Gun rights - for or against?

[Rachel20]

My statement "Why don't we push the boundaries of race further?" was a linguistic device to segue to another in the context of that paragraph.

I am glad you seem to have an issue with race as a precondition for stereotypes in airports. Maybe the TSA should take a leaf out of your book...


Thanks, I will enjoy myself! I get sunburnt too if I stay out too long - but that's why I got some nice fedora hats with me. I hope you have a great week too.

God bless.

I don't really mind being called a redneck! Though some Americans probably do. I was more speaking the stereotype that it would be a problem to push the boundaries of race to an Arab man with a gun. Like I said before, I have no problem with an Arab American citizen with a gun, just like I don't have a problem with a Native American, Caucasian, Mexican, or Asian American citizen with a gun. It DOES bother me that the racist canopy was spread over everyone. But offended? Nah, I've got a pretty thick skin. You'd have to be going pretty good to offend me .

Enjoy your vacation!! That sounds like a blast! (get a little tanned for me while you're at it...my blonde complexion just burns and I can't tan to save my life ).

 

[Angela53510]

We had a good discussion about guns in my bipolar group. The discussion was started by an American army vet, who owns a gun, and knows how to use it. However, he does not keep it in his home, because he is afraid he will use it in himself one day. He said it is in a safe at his brother's house, that he cannot open.

I guess he has insight into his condition. He also said his brother, also a vet, owns semi automatic weapons for target practise, and enjoys shooting them.

What was interesting was the response of the woman from Australia. She said on the basis of her mental history, she would not be able to buy a gun in Australia. I don't know if she was violent, or if just being hospitalized for psychosis is enough to stop her from owning a gun.

She must have had some terrible experiences with insanity, because she said it drove her to atheism. I pray for her to understand who God is, and that I might gently dispel her myth of the Santa Claus god she thought knew.

Of course, I believe background checks are vital, and if that means mentally ill people not having access to guns, better safe than sorry. True, a knife can still kill, but so many less deaths than a semi automatic or automatic weapon.

Guns are part of culture of fear, not freedom. I'm so glad I live in Canada, where I don't have to fear guns or carry a firearm to protect myself!

 

[Rachel20]

If you exercised a little reading comprehension, you would note that my statement was :

"In the USA, only 6 states out of the 50 require background checks at all points of sale."


This comes to the famous gun law loophole in the federal law - where sales of firearms from private sellers are not regulated.

The federal law is :" any person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of the state where they reside, as long as they do not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms"

Under this law, private sellers are not required to do background checks on their buyers, record the sale or ask for identification.

Maybe you should educate yourself on your own country's laws.


I am not going to bother addressing the rest of your post. It must be all the personal issues you have and may need help with .
I don't have the time, or rather I don't care.

If you are going to criticize someone else's country, you should at least get your facts straight.

ALL states are REQUIRED to do a background check on ALL sales from licensed gun dealers. ALL sales have to go through the NICS (Federal) instant background check system. ALL of them. Any violation of these laws is a FEDERAL offense.



Highly offensive to most gun owners.... you should be ashamed.. but I'm pretty sure, given your racially biased post history that you are not.

If I referred to people of Indian descent as "dot-faces", "or turban-heads", you'd very likely be offended. But, unlike you, I would not ever do that.



No, this is the sort of stupidity we get from people who have no concept of personal liberties. When you come from a third-world country with no individual freedoms, and no training/teaching about what the US is all about, you hear these types of ignorant rants about our freedoms.

And, again, you conveniently ignore the facts about "regulations"..... there are more regulations on gun ownership than you (as a gun-hating non-owner) could believe.

 

[kaylagrl]

Interesting read on gun control. I'll post the article and the link since most wont bother reading the link.


http://www.mintpressnews.com/the-facts-that-neither-side-wants-to-admit-about-gun-control/207152/




A church was shot up by a lunatic. The US government never lets a tragedy or crisis pass without attempting to find a new way to restrict the American people. So, we can expect a renewed push for gun control. There is a lot of propaganda about gun control. So much so that the truth has been lost.The National Rifle Association (NRA) would have you believe that guns stop murders. The gun control lobby would have you believe that gun control reduces murders. They are both wrong. Gun bans have always had the same effect once implemented: none. They do not create a (sustained) period of increased murders, nor do they reduce the rate of homicides. The gun control crowd is currently stomping their feet and screaming “No, it reduces violence! I’ve seen the statistics.” What you probably saw were studies that point to reduced instances of “gun murders,” not murder. The pro-gun crowd is screaming that gun bans cause crime. At least this is grounded in reality. Typically, there is a spike in murders immediately after a ban, but it is short lived.


Gun control is designed to stop people from killing each other, at least that’s what we are always told. Let’s take a look at the data:United Kingdom: The UK enacted its handgun ban in 1996. From 1990 until the ban was enacted, the homicide rate fluctuated between 10.9 and 13 homicides per million. After the ban was enacted, homicides trended up until they reached a peak of 18.0 in 2003. Since 2003, which incidentally was about the time the British government flooded the country with 20,000 more cops, the homicide rate has fallen to 11.1 in 2010. In other words, the 15-year experiment in a handgun ban has achieved absolutely nothing.Ireland: Ireland banned firearms in 1972. Ireland’s homicide rate was fairly static going all the way back to 1945. In that period, it fluctuated between 0.1 and 0.6 per 100,000 people. Immediately after the ban, the murder rate shot up to 1.6 per 100,000 people in 1975. It then dropped back down to 0.4. It has trended up, reaching 1.4 in 2007.Australia: Australia enacted its gun ban in 1996. Murders have basically run flat, seeing only a small spike after the ban and then returning almost immediately to preban numbers. It is currently trending down, but is within the fluctuations exhibited in other nations.Plain and simple. Gun control has no significant impact on murder rates. Removing firearms does not typically create massive lawlessness. It is a moot point. These figures aren’t a secret. Why would the governments of these nations want a disarmed populace? For the answer, it is best to look at a nation that has had long-time gun bans that is currently relaxing their laws. Russia recently relaxed its firearms laws. For the first time in recent memory, a Russian citizen can carry a firearm. The prohibited items speak volumes about what a government’s motive behind disarming the population is. Russia has allowed “smoothbore long barrelled guns, pistols, revolvers, and other firearms, as well as Tasers, and devices equipped with teargas.” That’s almost everything, what is still banned? Rifles. So the Russian government has made it clear that the real objective is to remove rifles from civilian hands. The reasoning is pretty clear: you need rifles to overthrow a government.[h=2]The Real Reason Gun Control Will Never Work:[/h]Poverty has a greater correlation to violent crime than access to firearms. Education and poverty are directly linked. In short, we don’t have a gun problem in the United States, we have a cultural problem.Home Depot. Most people in the gun control lobby know nothing about firearms or their construction. Everything you need to manufacture firearms is available at Home Depot. The materials needed to manufacture a 12 gauge shotgun cost about $20. If someone wanted to build a fully automatic Mac-10 style submachine gun, it would probably cost about $60. Every electrician, plumber, and handyman in the country has the materials necessary to manufacture firearms in their shop. The items are completely unregulated. They aren’t like the chemicals necessary to manufacture methamphetamines. How is the battle against that black market working out?We have a society that panders to the basest desires and instincts. One of those is violence. We live in a society where women are given dirty looks for breastfeeding in a restaurant, while over their heads on the wall-mounted television plays a movie that graphically depicts someone being tortured to death. We are desensitized to violence, and we have a generation of people that do not have the coping skills necessary to deal with reality.Firearms are the Pandora’s Box of the United States. The box is open, it can’t be closed through legislation. If you want to change society, you have to actually change the whole of society. You can’t blame an inanimate object that’s availability has absolutely no correlation to murder and expect to end violence.

 

[Jennie-Mae]

Jane Fonda is a born again Christian.
She has been for many years.
Your statement here is 40 years out of date.
Isn't it wonderful how Jesus can change our lives.
He certainly changed mine.

Well, that's great.

 

[Jennie-Mae]

Foreign folks don't grasp the American culture. In this country people have had to trust nobody but themselves through history, and that is how it still is. The nation is built on hard working peoples labor and we prefer to keep it that way. No governmental welfare programs should be established to make us lazy. We take care of our own people and let gov't be dealing with their own problems.

Throughout the centuries DC has always been informed that we, the common folks, will not let any suppressing gov't take control, and up to this point there has never been a president seriously considering a ban on guns, be it Democrats or Republicans. To some of us the Constitution is almost holy.

If a foreigner doesn't get that much, he or she should read up on the matter before judging us. This is not Europe or Asia.

Unfortunately welfare recipients are gaining momentum now. That will most likely help the anti constitutionalist in their never ending efforts to ruin the Constitution.

 

[hornetguy]

If you exercised a little reading comprehension, you would note that my statement was :

"In the USA, only 6 states out of the 50 require background checks at all points of sale."


This comes to the famous gun law loophole in the federal law - where sales of firearms from private sellers are not regulated.

The federal law is :" any person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of the state where they reside, as long as they do not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms"

Under this law, private sellers are not required to do background checks on their buyers, record the sale or ask for identification.

Maybe you should educate yourself on your own country's laws.


I am not going to bother addressing the rest of your post. It must be all the personal issues you have and may need help with .
I don't have the time, or rather I don't care.

No, I am well versed in our nation's gun laws. I am aware of "loopholes" in gun laws. One of the most glaring is the lack of some means of including mental history checks in the NICS database. Our HIPPA laws prevent that.

The primary "loophole" you are trying to reference is the "gun show loophole", where individuals (NOT gun dealers) can go to a place that is primarily a place to shop for guns, and sell them to another individual without having a background check done.

Personally, I think there should be a law banning individual sales of guns at a gunshow, since it is a place specifically for buying and selling guns.

I do NOT think there should be background checks required for me to sell a gun to my friend or co-worker, or to give one to a family member.

The 2nd amendment states that our right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Those rights have been pretty heavily infringed since 1968.

.... and I still stand by the rest of my comments to you.... the ones you so easily "ignored".... truth hurts...

 

[AllenW]

No,wouldn't consider her a born again Christian from what Im reading she has said.Check the link...

http://www.beliefnet.com/faiths/2005/04/christianity-is-my-spiritual-home?p=5

Don't be so prejudice.
there's a lot said by people on this forum that you would probably also not consider being Christian.
Where do your judgements end?

 

[Angela53510]

Foreign folks don't grasp the American culture. In this country people have had to trust nobody but themselves through history, and that is how it still is. The nation is built on hard working peoples labor and we prefer to keep it that way. No governmental welfare programs should be established to make us lazy. We take care of our own people and let gov't be dealing with their own problems.

Throughout the centuries DC has always been informed that we, the common folks, will not let any suppressing gov't take control, and up to this point there has never been a president seriously considering a ban on guns, be it Democrats or Republicans. To some of us the Constitution is almost holy.

If a foreigner doesn't get that much, he or she should read up on the matter before judging us. This is not Europe or Asia.

Unfortunately welfare recipients are gaining momentum now. That will most likely help the anti constitutionalist in their never ending efforts to ruin the Constitution.

Well, I lived in the US for two years growing up. I have loads of American cousins that I have kept in contact with, and I can see cultural differences between them and me.

What Americans don't realize, is that because if the dominance of American media, we are influenced daily by American culture. The majority of our TV shows are American, and I probably read more American news in a day than I do Canadian! I live one hour from the border. I used to live 15 minutes from the border and cross border shopped weekly.

So, I know a LOT about American culture and values, particularly where there are differences. Not sure about other foreign countries, but the USA is dominate in media, so probably most of us foreigners know a lot more about the US than you do about our countries.

Or doesn't Canada count, as we are either so Americanized, or you are ready to take us over for our oil and gas at any minute?
(I just noticed you ignored Canada in your comment!)

 

[Desdichado]

I think anybody who is looking for a good, balanced, and modern survey of the 2A's meaning should go to Scalia's opinion in DC vs. Heller.

For my part, I have very few disagreements. Mainly not enough context extending back to British Common Law.

It does make me glad that the drafters saw fit to codify a 2nd Amendment altogether. Our shift away from the cultural mores of the time was probably more rapid than even they expected. There had to be a well-contextualized, unambiguous lodestar for liberty's fail-safe to stay afloat.

Now if only it worked out so well for our 10th Amendment

No, I am well versed in our nation's gun laws. I am aware of "loopholes" in gun laws. One of the most glaring is the lack of some means of including mental history checks in the NICS database. Our HIPPA laws prevent that.

The primary "loophole" you are trying to reference is the "gun show loophole", where individuals (NOT gun dealers) can go to a place that is primarily a place to shop for guns, and sell them to another individual without having a background check done.

Personally, I think there should be a law banning individual sales of guns at a gunshow, since it is a place specifically for buying and selling guns.

I do NOT think there should be background checks required for me to sell a gun to my friend or co-worker, or to give one to a family member.

The 2nd amendment states that our right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Those rights have been pretty heavily infringed since 1968.

.... and I still stand by the rest of my comments to you.... the ones you so easily "ignored".... truth hurts...

 

[Desdichado]

I grew up not far from the border. It is an odd situation. There are days I feel more Canadian, culturally speaking, than American when my food/beer/sports/recreation/overall environment preferences are taken into account (truth be told, my grandmotheris from Quebec which some don't even consider Canada).

But that can be said for Americans/Canadians living all along the border. And consider this observation! Many great Canadian comedians and cultural observers make their way to the upper echelons of modern discourse. So a good deal of the American culture you reference is influenced by Canadians. Almost to the point it's indistinguishable.

And it's always been that way. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison thought Canada would be a mere matter of marching, anticipating that the similar culture and British frontier folkways would make Canadians fall into the arms of the US. But that didn't happen. They remained loyal to the Crown in spite of it all.

I would argue then our differences as a people have been chiefly political and that political influenced the cultural over the years. Vice versa. And you have what you have today!

In addition, I would argue (and with an ironic smirk), that Jefferson and Madison did not quite take into account that Canada's colonial foundations were more like Georgia's than they were Virginia and Massachusetts. Both of whom had distinct cultural and political influences on the other colonies that didn't quite make it to Canada.

I'm kinda spit-balling here. History doesn't repeat itself, but gosh does it ever rhyme.

Well, I lived in the US for two years growing up. I have loads of American cousins that I have kept in contact with, and I can see cultural differences between them and me.

What Americans don't realize, is that because if the dominance of American media, we are influenced daily by American culture. The majority of our TV shows are American, and I probably read more American news in a day than I do Canadian! I live one hour from the border. I used to live 15 minutes from the border and cross border shopped weekly.

So, I know a LOT about American culture and values, particularly where there are differences. Not sure about other foreign countries, but the USA is dominate in media, so probably most of us foreigners know a lot more about the US than you do about our countries.

Or doesn't Canada count, as we are either so Americanized, or you are ready to take us over for our oil and gas at any minute?
(I just noticed you ignored Canada in your comment!)

 

[kaylagrl]

Don't be so prejudice.
there's a lot said by people on this forum that you would probably also not consider being Christian.
Where do your judgements end?

Did you read the article?! No you didn't. Read the link before you lunge at me with nonsense accusations.Its in her own words BTW.

 

[Tommy379]

I've learned to almost never formulate an opinion on the outcome of a murder case. I don't know every state's standard for muder/manslaughter. I don't know all the facts presented to the jury by an able prosecutor and defense attorney (most of them are able).

All the facts did come out at trial..... thats why a half black, all female jury acquitted Zimmerman.

 

[Tommy379]

I don't guess there is much of a reason to argue over what happened. It was tragic. I don't think what happened to Zimmerman warranted Martin getting shot. A hefty man versus a skinny kid is not a fair fight, and they probably would not have even made contact at all if Zimmerman would have listened to the dispatcher and met the police car at the mailbox.

At the time of the incident, there was a 40 lb difference in Zimmermans favor, but Martin was 4 inches taller.
Being larger does not equate to stronger.
If a person reasonably believes they are in danger of death or serous bodily injury, they may use deadly force to defend themselves. That is what tge jury found.

 

[Tommy379]

Yes it was tragic and I personally believe martin was innocent, but from zimmerman's behavior in jail and his conversations with his then wife, it doesn't look like he had any remorse at all.

I doubt I would feel remorse for shooting someone trying to kill me.

 

[Tommy379]

I think he said he thought he was armed because that was his ultimate defense strategy (self-defense against an armed attacker). I never saw or heard him show any remorse.

Hands and feet are sufficient weapons to terminate a human life.

 

[Tommy379]

So many typical garbage arguments for "gun rights".

From interactions with Americans, the argument for gun control is not a total outright ban on guns, but rather a regulation of the distribution of these weapons.
This is what comes into conflict with the Second Amendment which protects the right to keep and bear arms.

If people need to undergo driving tests to drive a car, then why is there no background checks for gun owners? In the USA, only 6 states out of the 50 require background checks at all points of sale.

The usual dumb arguments that deflect attention to the real issues-

"Guns don't kill people, people kill people."

Gun whiner - A person can harm another person through a truck, a knife, pen, apple, pineapple - should we regulate these items?

A gun is a lethal weapon with a potential to cause far worse damage than a knife. What is the use of a gun? To shoot. What is the use of a truck (or car)? Transportation.

Also, these items are regulated by airports across the world. Would you like to fly in an aircraft with someone who has never had a background check and carrying a "weapon" with them?

Oh and don't think of your typical redneck. Why don't we push the boundaries of race further? Would you like to sit next to a man of Arabic origin who has a gun in an aircraft, without any checks?


"A good guy with a gun could have stopped it."

So it isn't bad enough that this argument surfaces up right after a tragedy, statistically speaking the incidences of an armed civilian stopping a shooter has been low.

At the Pulse shooting at Orlando, there was a police officer off duty who shot at the attacker at the entrance. However he wasn't able to stop the man from getting in and had to call for back up.

This is the same Florida where a legally blind man who was cleared of murder, after shooting his drinking buddy went on to petition for getting his guns back and won.

This is the sort of stupidity that is rampant in the world of guns in America.

Can a human being have the right to bear arms to protect his/her self - yes, sure, meh. Can he/she live in society without regulation? Questionable.

Good thing you're not an American.

 

[Tommy379]

Thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt. I would like to give you some food for thought.

What stereotypes are you finding specifically offensive as an American? The term redneck?

Did you find this stereotype equally offensive - that an Arabic man sitting on an airplane would require further background checks?

And that is a reality, further cemented by Trump's travel diktats.


(I was actually not going to respond on this thread - I have to catch a flight in the early afternoon. I am starting my 4th of July celebrations early - nice little beach, possibly fireworks, getting a tan etc.)

I wouldn't mind Trump putting India on that travel ban list.

 

[GaryA]

Personally, I think there should be a law banning individual sales of guns at a gunshow, since it is a place specifically for buying and selling guns.

I am pretty sure I understand what you are saying here --- but --- you sure worded it funny...

Ban sales of guns at a place where guns are specifically intended to be sold?

HAHAHA

In other words, you believe the law should mandate that - minimally - a 'registered' dealer at a gun show must be a party to any gun sale transaction -- right?

I do NOT think there should be background checks required for me to sell a gun to my friend or co-worker, or to give one to a family member.

AMEN to that!

 

[Galatea]

At the time of the incident, there was a 40 lb difference in Zimmermans favor, but Martin was 4 inches taller.
Being larger does not equate to stronger.
If a person reasonably believes they are in danger of death or serous bodily injury, they may use deadly force to defend themselves. That is what tge jury found.

I watched a few reports and read an article to reacquaint myself with the case. Zimmerman was not treated for serious injuries. The EMTs did not think he was injured, or they would have rushed him to the hospital straightaway.

I don't think it was intentional murder, but definitely manslaughter. He should not have shot him. He KNEW the police were coming, he was bigger than Martin. I don't buy that he feared for his life.