The Gun Control Debate Thread

[Larry]

I would like to pose this question, and before I ask, I'll state that I'm not against CCP.  But, what is the big deal to get a CCP?  Really outside of being able to travel with it and be able to store in a trunk, glovebox, etc. and having it on your person when walking from your car into your apartment complex, house, etc. what other purpose does it really serve?

Speaking only for myself, I'll tell you why I support the notion of people (with appropriate training and responsibility) walking around society, packing heat. (And I consider the modern CCW to be a big part of that.)

 

just in case. 

 

just in case they need it. 

 

In one hypothetical, when somebody is walking down the street, and somebody steps out of a doorway and says "Gimme your wallet", I want Joe Citizen to have the right to say "no".  And to back it up, using reasonable force. 

 

Yes, I'm aware that responsibly carrying a gun is a PITA.  That's why I don't.  But I want me, and people like me, to have the choice. 

[Slateman]

How can requiring classes/training for a CCP suppress firearms ownership? You can still buy the firearm, you just can't conceal it legally, where allowed.

I am for buying/owning guns, I'm also for CCP for those that want those. But I'm also for requiring more mandatory training than already offered. My wife wants to get her CCP in the next couple of years, I'm behind her 100%.

The responsibility of owning a gun, knowing how to use and store it properly, laws around what you can and can't do, firing it properly (if it ever came to that) is tremendous. Last thing we need is for it to make it easier for people to obtain handguns and have minimal training to conceal one.

I would like to pose this question, and before I ask, I'll state that I'm not against CCP. But, what is the big deal to get a CCP? Really outside of being able to travel with it and be able to store in a trunk, glovebox, etc. and having it on your person when walking from your car into your apartment complex, house, etc. what other purpose does it really serve?

Can't take them into the vast majority of places where you might need them on the walk back to your car. Example, say you are out late at a place that prohibits firearms (sporting event, work, dinner, etc.) walking back to your car and **** goes down. If you obeyed the law properly, you wouldn't have the gun on your person concealed anyhow.

Because the government gets to decide how much and to what level is sufficient. If you need an example, see California, Chicago, Maryland, DC, or NYC.

Responsibility is on the individual, not the state.

There are few places that openly prohibit firearms and have the means to enforce it. The most you can get charged with is tresspassing ANDA they have to ask you to leave before calling the police.

Edited December 23, 2015 by Slateman

[mistertim]

Because the government gets to decide how much and to what level is sufficient. If you need an example, see California, Chicago, Maryland, DC, or NYC.

Responsibility is on the individual, not the state.

There are few places that openly prohibit firearms and have the means to enforce it. The most you can get charged with is tresspassing ANDA they have to ask you to leave before calling the police.

Sometimes people simply aren't responsible enough or smart enough to know what level is sufficient or to even care. You have to have a mix of personal responsibility and common sense laws and regulations. Its the same with cars. You have obvious personal responsibility when you get behind the wheel but we also have plenty of laws and regulations that are symbiotic with that and reinforce it.

[Slateman]

Sometimes people simply aren't responsible enough or smart enough to know what level is sufficient or to even care. You have to have a mix of personal responsibility and common sense laws and regulations. Its the same with cars. You have obvious personal responsibility when you get behind the wheel but we also have plenty of laws and regulations that are symbiotic with that and reinforce it.

Cars are privileges, not rights.

[Larry]

Because the government gets to decide how much and to what level is sufficient. If you need an example, see California, Chicago, Maryland, DC, or NYC.

Responsibility is on the individual, not the state.

There are few places that openly prohibit firearms and have the means to enforce it. The most you can get charged with is tresspassing ANDA they have to ask you to leave before calling the police.

Wow. Here I was going to agree with you.

Then you went full retard, in your second paragraph. And went to plaid in the third.

"Responsibility is on the individual, not the state."?

So you'll be advocating for the complete dissolution of our justice system, then?

Or would you rather walk back that claim and admit that governments have a legitimate role in actually enforcing responsibility? (That, in fact, doing so is the reason governments exist?).

And do you seriously want to say that you support people carrying weapons, because most places where the owner prohibits weapons don't really search people well enough to stop you?

[mistertim]

Cars are privileges, not rights.

Yes but it is still an example of how a potentially dangerous object and activity requires a mix of personal responsibility and regulations and laws in order to remain somewhat safe. Then again, if a person is a "2nd amendment is absolute and there can be no restrictions ever. Period" extremist then there isn't much to say because anything else is meaningless to them.

 

Other rights do have regulations as well. But, again, 2nd amendment extremists are deaf to anything like that. Sorta like pretty much any extremists.

Edited December 23, 2015 by mistertim

[Slateman]

Wow. Here I was going to agree with you.

Then you went full retard, in your second paragraph. And went to plaid in the third.

"Responsibility is on the individual, not the state."?

So you'll be advocating for the complete dissolution of our justice system, then?

Or would you rather walk back that claim and admit that governments have a legitimate role in actually enforcing responsibility? (That, in fact, doing so is the reason governments exist?).

And do you seriously want to say that you support people carrying weapons, because most places where the owner prohibits weapons don't really search people well enough to stop you?

Where did I saw I advocate for complete dissolution of our justice system? It is the individual's responsibility to know the law and how it applies to them. If they do not, then they will suffer the consequences. The state has already fulfilled their responsibility with the creation of the law and the system upon which that law my determined whether or not it is constitutional or not.

 

This is the foundation of our legal system. Period.

 

When we arrest people for DUI, no one demands that car companies make cars with breathalyzers. No one demands that the legislature pass a law demanding that people who drink have to register their alcoholic beverages, nor do we demand that people undergo psychiatric screenings for alcohol abuse. It is treated as it should be. The individual willfully and negligently ignored common sense and the law, intentionally consumed alcohol, and got in to a vehicle.

Yes but it is still an example of how a potentially dangerous object and activity requires a mix of personal responsibility and regulations and laws in order to remain somewhat safe. Then again, if a person is a "2nd amendment is absolute and there can be no restrictions ever. Period" extremist then there isn't much to say because anything else is meaningless to them.

 

Other rights do have regulations as well. But, again, 2nd amendment extremists are deaf to anything like that. Sorta like pretty much any extremists.

And of those rights that have regulations, how many of them have mental screenings for every individual exercising them? How many people have to undergo criminal background checks and pay money to be trained how to do it? When you go to get a permit for an assembly, do they make you take classes? How about training on how to "properly" conduct a peaceful assembly?

[Larry]

Where did I saw I advocate for complete dissolution of our justice system? It is the individual's responsibility to know the law and how it applies to them. If they do not, then they will suffer the consequences. The state has already fulfilled their responsibility with the creation of the law and the system upon which that law my determined whether or not it is constitutional or not.

 

This is the foundation of our legal system. Period.

And what that has to do with, say, a law requiring people to register their weapons, is . . . ?

 

When we arrest people for DUI, no one demands that car companies make cars with breathalyzers. No one demands that the legislature pass a law demanding that people who drink have to register their alcoholic beverages, nor do we demand that people undergo psychiatric screenings for alcohol abuse. It is treated as it should be. The individual willfully and negligently ignored common sense and the law, intentionally consumed alcohol, and got in to a vehicle.

Well, and we tweek the definition of legally drunk, and we set up checkpoints to check people, and we regulate and tax people who sell alcohol, and we limit their hours and their advertising, and we flat out forbid drinking for people who are legally adults, and we create "driving while impaired" laws, and . . .

And we balance all of these regulations against the competing societal interest that a car is pretty much required for the vast majority of Americans to live their lifestyle. Yeah, there's Americans who live without them. There's Americans who live without electricity, too.

[Slateman]

And what that has to do with, say, a law requiring people to register their weapons, is . . . ?

 

Well, and we tweek the definition of legally drunk, and we set up checkpoints to check people, and we regulate and tax people who sell alcohol, and we limit their hours and their advertising, and we flat out forbid drinking for people who are legally adults, and we create "driving while impaired" laws, and . . .

And we balance all of these regulations against the competing societal interest that a car is pretty much required for the vast majority of Americans to live their lifestyle. Yeah, there's Americans who live without them. There's Americans who live without electricity, too.

In other words, we legislate their behavior and not the process of acquiring all the things in the first place. We don't require anything before hand. No requirements for special licensing to buy or possess alcohol. No mental health screening required. No extensive background check with a computer system to see if I'm on parole for a DUI. We simply establish what the expected behavior  is and then work to catch and punish those who operate outside accepted norms.

 

So by taking your method, we should regulate those who sell firearms (done) and people should be able to buy a firearm by simply showing they are over 18/21 (ie, their driver's license or ID card). And those people who act outside the law will be dealt with by the police and we will pass laws restricting the usage of said firearms to lawful uses.

[mistertim]

And by your method we just wait until the person with the gun breaks the law in some way, or goes on a shooting spree or murders someone before trying to stop them and then lament that we couldn't do more to stop them after its over. So basically the status quo. Sweet.

[Slateman]

And by your method we just wait until the person with the gun breaks the law in some way, or goes on a shooting spree or murders someone before trying to stop them and then lament that we couldn't do more to stop them after its over. So basically the status quo. Sweet.

Are you claiming that we can do something about that AND allow the vast majority of people within the US to own firearms?

[Larry]

In other words, we legislate their behavior and not the process of acquiring all the things in the first place. We don't require anything before hand. No requirements for special licensing to buy or possess alcohol. No mental health screening required. No extensive background check with a computer system to see if I'm on parole for a DUI. We simply establish what the expected behavior  is and then work to catch and punish those who operate outside accepted norms.

 

So by taking your method, we should regulate those who sell firearms (done) and people should be able to buy a firearm by simply showing they are over 18/21 (ie, their driver's license or ID card). And those people who act outside the law will be dealt with by the police and we will pass laws restricting the usage of said firearms to lawful uses.

1) It's noy "my method". (To be more correct, "my analogy".) It's yours.

2) And the alcohol isn't what does the damage, in drunk driving. It's the 3000 lbs of steel which grants a person the ability to accidentally kill people.

And we place restrictions on them, too. We require them to be trained in the laws. To pass a test, covering said laws. To demonstrate the ability to control their weapon.

We keep track of who owns them. We keep statistics on how many people they kill each year. We study to try to come up with ways to reduce that number.

And, obviously, the burdens that come with that power aren't outrageously onerous. (Just look at some of the idiots who have cleared them.)

 

---

 

There's a bit of philosophical reasoning that has stuck in my head, from Heinlean's Starship Troopers, that I often reference.  I've described the reasoning multiple times, in this forum, and don;t feel like typing it again. 

 

Responsibility always equals power. 

 

This isn't some piece of logic, some rule about how things ought to be.  It's a Law of Nature.  It is impossible for responsibility and power to not be equal. 

 

And any attempt to create a system in which they are not equal, is doomed to failure just as surely ans any attempt to create a system which ignores conservation of energy. 

 

Well, guess what?  Walking around with a gun in your pants is a lot of power.  There needs to be an equal amount of responsibility. 

 

And no, that doesn't mean "well, we should make it illegal to shoot people, and then society should throw up their hands and announce that that's all they can do". 

 

---

Are you claiming that we can do something about that AND allow the vast majority of people within the US to own firearms?

 

Are you claiming that

 

1)  It's impossible to balance those two goals

 

2)  And, if we can't do both, then the only thing we can do is keep the guns flowing, and just accept it? 

Edited December 23, 2015 by Larry

[Burgold]

So, I was thinking about rights and how people say a Driver's licence isn't tied to any rights. I have bought into that argument for a while, but am wondering if maybe I was underthinking it.

 

We don't ask the government for permission to leave the state. We don't need a visa or passport to do so and we aren't stamped and interviewed when leaving/entering. So, with that line of thought... the movement is a right.  Clearly, one of the chief ways we move today is by car. Yet we do licence that. We control how a person is allowed to move. Much like how with gun control some attempt to control what type of weapon we are allowed to bare. After all, no one really would think it unsuitable for a militia organized in defense of the state to have access to tanks, SAMs, etc... so, we already have accepted the idea that the government should limit the type of arms we can bare. 

 

So, why shouldn't a CCV come not only with a permit, but a licence? Why shouldn't someone who wants a gun have to prove that they know how to maintain and operate it. Freedom to bare arms, freedom of movement... why not?

 

I know this argument will be ridiculed and dismissed, but maybe that driver's licence in your pocket really is a limitation on a basic, inalienable, and guaranteed right.

[Slateman]

1) It's noy "my method". (To be more correct, "my analogy".) It's yours.

2) And the alcohol isn't what does the damage, in drunk driving. It's the 3000 lbs of steel which grants a person the ability to accidentally kill people.

 

---

 

Are you claiming that

 

1)  It's impossible to balance those two goals

 

2)  And, if we can't do both, then the only thing we can do is keep the guns flowing, and just accept it? 

It is your method, because you were the one who brought up the methods.

 

Alcohol most definitely does the damage. And more over, it is the person who makes the choice to drink and then makes a choice to get in the car. Just like it's a person who makes a choice  to point a gun at someone and makes a choice to pull the trigger.

 

Yes, it is impossible to balance those goals. And the default must be to error on the side of the individual right. Again, founding tennant of the Constitution. We error on the side of the right on literally every other right, we must do it on this one as well.

 

Oh, and power comes from the individual's will, not their possessions. Nelson Mandela has proved that. So have numerous others.

So, I was thinking about rights and how people say a Driver's licence isn't tied to any rights. I have bought into that argument for a while, but am wondering if maybe I was underthinking it.

 

We don't ask the government for permission to leave the state. We don't need a visa or passport to do so and we aren't stamped and interviewed when leaving/entering. So, with that line of thought... the movement is a right.  Clearly, one of the chief ways we move today is by car. Yet we do licence that. We control how a person is allowed to move. Much like how with gun control some attempt to control what type of weapon we are allowed to bare. After all, no one really would think it unsuitable for a militia organized in defense of the state to have access to tanks, SAMs, etc... so, we already have accepted the idea that the government should limit the type of arms we can bare. 

 

So, why shouldn't a CCV come not only with a permit, but a licence? Why shouldn't someone who wants a gun have to prove that they know how to maintain and operate it. Freedom to bare arms, freedom of movement... why not?

 

I know this argument will be ridiculed and dismissed, but maybe that driver's licence in your pocket really is a limitation on a basic, inalienable, and guaranteed right.

You do not have to have a license to access the roads, merely to operate a motor vehicle on them. There have been several cases that have a established this.  The government cannot deny you freedom movement, but they don't have to let you operate a motor vehicle.

 

From now on, I want you to replace "gun" with "the right to vote" or "abortion." Tell me if you still think those requirements are constitutional.

Edited December 23, 2015 by Slateman

[Burgold]

 

 

From now on, I want you to replace "gun" with "the right to vote" or "abortion." Tell me if you still think those requirements are constitutional.

Absolutely, I agree that I will have my right to vote limited by age. I can not own a gun until age 18.

I agree that if I commit a felony I lose the right permanently to own a gun or vote.

I agree with you that only a citizen of the United States may be allowed to vote or possess a gun.

I agree with you that you can only vote or use a gun in the state in which you reside.

Should I go on?

[Slateman]

Absolutely, I agree that I will have my right to vote limited by age. I can not own a gun until age 18.

I agree that if I commit a felony I lose the right permanently to own a gun or vote.

I agree with you that only a citizen of the United States may be allowed to vote or possess a gun.

I agree with you that you can only vote or use a gun in the state in which you reside.

Should I go on?

Yes, please do.

 

Shall we have mandatory training and classes that you must pay for in order to vote?

Should the government be allowed to force you to buy a special voting license?

Prior to voting, should the voting officials be required to run a background check on you?

Should you have to have a note from your mental health professional, that you must pay for, in order to cast a vote?

Edited December 23, 2015 by Slateman

[Burgold]

So, just to make clear first... you are in favor of all of the above. Absolutely, no one is allowed to own or operate a gun not in their home state, no one can own or operate a gun who is under 18, and you have to register to operate, possess or use a gun

 

Once you agree that these should be applied to guns as they are applied to voting I'll address yours.

[Slateman]

So, just to make clear first... you are in favor of all of the above. Absolutely, no one is allowed to own or operate a gun not in their home state, no one can own or operate a gun who is under 18, and you have to register to operate, possess or use a gun

 

Once you agree that these should be applied to guns as they are applied to voting I'll address yours.

No, I don't think that if you commit a felony you should lose your rights forever.

No, I don't believe that only citizens on the United States should be allowed to own guns.

No, I do not believe you should only be allowed use a gun in the state you reside.

[Burgold]

Well, then your argument that we can replace voting with guns has just been shot full of holes.

[Slateman]

Well, then your argument that we can replace voting with guns has just been shot full of holes.

Ummm ... Not really. I don't feel that way about voting either.

Edited December 23, 2015 by Slateman

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

Mandatory classes are not for buying the gun, it's for the right to conceal them.  Even the most ignorant people that shouldn't have any type of gun (rifle, handgun, etc.) can pretty much purchase one as long as they haven't had any of the red flags that prohibit (history of mental illness, ex-con, dishonorable military discharge, etc.).

 

 

The only thing required in NC to purchase a handgun is a $5 permit, background check and application at the local sheriff's office.  Granted the application can take up to 30 days.  But to purchase a shotgun or rifle, it's basically a quick background check at the store you are purchasing it from and sold on the spot.

 

It is extremely easy for one to exercise their 2nd amendment right and purchase a firearm as long as they haven't ****ed up in the past.  Concealed carry is not a right, imo.

Edited December 23, 2015 by Dont Taze Me Bro

[Slateman]

Yes we should. Because the mandatory classes are not for buying the gun, it's for the right to conceal them. Even the most ignorant people that shouldn't have any type of gun (rifle, handgun, etc.) can pretty much purchase one as long as they haven't had any of the red flags that prohibit (history of mental illness, ex-con, dishonorable military discharge, etc.).

The only thing required in NC to purchase a handgun is a $5 permit, background check and application at the local sheriff's office. Granted the application can take up to 30 days. But to purchase a shotgun or rifle, it's basically a quick background check at the store you are purchasing it from and sold on the spot.

It is extremely easy for one to exercise their 2nd amendment right and purchase a firearm as long as they haven't ****ed up in the past. Concealed carry is not a right, imo.

Cool. Again, just trim a little fat off the constitution and we can go ahead and implement that. Actually, a lot of fat off the constitution. Pretty much all of it because everything I suggested has been shot down by the courts numerous times.

BTW, permit in NC is $80 plus $10 for fingerprints

Edited December 24, 2015 by Slateman

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

No, I don't think that if you commit a felony you should lose your rights forever.

No, I don't believe that only citizens on the United States should be allowed to own guns.

No, I do not believe you should only be allowed use a gun in the state you reside.

 

1]  Yes, they should lose their rights to purchase, forever.  They knew the consequences prior to committing a felony, it's on them.

 

2]  Yes, we should be the only ones allowed to own guns, in the US.

 

3]  I agree with this, they need to consolidate gun laws across all the states, imo.  With certain places potentially having stricter restrictions (e.g. DC, NYC, etc.).  

[Slateman]

1] Yes, they should lose their rights to purchase, forever. They knew the consequences prior to committing a felony, it's on them.

2] Yes, we should be the only ones allowed to own guns, in the US.

3] I agree with this, they need to consolidate gun laws across all the states, imo. With certain places potentially having stricter restrictions (e.g. DC, NYC, etc.).

Why do only "we" have the right to firearms for sale defense? Are non-citizens not people too?

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

Cool. Again, just trim a little fat off the constitution and we can go ahead and implement that. Actually, a lot of fat off the constitution. Pretty much all of it because everything I suggested has been shot down by the courts numerous times.

 

Slate, are you missing the point?  You can buy a gun.  You just can't conceal it without a CCP.  That is not in any way shape or form infringing on your constitutional rights.  Can't get approved to purchase a handgun?  Ok, go out and buy 20 rifles/shotguns at a gun show or even a retailer.