Gun ownership poll

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by G1911

I know I shouldn’t engage, but it’s too funny sometimes. Why would the life of a person in rural Idaho be worth more than a persons life in Chicago?

Not sure where Idaho comes into this mix but the point - lost on some apparently - is that urban gang violence primarily involving handguns doesn’t affect 99 percent of the population and seems a poor justification for everyone to be able to buy AR-15s. Let the point sink in, miss it, and the. Write something over the top crazy, mean, and trolly. I will wait.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Not sure where Idaho comes into this mix but the point - lost on some apparently - is that urban gang violence primarily involving handguns doesn’t affect 99 percent of the population and seems a poor justification for everyone to be able to buy AR-15s. Let the point sink in, miss it, and the. Write something over the top crazy, mean, and trolly. I will wait.

Yes, you said Iowa. I was wrong. I should have said "why is the life of someone in Chicago less important than one in Iowa?"

Of course it doesn't affect 99%. School shootings don't affect 99.999%, but you wanted to de facto ban all firearms under your 10,000x 'tax' plan to address that. I don't get how the fact that a person in Chicago (a progressive city with heavy gun laws) is more likely to be shot and killed than in rural Iowa invalidates the point. Since the topic is broad federal laws to apply to all without regard for locality (nobody here has proposed repealing the 2nd and then applying the 10th), how does it matter?

If you know that the vast majority of firearms crimes, gang and otherwise, are committed with handguns, why the constant obsession with AR-15's that, relative to their commonality, is among the least used of firearms in crime? It is the only gun you single out, and have many, many times.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by G1911

Yes, you said Iowa. I was wrong. I should have said "why is the life of someone in Chicago less important than one in Iowa?"

Of course it doesn't affect 99%. School shootings don't affect 99.999%, but you wanted to de facto ban all firearms under your 10,000x 'tax' plan to address that. I don't get how the fact that a person in Chicago (a progressive city with heavy gun laws) is more likely to be shot and killed than in rural Iowa invalidates the point. Since the topic is broad federal laws to apply to all without regard for locality (nobody here has proposed repealing the 2nd and then applying the 10th), how does it matter?

If you know that the vast majority of firearms crimes, gang and otherwise, are committed with handguns, why the constant obsession with AR-15's that, relative to their commonality, is among the least used of firearms in crime? It is the only gun you single out, and have many, many times.

I want some guns to be a little harder to get. It’s not just school mass shootings. The Vegas shooter. Whatever he had would seem like there doesn’t need to be such easy access to such things. There are far more situations where they seem to do bad things versus good things. And it’s not my fault that yet again I think one of his weapons of choice was an AR-15.

If you said to me, we need these weapons to prevent a tyrannical leader from taking over the country/army in violation of democratic processes, I would not think that was crazy. The problem is that battle has already been lost. You are already restricted from owning the weapons needed to fight an actual army. AR-15s are not going to do well against a fighter jet. What we are fighting about is window dressing to that issue. Sadly it’s window dressing that result in a mass shooting in this country far too often with little perceived benefit.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Carter08

I want some guns to be a little harder to get. It’s not just school mass shootings. The Vegas shooter. Whatever he had would seem like there doesn’t need to be such easy access to such things. There are far more situations where they seem to do bad things versus good things. And it’s not my fault that yet again I think one of his weapons of choice was an AR-15.

Didn't you just say single incidents weren't valid to prove a greater point? That was the first logical thing you'd said all thread, besides your first post where you had a completely different view.

Originally Posted by Carter08

If you said to me, we need these weapons to prevent a tyrannical leader from taking over the country/army in violation of democratic processes, I would not think that was crazy. The problem is that battle has already been lost. You are already restricted from owning the weapons needed to fight an actual army. AR-15s are not going to do well against a fighter jet. What we are fighting about is window dressing to that issue. Sadly it’s window dressing that result in a mass shooting in this country far too often with little perceived benefit.

I don't believe anyone has made a case they want a gun to overthrow the state. That the government can murder us all with aircraft does not seem relevant to any point anyone has actually made. Sure, my AR-15 would be useless if the government decided to carpet bomb my state.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by G1911

Didn't you just say single incidents weren't valid to prove a greater point? That was the first logical thing you'd said all thread, besides your first post where you had a completely different view.




I don't believe anyone has made a case they want a gun to overthrow the state. That the government can murder us all with aircraft does not seem relevant to any point anyone has actually made. Sure, my AR-15 would be useless if the government decided to carpet bomb my state.

Here’s where we can engage. I feel like the right to have weapons is meant to protect you and the citizens of whatever state you are in from a rogue federal government/federal leader more than it is to protect you from the fellow citizens of your own state. No?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Here’s where we can engage. I feel like the right to have weapons is meant to protect you and the citizens of whatever state you are in from a rogue federal government/federal leader more than it is to protect you from the fellow citizens of your own state. No?

It was the largest concern when the 2nd was written, and a driving one as the text makes clear. It was not the only one; the founders certainly believed very much in a natural born right to defend one's family and hearth, and to hunt.

Nobody here is threatening to use them against a rogue state, or saying they will/would. Few of the pro-gun comments have stated what specifically they own or why, I think bnorth did; none imply this. Civilian's are not using their 5.56's against aircraft, they are using them mostly for sport and home defense (to which the AR is particularly well suited), some for hunting.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by G1911

It was the largest concern when the 2nd was written, and a driving one as the text makes clear. It was not the only one; the founders certainly believed very much in a natural born right to defend one's family and hearth, and to hunt.

Nobody here is threatening to use them against a rogue state, or saying they will/would. Few of the pro-gun comments have stated what specifically they own or why, I think bnorth did; none imply this. Civilian's are not using their 5.56's against aircraft, they are using them mostly for sport and home defense (to which the AR is particularly well suited), some for hunting.

Is it really needed for home defense I think is they question many of us are asking. Because it seems to be used an awful many times for mass shootings.

[Deertick]

Here's a hypothetical:

In 2030, the 34th amendment is ratified repealing the 2nd.
Federal laws are passed that specify stringent training, security clearance and registration to possess. Insurance is mandatory. Any incident of negligence or improper use revokes the individuals right to possess (to include poaching). Firearms are required to have biometric or rfid safety mechanisms. Limits are in place per household. Any firearm not in compliance, is subject to confiscation and destruction. CCP is still a thing

Who's in?

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Deertick

Here's a hypothetical:

In 2030, the 34th amendment is ratified repealing the 2nd.
Federal laws are passed that specify stringent training, security clearance and registration to possess. Insurance is mandatory. Any incident of negligence or improper use revokes the individuals right to possess (to include poaching). Firearms are required to have biometric or rfid safety mechanisms. Limits are in place per household. Any firearm not in compliance, is subject to confiscation and destruction. CCP is still a thing

Who's in?

Again, gang members and other various criminals and murderers will have no problem arming themselves on the black market.

If a politician proposed what you just did, they'd certainly get the Crip and Bloods vote.

[Deertick]

Life in prison for anyone selling "blackmarket" Buybacks and bounties. Existing possession is grandfathered contingent on meeting requirements.

Again, if you meet the requirements, any individual can have a CCP.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Deertick

Here's a hypothetical:

In 2030, the 34th amendment is ratified repealing the 2nd.
Federal laws are passed that specify stringent training, security clearance and registration to possess. Insurance is mandatory. Any incident of negligence or improper use revokes the individuals right to possess (to include poaching). Firearms are required to have biometric or rfid safety mechanisms. Limits are in place per household. Any firearm not in compliance, is subject to confiscation and destruction. CCP is still a thing

Who's in?

Security clearance? I feel like that is probably not what you actually meant.

[Deertick]

Originally Posted by G1911

Security clearance? I feel like that is probably not what you actually meant.

I meant similar requirements, minus the credit score, lol

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Deertick

I meant similar requirements, minus the credit score, lol

Credit score doesn't change it much, the other requirements and the mandatory insurance would seem to eliminate the less affluent from having them under this plan.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by Deertick

Here's a hypothetical:

In 2030, the 34th amendment is ratified repealing the 2nd.
Federal laws are passed that specify stringent training, security clearance and registration to possess. Insurance is mandatory. Any incident of negligence or improper use revokes the individuals right to possess (to include poaching). Firearms are required to have biometric or rfid safety mechanisms. Limits are in place per household. Any firearm not in compliance, is subject to confiscation and destruction. CCP is still a thing

Who's in?

I think I'm in for the most part. Sounds kind of like Switzerland: https://www.businessinsider.com/swit...hs-2018-2?op=1