info about yourself and your family that you think is ok having easily available in your signature line. After all what's going happen?

OK. But you already don't have a right to drive a tank with live ammo and functioning weapons on it. AR-15s are the same. They have no business being on the free market for unscreened, unregulated civilian purchase. It's ridiculous.

Not as Ridiculous as comparing a tank and a semi auto rifle as like objects.

But as I've said I'm ok with background checks on all sales so they would be screened. I've said I'm Ok with your proposed idea of needing more training and a permit if you chose to conceal carry or wish to carry an AR. Just not proving the need to clause. So I'm for some regulations.

So please drop the AR is like a tank, an A-bomb, or owning a nuclear powered sub with a full arsenal routine. If you wanna work on solutions this kinda stuff is a road block.

 

[Vox]

I don't know how things work in other states, but in our state if someone is transferring the title of their car to anyone else, including friends or relatives, they have to report it to the DMV. It's not a huge burden. Not sure why this is any different.

The difference is that gun owners are protected by the Second Amendment from such requirements.

It is indeed a burden because costs can range from $50 per gun and on up even now.......and if this were made law the costs would probably rise because profiteers know they could then raise the price because there is no choice.

Huge burden for an elderly grandparent bequeathing a large collection of guns to his or her friends, children and grandchildren.

 

[jet57]

Perhaps because legislation based on level heads is far more preferable to legislation based on emotion. That is why we live in a Republic after all.

So, not wanting people to take heavy weapons into the public to kill them is not level headed?

People having a "natural right" to walk the streets and live their lives free from fear of being mowed down by a guy with an AR15 is not levelheaded?

But, being able to buy guns and equipment that facilitate shooing up 500 people within 8 minutes IS levelheaded...

Nope; nothing wrong there.

 

[jimbo]

I don't know how things work in other states, but in our state if someone is transferring the title of their car to anyone else, including friends or relatives, they have to report it to the DMV. It's not a huge burden. Not sure why this is any different.

That's not correct. I can transfer my vehicles to anyone I choose without approval. The license grants permission to operate the vehicle on public roads.

Other than CC, purchase and/or possession approvals address the weapon, not the usage.

 

[jimbo]

By your standard , Ronald Reagan was a gun banner also.

I'm not sure what Reagan has to do with this discussion, nor do I remember his position.

 

[Lursa]

The 97% is for background checks, period.

We already have those and I dont know of anyone that objects to them.

IMO, most of the people that want more dont realize that:

a) we already have background checks in every state for every commercial seller.

b) background checks have to be properly conducted to actually work (see: TX church shooter)

c) background checks dont stop motivated prohibited people from getting guns

d) extended background checks means private sellers...regular people like you and me...have to provide personal, private information to (often) complete strangers to complete the transaction. That information is not secure like it is with a commercial business. (this includes gun shows in some cases, altho others do require background checks and do them by computer at check out.)

So that 97% have pretty much what they want *that is reasonable* except for the fact that we can indeed close the loopholes for reporting prohibited people and ensure better enforcement.

 

[beancounter]

The best way to keep guns out of criminal hands is to close the gun show loophole.

 

[haymarket]

I'm not sure what Reagan has to do with this discussion, nor do I remember his position.

Reagan favored banning some types of guns. When the right wing throws around stupid labels like GUN BANNER, it would do well to remember that such a ridiculous label would apply to perhaps the most conservative US President in the last three quarters of a century. That is why Reagan is important in this discussion.

 

[Chillfolks]

The best way to keep guns out of criminal hands is to close the gun show loophole.

Are you asking for universal background checks or are you saying end gun shows? I've seen the loophole refer to both

 

[jimbo]

Reagan favored banning some types of guns. When the right wing throws around stupid labels like GUN BANNER, it would do well to remember that such a ridiculous label would apply to perhaps the most conservative US President in the last three quarters of a century. That is why Reagan is important in this discussion.

Reagan's no longer President. I throw around gun banner because I believe that's the ultimate goal of today's anti gunners. Nothing to do with any past president.

 

[iguanaman]

Pure load of crap.

I keep hearing this line of bull**** spouted by the left wing gun haters. Responsible gun owner ship does not mean you, or your family will be killed by your own gun. Pure stupidity and bull****.

Did I say that? I said the most common use of a firearm in the home was for suicide and it is the truth. The worst statistic is the early 500 children who die every year from gun suicide. Most of them using their parents guns to do it.

On March 21, 2013, in Southgate, Michigan, Tyler Nichols left his first period class at Davidson Middle School. He went into a bathroom, where he shot and killed himself with a handgun.1 He was discovered by another student who alerted school staff.2 The school of approximately 800 students was put on lockdown.3 Students hid in their classrooms; police officers roamed the halls.4 An hour later, parents were allowed in five at a time to pick up their traumatized children.5 Tyler left an open suicide note in which he wrote about the difficulties of being a young teenager.6 According to his mother, Tyler had only recently showed signs that he was struggling with depression.7 A classmate said that Tyler “was loved by a lot of kids.”8

Tyler was just thirteen years old. He was too young to legally possess a handgun, but he didn’t need to look far to find the gun he would use to kill himself. Like most children who die by gun suicide, he found the gun at home; it was in his father’s bed stand, unlocked and loaded.

https://everytownresearch.org/child-gun-suicide/

 

[iguanaman]

Reagan's no longer President. I throw around gun banner because I believe that's the ultimate goal of today's anti gunners. Nothing to do with any past president.

Guns are not "banned" in any Western nation yet all of them have far fewer gun deaths per person than we do because they have responsible laws regulating ownership. Selling guns like candy is not the only way to possess and enjoy guns in a society.

 

[Lursa]

Did I say that? I said the most common use of a firearm in the home was for suicide and it is the truth. The worst statistic is the early 500 children who die every year from gun suicide.



https://everytownresearch.org/child-gun-suicide/

Very sad. That's about the same or less than kids dying by drowning.

http://snicc.org/files/uploads/Facts_about_Swimming_Pool_Drowning_Accidents.pdf

 

[Lursa]

Guns are not "banned" in any Western nation yet all of them have far fewer gun deaths per person than we do because they have responsible laws regulating ownership. Selling guns like candy is not the only way to possess and enjoy guns in a society.

What are the gun crime rates in those countries? I dont mean accidental deaths or suicides.

 

[lefty louie]

A survey of American's on Dec 6 1941 had most American's not wanting to join the war effort overseas, despite our governments best efforts to get us into the war. 1 day later on Dec 7th the American people changed their collective minds, why? We were attacked and the wound was fresh, certainly not the time you do your best thinking.

Sound like this survey?

 

[iguanaman]

What are the gun crime rates in those countries? I dont mean accidental deaths or suicides.

How about we compare gun HOMICIDES is that a gun crime? As you can see we are in a whole other World here.

 

[iguanaman]

Very sad. That's about the same or less than kids dying by drowning.

http://snicc.org/files/uploads/Facts_about_Swimming_Pool_Drowning_Accidents.pdf

And that comforts you?

 

[iguanaman]

It's actually one of the fundamental aspects of our Republic. If the government wants to infringe upon the rights and liberties of the individual, they must prove that the individual has done something warranting the use of force against their exercise of rights. Innocent until proven guilty, yes. The rights of the individual are assumed valid until such point that the government can demonstrate a just cause to infringe upon them.

Then next election I am going demand my right to vote without registering first. Let them prove I cannot.

 

[Ikari]

Then next election I am going demand my right to vote without registering first. Let them prove I cannot.

OK, good luck with that.

 

[iguanaman]

OK, good luck with that.

You told me that rights are assumed and the govt. can't make you prove anything. I called you on it. Even Scalia said gun rights are limited.

“Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

The late justice also more generally offered the belief that “like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” It is “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” For instance, Scalia said concealment laws were permitted at the time of the Constitution’s ratification and should be permitted today.

Antonin Scalia?s 2008 Ruling Set Parameters for Today?s Gun Control Reform Debate

 

[Ikari]

You told me that rights are assumed and the govt. can't make you prove anything. I called you on it. Even Scalia said gun rights are limited.



Antonin Scalia?s 2008 Ruling Set Parameters for Today?s Gun Control Reform Debate

Well felons have been...well convicted of a crime. That means that the government DID prove the necessity to infringe upon their rights. Mentally ill...OK, but the government cannot just label one "mentally ill", they would have had to have been put through counseling and deemed so by a medical professional. And without due cause, the government cannot mandate people be evaluated. So once a medical professional has made such a diagnosis, there is proof (though this can be a slippery slope). Private property can always prevent the use of guns, and of course certain government buildings as well. But that limitation isn't the limitation in general of the right to bear arms.

 

[iguanaman]

Well felons have been...well convicted of a crime. That means that the government DID prove the necessity to infringe upon their rights. Mentally ill...OK, but the government cannot just label one "mentally ill", they would have had to have been put through counseling and deemed so by a medical professional. And without due cause, the government cannot mandate people be evaluated. So once a medical professional has made such a diagnosis, there is proof (though this can be a slippery slope). Private property can always prevent the use of guns, and of course certain government buildings as well. But that limitation isn't the limitation in general of the right to bear arms.

The Govt. can look at your presence on social media and ask what your intentions are for the weapon BEFORE granting you the right to buy. It also can make you REGISTER like we do for voting. Selling guns like candy is not a right. It is a recipe for disaster.