Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I like many here, think there should be many things added to at least appease the gun control people, which is their number 1 concern. Licensing, You should have to buy a license for a gun, I mean I have to buy a license for my software as a game designer. (Which isn't cheap mind you). Yet I can buy some lethal without a need for a license agreement.

I think there should be a test, and you have to revalidate your license to own a gun every 5 years.

Why do I think this way...

Because of these reasons:
Lifeguards have to get licenses.
A Car which could be considered a lethal weapon, you need a license for, not to kill obviously, but it is something you need a license for.

There are many examples of places that have licenses that you wouldn't think about. I think there should be a degree of what weaponry you can get and what weaponry you cannot get, and every weapon must be licensed accordingly.

Of course I presume that something like this might happen.




Personally I would like to ensure that my neighbor does not have a bloody gun vault in his house.

There is no need to go excessive. You can own a gun. Thats fine, its the crazy people that should not own a gun.

 Etna's Vassal wrote:
"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."

So, define arms. Everything I listed above (and then some) could be defined as "arms".

I highlighted the pertinent part...

You can have an fully automatic rifle (what's an assault rifle again?) provided that you have a Class 3 license as defined by The National Firearms Act.

A tank is a vehicle... so what? Now the artillery shell, I'm pretty sure it's either illegal or you'd need a Class 3 variant license.

A bazooka? Same above...

Google:
Heller v. District of Columbia
McDonald v. Chicago

The courts affirmed that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

FULL STOP.

 Asherian Command wrote:
I like many here, think there should be many things added to at least appease the gun control people, which is their number 1 concern. Licensing, You should have to buy a license for a gun, I mean I have to buy a license for my software as a game designer. (Which isn't cheap mind you). Yet I can buy some lethal without a need for a license agreement.

That's disingenuous. You're not buying a license to be a game designer, as decreed and enforced by the State. You're buying the right to use some software that private people made to facilitate game design. You could use blender/freeglut/c++, which wouldn't cost you a dime. You could write machine level code, which wouldn't cost you a dime.

You can also buy LOTS of lethal things without a license. Knifes, baseball bats, chemicals, gasoline, propane, lithium-ion batteries.

 whembly wrote:

 Etna's Vassal wrote:
"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."

So, define arms. Everything I listed above (and then some) could be defined as "arms".

I highlighted the pertinent part...

You can have an fully automatic rifle (what's an assault rifle again?) provided that you have a Class 3 license as defined by The National Firearms Act.

A tank is a vehicle... so what? Now the artillery shell, I'm pretty sure it's either illegal or you'd need a Class 3 variant license.

A bazooka? Same above...

Google:
Heller v. District of Columbia
McDonald v. Chicago

The courts affirmed that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

FULL STOP.

I've heard of those. Now Whembly, look up and see, the two following weaponry are legal to own and to have in use.

Mini-Gun
Flame Thrower

Just check for me.

 daedalus wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
I like many here, think there should be many things added to at least appease the gun control people, which is their number 1 concern. Licensing, You should have to buy a license for a gun, I mean I have to buy a license for my software as a game designer. (Which isn't cheap mind you). Yet I can buy some lethal without a need for a license agreement.

That's disingenuous. You're not buying a license to be a game designer, as decreed and enforced by the State. You're buying the right to use some software that private people made to facilitate game design. You could use blender/freeglut/c++, which wouldn't cost you a dime. You could write machine level code, which wouldn't cost you a dime.

You can also buy LOTS of lethal things without a license. Knifes, baseball bats, chemicals, gasoline, propane, lithium-ion batteries.

I am talking about other software, particular for gaming companies. I have to buy license agreements so I can make games and can sell them under my name.

Knifes - Used for cooking
Baseball bats - Used for fun
Chemicals- Can be used for multiple home appliances.
Gasoline- Needed for vechiles
Propane- Needed for grills
Lithium Ion batteries- used in a large variety of areas such as electronics.

Knives can be used for murder, but how many murders may I ask you happen from lithium ion batteries?

Can you commit mass murder with a baseball bat or chemicals? No You can't. No matter what way you approach it, guns are more accessible for use in mass homicide as such. There should be tougher procedures placed on it. It is easier to survive a knife wound than a bullet wound. You can stop a knife-men, but you can't really stop a gunmen.

My grandfather in law owns an Uzi 9mm. There is no logical reason for him to have one. He claims it's to protect himself from the "race riots" in Louisiana.

This weapon has been stolen by his grandson who is, to put it extremely lightly, mentally ill. My wife's grandfather still refuses (now that it has been returned and his grandson is back under his guardianship) to put it somewhere his grandson cannot get to it.

I again ask where the amendment ends and sanity begins.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
People certainly should be allowed to exercise their legal rights

Good. Then this discussion should be concluded here.

Well obviously it shouldn't: when it is a discussion about the law needing amendment.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
Do you really think there is a right and wrong? Surely we both want to same things right? Good honest people to be able to enjoy life safely, less crime etc... What exactly is important to you? Why not begin there.

To have my legal rights respected. If you cannot abide by that then the discussion isn't going to progress.

 Asherian Command wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Etna's Vassal wrote:
"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."

So, define arms. Everything I listed above (and then some) could be defined as "arms".

I highlighted the pertinent part...

You can have an fully automatic rifle (what's an assault rifle again?) provided that you have a Class 3 license as defined by The National Firearms Act.

A tank is a vehicle... so what? Now the artillery shell, I'm pretty sure it's either illegal or you'd need a Class 3 variant license.

A bazooka? Same above...

Google:
Heller v. District of Columbia
McDonald v. Chicago

The courts affirmed that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

FULL STOP.

I've heard of those. Now Whembly, look up and see, the two following weaponry are legal to own and to have in use.

Mini-Gun
Flame Thrower

Just check for me.

Sure... mini-gun is an automatic and is covered by NFA.

Flame Thrower is legal as far as I know.
*shrug*

 whembly wrote:

 Etna's Vassal wrote:
"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."

So, define arms. Everything I listed above (and then some) could be defined as "arms".

I highlighted the pertinent part...

You can have an fully automatic rifle (what's an assault rifle again?) provided that you have a Class 3 license as defined by The National Firearms Act.

A tank is a vehicle... so what? Now the artillery shell, I'm pretty sure it's either illegal or you'd need a Class 3 variant license.

A bazooka? Same above...

Google:
Heller v. District of Columbia
McDonald v. Chicago

The courts affirmed that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

FULL STOP.

...So by that logic you're pro gun control? C'mon. A tank is a weapon. An artillery shell is a weapon. Hell, a fighter jet is a weapon. All of these are ARMS. I fail to see your distinction.

 Smacks wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
People certainly should be allowed to exercise their legal rights

Good. Then this discussion should be concluded here.

Well obviously it shouldn't: when it is a discussion about the law needing amendment.

Amendment... how?

We can change the law...but, what's the end-game?

 Etna's Vassal wrote:
My grandfather in law owns an Uzi 9mm. There is no logical reason for him to have one. He claims it's to protect himself from the "race riots" in Louisiana.

This weapon has been stolen by his grandson who is, to put it extremely lightly, mentally ill. My wife's grandfather still refuses (now that it has been returned and his grandson is back under his guardianship) to put it somewhere his grandson cannot get to it.

I again ask where the amendment ends and sanity begins.

So you stole his Uzi and now you're mad because he won't lock up his guns, and you want to make everyone else pay besides your racist grandpa? Thats interesting thinking.

 whembly wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Etna's Vassal wrote:
"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."

So, define arms. Everything I listed above (and then some) could be defined as "arms".

I highlighted the pertinent part...

You can have an fully automatic rifle (what's an assault rifle again?) provided that you have a Class 3 license as defined by The National Firearms Act.

A tank is a vehicle... so what? Now the artillery shell, I'm pretty sure it's either illegal or you'd need a Class 3 variant license.

A bazooka? Same above...

Google:
Heller v. District of Columbia
McDonald v. Chicago

The courts affirmed that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

FULL STOP.

I've heard of those. Now Whembly, look up and see, the two following weaponry are legal to own and to have in use.

Mini-Gun
Flame Thrower

Just check for me.

Sure... mini-gun is an automatic and is covered by NFA.

Flame Thrower is legal as far as I know.
*shrug*

Mini-guns are legal correct under those causes? Correct?


Please tell me. Why the hell are those two weapons of war actually completely legal for civilian use?

Don't you think there should be at least some way to ensure people do not get their hands on weapons that can do massive damage to a large amount of people and provide childlock equipment to prevent teenagers from using guns?

Strangely, please cite the thousands of attacks in the US last year by people wielding miniguns and flamethrowers.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Etna's Vassal wrote:
My grandfather in law owns an Uzi 9mm. There is no logical reason for him to have one. He claims it's to protect himself from the "race riots" in Louisiana.

This weapon has been stolen by his grandson who is, to put it extremely lightly, mentally ill. My wife's grandfather still refuses (now that it has been returned and his grandson is back under his guardianship) to put it somewhere his grandson cannot get to it.

I again ask where the amendment ends and sanity begins.

So you stole his Uzi and now you're mad because he won't lock up his guns, and you want to make everyone else pay besides your racist grandpa? Thats interesting thinking.

Not me, my wife's cousin.

 Frazzled wrote:
Strangely, please cite the thousands of attacks in the US last year by people wielding miniguns and flamethrowers.

None

currently there are no homicides from flamethrowers or mini-guns in american History.

Mostly because. Mini-Guns are fething expensive.

I am just saying some people can get creative. You would think those would be kind of I don't know. Off-limits for everyone but the military.

All it takes now is that one rich crazy to prove us all wrong.

 Etna's Vassal wrote:
That's right dude! Your 2nd amendment right allows you to have what-the-feth-ever gun you want. Assault rifles, bazookas, tanks (self-propelled guns), whatever! whoever has the most and biggest guns wins.

C'mon, where does the 2nd amendment end and sanity begin?

I was wondering when someone would bring out this tired old line

 Asherian Command wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Etna's Vassal wrote:
"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."

So, define arms. Everything I listed above (and then some) could be defined as "arms".

I highlighted the pertinent part...

You can have an fully automatic rifle (what's an assault rifle again?) provided that you have a Class 3 license as defined by The National Firearms Act.

A tank is a vehicle... so what? Now the artillery shell, I'm pretty sure it's either illegal or you'd need a Class 3 variant license.

A bazooka? Same above...

Google:
Heller v. District of Columbia
McDonald v. Chicago

The courts affirmed that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

FULL STOP.

I've heard of those. Now Whembly, look up and see, the two following weaponry are legal to own and to have in use.

Mini-Gun
Flame Thrower

Just check for me.

Sure... mini-gun is an automatic and is covered by NFA.

Flame Thrower is legal as far as I know.
*shrug*

Mini-guns are legal correct under those causes? Correct?

With an NFA Class 3 license...yes.

Please tell me. Why the hell are those two weapons of war actually completely legal for civilian use?

Because... why not?

Why do people drink?

Why do people drive?

Why do people rock-climb?

Why do people <do dangerous stuff>?

Don't you think there should be at least some way to ensure people do not get their hands on weapons that can do massive damage to a large amount of people

Nope.

and provide childlock equipment to prevent teenagers from using guns?

When you YOU going to start advocating PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY to achieve these things... instead of a nebulous government entity dictating the terms?
When you buy new guns these days, often times the manufacture will send a trigger lock for free.

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Strangely, please cite the thousands of attacks in the US last year by people wielding miniguns and flamethrowers.

None

currently there are no homicides from flamethrowers or mini-guns in american History.

Mostly because. Mini-Guns are fething expensive.

I am just saying some people can get creative. You would think those would be kind of I don't know. Off-limits for everyone but the military.

That sounds like a challenge! If anyone is interested, I have a list. Its a long list....

 Frazzled wrote:
Strangely, please cite the thousands of attacks in the US last year by people wielding miniguns and flamethrowers.

I was just going to say that...

 Etna's Vassal wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Etna's Vassal wrote:
My grandfather in law owns an Uzi 9mm. There is no logical reason for him to have one. He claims it's to protect himself from the "race riots" in Louisiana.

This weapon has been stolen by his grandson who is, to put it extremely lightly, mentally ill. My wife's grandfather still refuses (now that it has been returned and his grandson is back under his guardianship) to put it somewhere his grandson cannot get to it.

I again ask where the amendment ends and sanity begins.

So you stole his Uzi and now you're mad because he won't lock up his guns, and you want to make everyone else pay besides your racist grandpa? Thats interesting thinking.

Not me, my wife's cousin.

So your cousin in law stole his Uzi and now you're mad because he won't lock up his guns, and you want to make everyone else pay besides your racist grandpa? Thats interesting thinking.

 Smacks wrote:
Well obviously it shouldn't: when it is a discussion about the law needing amendment.

You are correct. Amendments should be made so that the individual States adhere to the Constitution.
Otherwise you haven't shown that the law needs amended

 Smacks wrote:
I think you are right. If all that matters to you is dogmatic adherence to "something someone else wrote 200 years ago" and that's really more important than the other things I mentioned, then we might as well just stop now. Great chat.

I would say good talking to you, but when everything you've said has been based on fallacies, distortions, and misrepresentations that would be a blatant lie on my part.

Why, I repeat why, do you need a weapon capable of mowing down people with minimal effort in a minimal amount of time? To protect yourself from Obama? If that's the case elect Jeff Christie.

I tried to post this earlier, but Dakka ate it. The number one reasoning behind anti gun control arguments is that criminals won't follow gun control laws. If that's the case, why have laws? Criminals don't give a feth about them.

The argument posted over and over by those against gun control is that if everybody (or enough people) have/has guns then people won't attack each other. Please enlighten me as to why this is the case.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Etna's Vassal wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Etna's Vassal wrote:
My grandfather in law owns an Uzi 9mm. There is no logical reason for him to have one. He claims it's to protect himself from the "race riots" in Louisiana.

This weapon has been stolen by his grandson who is, to put it extremely lightly, mentally ill. My wife's grandfather still refuses (now that it has been returned and his grandson is back under his guardianship) to put it somewhere his grandson cannot get to it.

I again ask where the amendment ends and sanity begins.

So you stole his Uzi and now you're mad because he won't lock up his guns, and you want to make everyone else pay besides your racist grandpa? Thats interesting thinking.

Not me, my wife's cousin.

So your cousin in law stole his Uzi and now you're mad because he won't lock up his guns, and you want to make everyone else pay besides your racist grandpa? Thats interesting thinking.

Nope, it's just an example of idiotic thinking leading to potential cataclysm.

 Etna's Vassal wrote:
My grandfather in law owns an Uzi 9mm. There is no logical reason for him to have one. He claims it's to protect himself from the "race riots" in Louisiana.

This weapon has been stolen by his grandson who is, to put it extremely lightly, mentally ill. My wife's grandfather still refuses (now that it has been returned and his grandson is back under his guardianship) to put it somewhere his grandson cannot get to it.

I again ask where the amendment ends and sanity begins.

So on the basis of your anecdotes there should be massive inroads made into people's lawful rights?

Lets see, in most states;
- theft of a Class III firearm is a felony
- possessing a Class III firearm without a license is a felony
- possession of a firearm by someone who is mentally ill is also a huge no no

Was this individual reported to the authorities?

You also still haven't addressed my point as to how the weapons I listed earlier evade the 2nd amendment.

 Smacks wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
People certainly should be allowed to exercise their legal rights

Good. Then this discussion should be concluded here.

Well obviously it shouldn't: when it is a discussion about the law needing amendment.

The question would be "does it need to be amended".

It could be, if enough people wanted it to be. The constitution does give us the power to add things to it or take things away. So if enough people decided to follow the constitutional process and pass an amendment to nullify the 2nd they could. I doubt that this would actually happen anytime soon.

The 2nd itself is only as strong as the SCOTUS that backs it up. And every SCOTUS ruling only lasts until the SCOTUS changes their mind. We already pass plenty of laws that could easily meet the criteria for "infringing" the right to bear arms. The fact that I have to have a license to strap autoguns to my car could easily be seen as an infringement. The fact that I have to take a background check to buy a gun could be seen as an infringement. The fact that I can't open carry without a license could be seen as an infringement. But what actually constitutes an infringement depends on the guys and gals on the bench. If they decide that something infringes it does. If they decide that something doesn't infringe it doesn't. And when they change their minds then every other decision they previously made is invalidated. Hell, they could turn around and decide at some point that "you know, militia really means the national guard and not every citizen."

I doubt any of that will happen (either an amendment to nullify the 2nd or a SCOTUS ruling that essentially nullifies the way we interpret it today. So we will go forward and work within the realms of the 2nd (not amend it) and try to balance the safety of society with the rights of society. I think stuff could be better, but I also like my guns and I carry. It's a balancing act and it's not near as black and white as both sides make it out to be.

Guns are not good or bad. The 2nd is not as absolute as some people want it to be. We could never get rid of guns if we wanted to because we have a couple hundred years of handing out guns like candy. Which is also the reason why it would be dumb to try to get rid of guns now, because everybody and their dog has them now (legal or illegal).

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Etna's Vassal wrote:
My grandfather in law owns an Uzi 9mm. There is no logical reason for him to have one. He claims it's to protect himself from the "race riots" in Louisiana.

This weapon has been stolen by his grandson who is, to put it extremely lightly, mentally ill. My wife's grandfather still refuses (now that it has been returned and his grandson is back under his guardianship) to put it somewhere his grandson cannot get to it.

I again ask where the amendment ends and sanity begins.

So on the basis of your anecdotes there should be massive inroads made into people's lawful rights?

Lets see, in most states;
- theft of a Class III firearm is a felony
- possessing a Class III firearm without a license is a felony
- possession of a firearm by someone who is mentally ill is also a huge no no

Was this individual reported to the authorities?

Again, these arguments "infringe" on the 2nd amendment.

Also, yes, this kid is in the custody of the state. The problem is these weapons being available to him.

 Etna's Vassal wrote:
You also still haven't addressed my point as to how the weapons I listed earlier evade the 2nd amendment.

Point? That was a rant that didn't even deserve the dignity of an actual rebuttal

Oh, and the Uzi, etc. (failed to mention the etc. part) were locked up.

 Etna's Vassal wrote:
Also, yes, this kid is in the custody of the state. The problem is these weapons being available to him.

So he broke the law and was treated accordingly. The system worked. If you're complaining about how your family member is potentially an irresponsible gun owner that is an entirely different conversation


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
The question would be "does it need to be amended".

Y'know I was going to ask him that, but I didn't want to waste my time reading the canned "guns are bad m'kay" responses

Keep in mind that I am one of those "liberals" on Dakka.

 Etna's Vassal wrote:
Why, I repeat why, do you need a weapon capable of mowing down people with minimal effort in a minimal amount of time? To protect yourself from Obama? If that's the case elect Jeff Christie.

1) What kind of weapons do you consider to fall under that category?
2) We might not need them, but they are lots of fun to shoot and the law says we can have them.
3) The shop-owners in Ferguson that were facing big groups of people trying to destroy their store and steal from them might actually feel that having a weapon capable of stopping them in a minimal amount of time could be helpful. Many areas of the US are just one natural disaster away from anarchy.

I tried to post this earlier, but Dakka ate it. The number one reasoning behind anti gun control arguments is that criminals won't follow gun control laws. If that's the case, why have laws? Criminals don't give a feth about them.

It's not a "criminals won't follow the law anyway" issue. It's a logistics issue. There are plenty of laws that could stop criminals and make it harder for them to get weapons. But none of them are foolproof and you could never ban all weapons because we have handed them out like candy and there is no way in hell we could ever get all of them collected again. It would be an impossible task.

The argument posted over and over by those against gun control is that if everybody (or enough people) have/has guns then people won't attack each other. Please enlighten me as to why this is the case.

The same reason the US and Russia have nukes pointing at each other

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Etna's Vassal wrote:
You also still haven't addressed my point as to how the weapons I listed earlier evade the 2nd amendment.

Point? That was a rant that didn't even deserve the dignity of an actual rebuttal

Ah, gotcha. You can't rebut the need for weapons to be controlled, so you just discard the point. Therefore I'll go out and buy my .50 caliber machine gun and go "hunting" or "protect my home" against... I don't know, the government, or ISIS, or whatever.