Gun ownership poll

earlywynnfan · #1 06-01-2022, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

I would add that the founders actions and writings also make it abundantly clear that they very much saw it as a right granted to the population.

Those the same founders that made it abundantly clear that women aren't equal to men and blacks count as 3/5?

You have spent a lot of words defending the status quo on guns, do you have any suggestions on how to deal with mass shootings? Is anyone who would like to make any changes at all to make gun laws tighter or stricter automatically labeled a "banisher"?

G1911 · #2 06-01-2022, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan

Those the same founders that made it abundantly clear that women aren't equal to men and blacks count as 3/5?

You have spent a lot of words defending the status quo on guns, do you have any suggestions on how to deal with mass shootings? Is anyone who would like to make any changes at all to make gun laws tighter or stricter automatically labeled a "banisher"?

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.

G1911 · #3 06-01-2022, 08:38 PM

I would also like to note that the AR-15 sold to civilians is factually NOT an Assault Rifle. This is a term with an actual meeting. The AR-15 you buy at the store does not have a full-auto switch. It is not an assault rifle.

A legally transferable NFA registered M16 from before 1986 is over $40,000 for the lower, last I heard.

Peter_Spaeth · #4 06-01-2022, 08:39 PM

Serious about gun control? Repeal the amendment. But, no....

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...repeal/554540/

G1911 · #5 06-01-2022, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Serious about gun control? Repeal the amendment.

Don't give them ideas!

Peter_Spaeth · #6 06-01-2022, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

Don't give them ideas!

Don't worry, there is no political courage to make any serious effort, it's so much better to virtue signal and profess outrage and vaguely demand vague and probably unconstitutional reforms. That way you don't really risk alienating anyone, and you can do the same thing and score virtue points all over again the next time a mass shooting happens.

BobbyStrawberry · #7 06-01-2022, 10:00 PM

Another mass shooting today. 5 dead in a Tulsa, OK medical facility. The increasing regularity of these events is truly disturbing.

earlywynnfan · #8 06-02-2022, 08:56 AM

Quote:

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 · #9 06-02-2022, 10:05 AM

Quote:

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 · #10 06-02-2022, 05:54 PM

Quote:

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 · #11 06-02-2022, 06:03 PM

Quote:

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 · #12 06-02-2022, 08:56 PM

Quote:

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 · #13 06-02-2022, 09:37 PM

Quote:

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 · #14 06-02-2022, 10:09 PM

Quote:

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 · #15 06-03-2022, 06:51 AM

Quote:

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.

earlywynnfan · #16 06-03-2022, 06:55 AM

Quote:

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.

AustinMike · #17 06-03-2022, 08:08 AM

Quote:

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 · #18 06-03-2022, 08:24 AM

Quote:

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 · #19 06-03-2022, 08:33 AM

Quote:

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.

Steve D · #20 06-02-2022, 05:26 PM

Quote:

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.

+1
Steve

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
WTB Comiskey (ownership years card) for evolving HOF set.	Misunderestimated	Pre-WWII cards (E, D, M, etc..) B/S/T	1	01-02-2020 08:50 PM
One more way to ruin the hobby - fractional ownership	Throttlesteer	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	49	08-14-2019 02:19 PM
Help determining ownership status of several high profile items	Sean1125	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	5	08-29-2015 10:42 AM
Ownership of old photographs	theantiquetiger	Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used	5	08-17-2011 02:43 PM
Scan Ownership	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	3	12-14-2005 01:10 PM