Gun ownership poll

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by G1911

You're right. We should void all of the constitutional liberties we have because the Founder's did not have 2022 values. I'm sure you can see the fallacy here. Debate on a reasonable foundation. 'X individual is guilty of Y, therefore they are wrong on Z' is not reasonable, and I'm sure all of you here would know that immediately if the issue was an unemotional one.

I would say that, when the topic is what the 2nd amendment means, referring to the words and actions of the people who wrote it and voted for it is quite relevant. You may think the 2nd shouldn't exist, and reasonably so, but I don't see how it is not relevant to what it means to refer to the people who authored it.

I am not a fan of the status quo on guns whatsoever. I think the 2nd is frequently infringed, especially in ban-heavy states like California. How many rounds are in my magazine, whether I have a muzzle brake or a compensator or a suppressor screwed on to the end of the barrel, where my rifle has a collapsible stock, whether it has a grip that protrudes below the action and allows my thumb around it, I do not think these are the business of the State.

No, one can support gun control measures that are not actually bans. I am quite aware what "ban" means. With the "lot of words" I have written here, I am sure you can reasonably object to things I have actually said instead of inventing straw men. Let's debate what I have actually said.

I think we should deal with mass shootings by focusing on the people who are guilty, and the causes of violence. I made several posts commenting on this before the derailing. It is not a specific tool, it is a decision people make. People are responsible for their actions. I would support many measures in the mental health realm. I do not support infringing on constitutional rights or banning some/all guns or blaming gunowners for the act of a nutter. I have even said I do not greatly object to background checks, even though there is little to no evidence they actually work. There are something like half a billion guns in this country, disarming the law abiding will not disarm someone hellbent on mass murder, the black market will always exist. It just makes it a little more dangerous for the rest of us.

Ok, so you would support (or not object to) background checks. You would support mental health measures, but not if they infringe on constitutional rights.

1) What mental health measures would you support, and how do you see this helping the problem?
2) You appear to be saying any curb on guns/ammo/etc is an infringement on your rights. But we put curbs on our rights in almost every aspect of our lives, for the good of us all. Why would, say, making mandatory gun safety classes before buying a first gun against the constitution, but not taking driver's Ed before getting behind the wheel?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan

Ok, so you would support (or not object to) background checks. You would support mental health measures, but not if they infringe on constitutional rights.

1) What mental health measures would you support, and how do you see this helping the problem?
2) You appear to be saying any curb on guns/ammo/etc is an infringement on your rights. But we put curbs on our rights in almost every aspect of our lives, for the good of us all. Why would, say, making mandatory gun safety classes before buying a first gun against the constitution, but not taking driver's Ed before getting behind the wheel?

1A) I support liberal reforms to the healthcare system to make care cheaper and affordable or free; including mental care and psychiatrists, so that those who cannot or will not pay the cost or have family to pay the cost may get the help they need, for the good of everyone. I would look into improving access and resources ( something like half the counties in the US have 0 psychiatrists or psychologists, you can’t make people move around but you can incentivize one setting up practice in a previously underserved area). In cases of mental illness, I would look into adjusting HIPAA to allow some compassionate disclosure between a doctor and the family of a mental-problem person. Time and again we see that they are known to have issues, but the family doesn’t really understand just how bad it is.

I’m sure there’s more, but there’s 3 specific lanes I would investigate and see if the data on matches the reasoning.


1B) Because the vast majority of people who do such things have mental problems that are known to some degree to some of the local community. I think that when a horrible action is committed, the perpetrator is guilty, not whichever half of the country I disagree with at the moment. A tool is not sentient, a tool does not make decisions. A tool does not choose to kill a room full of innocent children. A person does. Address the person who is actually guilty instead of political opposition.

2) Any curb factually is, by definition, an infringement. How do you curb a right without infringing on it? One can support this and argue that it is good, but I don’t see how we can reasonably pretend that a new measure curbing guns is not an infringement on guns, a right that we the people still retain at present.

First, I don’t understand the guns classes point from the other side. If one believes that civilian ownership of firearms or certain type of scary looking firearms is dangerous to the community (which seems the logical pre-requisite to supporting gun control), how would this help? Why would they want to train shooters more? Would giving the Uvalde shooter or any other a lesson in firearm safe-handling, maintenance and marksmanship do anything, except possibly make them a little bit better of a shot?

I don’t think this will ever go anywhere as a result as neither of the main factions really wants it. It is not something that greatly disturbs me, I do think it is unconstitutional, that it probably punishes poor citizens by adding yet another fee and cost, but I am a big fan of classes for people who were not born into the gun community or brought in by friends who have taught them carefully. I greatly support choosing to seek professional or knowledgeable help when one is new to it. Safe handling, marksmanship, proper care and maintenance, these are goods that firearms owners (and anyone who wants to learn) should know. I have taught many myself.


I am against curbing/ infringing any constitutional right. I like the Bill of Rights. I think an individual has the right to say or do things others don’t agree with and live their life in their own way without the interference of the State. It was just a few years ago that this made me mostly a liberal (guns have been exempted for decades from the old liberal norm, that the right of the individual is paramount to an imaginary right by one’s neighbors to not have to deal with ideas or people or things they don’t like).

[Steve D]

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan

Ok, so you would support (or not object to) background checks. You would support mental health measures, but not if they infringe on constitutional rights.

1) What mental health measures would you support, and how do you see this helping the problem?
2) You appear to be saying any curb on guns/ammo/etc is an infringement on your rights. But we put curbs on our rights in almost every aspect of our lives, for the good of us all. Why would, say, making mandatory gun safety classes before buying a first gun against the constitution, but not taking driver's Ed before getting behind the wheel?

1. I'm really not sure about what mental health measures could be enacted. HIPAA makes it difficult, if not impossible, for medical records to be released/shared. Perhaps something along the lines of if you have a specific diagnosis from a qualified mental health practitioner, a simple statement can be shared that the person should not have access to weapons; without sharing the details of the diagnosis. The doctor could put the bottom-line diagnosis, such as "John Doe suffers from schizophrenia." This could be put in the NICS System.

2. I personally have no problem with a requirement for a person to attend a gun safety class. One problem is this: say a person receives a threat of death from an ex-partner. We all know the problems with restraining orders - they do NOT work! So, the person goes out and wants to buy a gun for self-defense. Do they have to go through a gun safety class? Do they have to wait a certain number of days before actually getting the self-defense tool (aka gun)? Meanwhile, the ex has a weapon and the means to use it against the victim; and the victim is hamstrung by "the system", with no way to defend him/herself.

3. We need to bring God back into the family!

4. We need to bring responsible parenting back into the family!

5. We need to get rid of all the violent video games that are plaguing society!

6. We need to have actual security in all schools, 12th grade and below!

Steve

[egri]

Originally Posted by Steve D

1. I'm really not sure about what mental health measures could be enacted. HIPAA makes it difficult, if not impossible, for medical records to be released/shared. Perhaps something along the lines of if you have a specific diagnosis from a qualified mental health practitioner, a simple statement can be shared that the person should not have access to weapons; without sharing the details of the diagnosis. The doctor could put the bottom-line diagnosis, such as "John Doe suffers from schizophrenia." This could be put in the NICS System.

On the ship, we had a 'Do Not Issue' list, where every time someone had a condition that made prevented them from carrying a firearm, medical would let the armory know, and the updated list would be posted in the armory, signed by the CO. The only people who knew were the affected sailors, medical, the CO, and armory personnel. It didn't say anything beyond "The following personnel are restricted from handling weapons and ammunition: John Smith, Jane Doe, etc..." but it didn't need to; if they were on the list, that was that.

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by Steve D

1. I'm really not sure about what mental health measures could be enacted. HIPAA makes it difficult, if not impossible, for medical records to be released/shared. Perhaps something along the lines of if you have a specific diagnosis from a qualified mental health practitioner, a simple statement can be shared that the person should not have access to weapons; without sharing the details of the diagnosis. The doctor could put the bottom-line diagnosis, such as "John Doe suffers from schizophrenia." This could be put in the NICS System.

2. I personally have no problem with a requirement for a person to attend a gun safety class. One problem is this: say a person receives a threat of death from an ex-partner. We all know the problems with restraining orders - they do NOT work! So, the person goes out and wants to buy a gun for self-defense. Do they have to go through a gun safety class? Do they have to wait a certain number of days before actually getting the self-defense tool (aka gun)? Meanwhile, the ex has a weapon and the means to use it against the victim; and the victim is hamstrung by "the system", with no way to defend him/herself.

3. We need to bring God back into the family!

4. We need to bring responsible parenting back into the family!

5. We need to get rid of all the violent video games that are plaguing society!

6. We need to have actual security in all schools, 12th grade and below!

Steve

1) well, what I would term the "pro-gun" crowd is pushing a very heavy narrative that this is strictly a mental health issue. But if mental health can't somehow be handled, then it appears we'll end up doing what we always do: nothing
2) I'm sure all kinds of "what ifs" will be brought up against any possible step towards a solution.
3) any God? Just making sure we have room for Muslims, Jews, and everyone else at the table. I assume Wiccan and atheists aren't welcome? To go back to the Founding Fathers, I remember reading most of them were Diest.
4) agree. How??
5) who decides what is violent?
6) I've asked before, are you willing to lead the way for higher taxes to pay?

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan

5) who decides what is violent?

K.en Su.li.k,

Was the incident in Uvalde violent? If so, how did you decide that? Did someone tell you it was violent? Just wondering how you came to the conclusion whether is was violent or not?

And this is why nothing ever gets resolved and we'll keep having this same discussion after each school shooting because your side wants to debate the semantics of what is violent and other silly things like that where common sense should otherwise prevail.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Ken Sulik,

Was the incident in Uvalde violent? If so, how did you decide that? Did someone tell you it was violent? Just wondering how you came to the conclusion whether is was violent or not?

And this is why nothing ever gets resolved and we'll keep having this same discussion after each school shooting because your side wants to debate the semantics of what is violent and other silly things like that where common sense should otherwise prevail.

What is violence? What is pro-life? I’m a fan of the Socratic but these are absolutely terrible takes.

[Deertick]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Ken Sulik,

Was the incident in Uvalde violent? If so, how did you decide that? Did someone tell you it was violent? Just wondering how you came to the conclusion whether is was violent or not?

And this is why nothing ever gets resolved and we'll keep having this same discussion after each school shooting because your side wants to debate the semantics of what is violent and other silly things like that where common sense should otherwise prevail.

So you are asking whether brains and blood splattered across a classroom is equivalent to some colorful images on a tv screen that will disappear if your cat knocks the cord out? Got it.

Pornography. Video games. The Media. All of which have been affirmed by the SCOTUS to be protected under the 1st amendment. Stop and Frisk, 4th amendment. Over 65% of a certain group of citizens believe that a confession obtained sans Miranda should be admissible.
Common sense should prevail, just not on the 2nd.
And the Media shouldn't ever report on these massacres. Just offer thoughts and prayers and wait for the months-long investigation to correct mischaracterizations made by law enforcement and eyewitness accounts.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Deertick

So you are asking whether brains and blood splattered across a classroom is equivalent to some colorful images on a tv screen that will disappear if your cat knocks the cord out? Got it.

No, Jim Marinari. I'm not saying that at all. Your putting words in my mouth. Try to comprehending the full context of what was said. I'll lay it out for you since you have a comprehension problem. Steve D said that we should "get rid of all the violent video games." The Ken Sulik asked the question, "who decides what is violent?" My point was, common sense should prevail as to what is violent and what is not. I never inferred that "brains and blood splattered across a classroom is equivalent to some colorful images on a tv screen." But, given your comprehension problem, it's no wonder that's what you inferred.

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Ke.n Su.li.k,

Was the incident in Uvalde violent? If so, how did you decide that? Did someone tell you it was violent? Just wondering how you came to the conclusion whether is was violent or not?

And this is why nothing ever gets resolved and we'll keep having this same discussion after each school shooting because your side wants to debate the semantics of what is violent and other silly things like that where common sense should otherwise prevail.

David Jame.s,
What is "my side"??? My response is to a point about video games. I think first person shooter games are violent. Do you? But what about Wipeout? Circus Atari?

I'm hearing calls to ban video games, ban food with additives, make schools into fortresses, and "bring back God.". I put forward one small step for mandatory gun training, did you see that? It just might have bought the Uvalde shooter some time between trying to buy the guns and shooting up the school. Time where maybe someone could have intervened. Do you have a valid response? Perhaps more legitimate suggestions?? I haven't seen you give one suggestion in this entire thread about how to put an end to gun violence, but you've taken a lot of shots at others.


See if you can respond in a helpful way, no insults or sarcasm. Try to work on resolving the issue.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan

I think first person shooter games are violent. Do you? But what about Wipeout? Circus Atari?

Ke.n Su.li.k, (continuing with full names because if anyone ever Googles you, I want them to see your ridiculous posts).

If you have to ask what is violent and what is not, you probably need some kind of mental help.

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan

blah, blah, blah...unintelligible ramblings...blah, blah, blah

I'm not going to even address the rest of your nonsense.

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Ke.n S.uli.k, (continuing with full names because if anyone ever Googles you, I want them to see your ridiculous posts).

If you have to ask what is violent and what is not, you probably need some kind of mental help.



I'm not going to even address the rest of your nonsense.

Quite the Knight of the Keyboard, David Jame.s!

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by Steve D

3. We need to bring God back into the family!

Right!! Because in the entire history of mankind, nobody has ever experienced violence because of a god or religion. Right.

But wait a minute ... my bad. Religion or god doesn't kill people, people kill people. Right? Did I get that right?

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by AustinMike

Right!! Because in the entire history of mankind, nobody has ever experienced violence because of a god or religion. Right.

But wait a minute ... my bad. Religion or god doesn't kill people, people kill people. Right? Did I get that right?

Isn’t it about that time of day that you have to kneel on a rug and pray to your CLIMATE CHANGE God facing toward BO’s latest oceanfront mansion or JK’s private jet?

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by Cliff Bowman

Isn’t it about that time of day that you have to kneel on a rug and pray to your CLIMATE CHANGE God facing toward BO’s latest oceanfront mansion or JK’s private jet?

It's good to see that you've gotten over your meltdown. Just stay on your meds and you should do fine. Although you do seem to be hallucinating again.

[vintagetoppsguy]

At the time of this post, this thread has 4,473 views. My guess is a lot of people have read this thread, but they don't comment for whatever reason. My guess is also a lot of those people either consider their own political views as center, center-left or center-right. In other words, their somewhere in the middle, but might lean one direction or another. If you're in that category, then this post is for you.

Do you not see why we can't come together as a country and compromise on gun control? The extreme far left has tried to highjack this thread and have debates about meaning of words such as "pro-life," "pro-choice" or what "violent" means. They don't want to compromise, they would rather debate trivial things. Unless it starts with "ban, ban, ban" there is no compromise with these people.

In a compromise both sides give up something for the benefit of working out a deal. I'm personally willing to try things such as:

• Raising the minimum age to purchase a firearm
• More comprehensive background checks
• Waiting period
• Mental health examinations as needed
• Tighter school security (yes, I'm willing to pay more taxes)
• Open to other suggestions as well

But what is their focus? Debating meaningless words not relevant to the topic. Anyway, there have been many threads such as this in the past on here and there will probably continue to be more after the next tragedy, and the next and so on until the far left wants a true compromise. Again, both sides give up something in a compromise. But for now, nothing has changed, nothing will change until we can focus on the problem. Carry on.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

In a compromise both sides give up something for the benefit of working out a deal. I'm personally willing to try things such as:

• Raising the minimum age to purchase a firearm
• More comprehensive background checks
• Waiting period
• Mental health examinations as needed
• Tighter school security (yes, I'm willing to pay more taxes)
• Open to other suggestions as well

- No. 18 is the adult age in society. If an 18 year old can sign a lease/mortgage, live on their own, be responsible for themselves and/or others (family, roommates, etc.), they should be able to defend themselves adequately against any and all threats.

- Not sure what this solves. The Uvalde shooter passed a background check.

- No. Nobody should have to wait for a tool to defend themselves/their families. Not to mention this prevents literally nothing as the Uvalde shooter/other shoots could just carry out his heinous act after the waiting period.

- No. This could be easily politicized and weaponized against sane people. Mental health is subjective in most cases. The Tulsa shooter had a botched surgery and snapped. Mental health checks wouldn't prevent that.

- Yes to this, but let's audit government for the funds before taxing Americans. Maybe the Congress slush fund can be emptied for starters.

- Other suggestions: hold society, Big Pharma, and government accountable. Raise better kids, uphold better basic values, fix our corrupt school system, quit pill shoving, etc. I'm not in the minority in refusing to give up liberties for someone else to feel safe. I live right, do my best to treat people right, and am a law abiding system.

Murder is already illegal. I don't believe many serial killers used firearms to commit their crimes. Murder is not restricted by the tool, but rather enabled by the absence of proper values, environment, treatment, etc. Additional laws won't prevent what is already illegal yet achievable by really any means necessary once someone commits to that act. Until we start having legitimate conversations about the real problems - Big Pharma, mental health, attentive families, non-corrupt education, etc. - nothing will change. It will only ever get worse.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

At the time of this post, this thread has 4,473 views. My guess is a lot of people have read this thread, but they don't comment for whatever reason.

I'm a Conservative Republican who voted for Trump twice. I stay away from these discussions because they always turn ugly and in thd end, nobody ever has their mind changed. So, I don't see the point.