You guys and your guns...

[Woodbutcher]

Back in 1968 I used to go hunting after school in the fall. I carried my 12 gauge in a bag to school, with ammo, and stored it in my locker all day. At the end of the day I and two of my friends, who had similarly stored their shotguns in school, would hitchhike 10 miles to hunt, and then hitchhike back. Never had a problem getting rides. Don't try this today.

[mistermack]

Back in 1968 I used to go hunting after school in the fall. I carried my 12 gauge in a bag to school, with ammo, and stored it in my locker all day. At the end of the day I and two of my friends, who had similarly stored their shotguns in school, would hitchhike 10 miles to hunt, and then hitchhike back. Never had a problem getting rides. Don't try this today.

On my 21st birthday in 1971, I spent the day hunting grizzlies along the Bow River, near Banff, with nothing but a Bowie knife.

Luckily for the grizzlies, we didn't catch any.

[Blind groper]

mistermack

You are a year younger than me. I trust that from now on you will show proper respect to me, junior.

[pErvinalia]

Cars are actually highly regulated, compared to guns. You have to pass a test, and it's illegal to drive drunk.
Not so with guns. It's illegal to be drunk in charge of a moped. Is it illegal to be drunk in charge of a gun? ( I don't actually know the answer to that ).

This actually depends on where you are in the US. Here in Massachusetts I had to take a firearms safety course and pass a test in order to even be eligible for a license.

Yeah, this is the way it should be everywhere. They are a potentially very dangerous item, and the right to hold/use one should only be granted after someone has proven they are capable of using one responsibly.

But there's a problem with regulation. If we are going to consider gun ownership just any other right like, say, driving a car or owning an aeroplane, then it makes perfect sense to regulate that right. But if gun ownership is considered a right enshrined by the 2nd amendment of the constitution, then regulations that result in weakening the intent of the 2nd amendment would be pretty hard to justify. That is, if the intent of the 2nd amendment is to allow the citizenry the means to overthrow a tyrannical government, it's illogical to allow the government to regulate in a way that is protecting itself over the citizenry. So to me, the real problem lies in the 2nd amendment. Personally I think it's insane to allow such wide spread gun ownership, so in my case the argument would be for an amendment to the amendment (if that is even possible).

[pErvinalia]

It remains a fact, regardless of the distress that the exactness of the fact causes, that a morbid interest in firearms, as displayed by some of our more swivel-eyed North American members, is an absolutely sure-fire indicator of psychopathy and that those afflicted should, at a minimum, be sterilised.

I've actually been considering a vasectomy for my own purposes. If you'd like to lobby my government to cover it for me I'd be grateful.

That sounds like national health care, or some other such communist nonsense...

[Blind groper]

so in my case the argument would be for an amendment to the amendment (if that is even possible).

Since the second amendment is essentially insane, it would be better to simply remove it entirely.

As I have pointed out before, you do not need citizens rights to own guns to permit a revolution. We have seen successful revolutions in a number of countries where that did not exist. Besides which, as has been pointed out, the kind of firearms most Americans own would be next to useless against a modern army, anyway.

Better to remove the amendment and replace it with sensible laws to regulate gun ownership in a sane and sensible way (like those in Australia and NZ).

[Wumbologist]

That sounds like national health care, or some other such communist nonsense...

Perhaps one day when the bourgeoisie masters have been overthrown.

[pErvinalia]

so in my case the argument would be for an amendment to the amendment (if that is even possible).

Since the second amendment is essentially insane, it would be better to simply remove it entirely.

As I have pointed out before, you do not need citizens rights to own guns to permit a revolution. We have seen successful revolutions in a number of countries where that did not exist. Besides which, as has been pointed out, the kind of firearms most Americans own would be next to useless against a modern army, anyway.

But that's relevant to the point I was making. If the intent is to have the citizens be able to protect themselves from, or overthrow, a tyrannical government, then there logically should be no regulations on what they can own. So in effect, you could see households full of automatic assault rifles and, fuck, maybe even a variety of explosive devices. In that case, say 10's of millions of people owning assault rifles and ammo and claymores and grenades and the like, then they actually would be able to seriously hamper a tyrannical government. That's the frightening scenario that the 2nd amendment has the potential to allow (if I understand the 2nd amendment correctly).

Better to remove the amendment and replace it with sensible laws to regulate gun ownership in a sane and sensible way (like those in Australia and NZ).

Yeah, I agree. But the replacement doesn't serve the same purpose as the original. I personally wouldn't have any problem with that, but I imagine there would be a lot of americans who would. America has, in a sense of this quickly changing modern technological society, been left holding the baby of this amendment that was probably a reasonable idea 200 years ago. It's enshrined in their constitution by some thinkers 200 odd years ago, and once in, it's incredibly hard to get out.

[Wumbologist]

Yeah, this is the way it should be everywhere. They are a potentially very dangerous item, and the right to hold/use one should only be granted after someone has proven they are capable of using one responsibly.

But there's a problem with regulation. If we are going to consider gun ownership just any other right like, say, driving a car or owning an aeroplane, then it makes perfect sense to regulate that right. But if gun ownership is considered a right enshrined by the 2nd amendment of the constitution, then regulations that result in weakening the intent of the 2nd amendment would be pretty hard to justify. That is, if the intent of the 2nd amendment is to allow the citizenry the means to overthrow a tyrannical government, it's illogical to allow the government to regulate in a way that is protecting itself over the citizenry. So to me, the real problem lies in the 2nd amendment. Personally I think it's insane to allow such wide spread gun ownership, so in my case the argument would be for an amendment to the amendment (if that is even possible).

I'm not entirely opposed to the concept of proving basic firearm safety competency as a prerequisite to owning firearms, and I think that firearm safety needs to be stressed more than it currently is. Implementation could be worrisome, seeing as how some anti-gun municipalities are notorious for using any sort of gun "regulation" as roadblocks to actually block gun ownership altogether. Despite the Supreme Court's rulings in DC vs Heller and McDonald v. Chicago, DC and Chicago are still doing everything they can to make ownership difficult, if not impossible in their jurisdictions. My fear with any sort of mandated safety requirements would be cities like those using them as a way to deny even the most perfectly competent potential gun owner a permit.

As far as other regulation goes, as I've said in this thread before what's most important is proper enforcement of what's already on the books.

[Blind groper]

Wumbo

My view is that gun ownership should go only to those who have a legitimate need, and who have received appropriate training.

How would you feel about the idea of a gun license, similar to a driving license, in that the recipient would have to undergo training and prove both knowledge and competency before being permitted to buy a firearm? And, of course, a police check to ensure the person is not someone who has been a criminal?

[Seth]

I've seen ample evidence of it. And whatever you think, I'm the one carrying the gun, and you're not. That's all that counts.

And that comment tells me that you are the LAST person who should be allowed to carry one.

How strange, because the State of Colorado and the County Sheriff have the opposite opinion and have, after considerable background investigation, granted me a concealed carry permit that I've held for 15 years as a civilian, and they granted me authority to carry concealed as a state-certified police officer for more than a decade before that. Lo and behold, I've never gone spontaneously crazy and started shooting people at random merely because I touched a firearm.

So, fuck you asshole, your opinion isn't worth the paper I used to wipe my ass with this morning.

[Seth]

Mistermack is the Yin to Seth's Yang. For every absurd over the top Seth-ism, there is a steaming, nutty pile of mistermack-ism. It is where logic fears to tread.

It's easy to claim that in a bland, generalising way.
But when you come down to real examples in detail, your claim breaks down.

Point out the nuttyness, and I might be more impressed.

This entire thread. Whether or not you realize it, you are Seth-tier in the opposite direction. Seth is ostensibly on the same side as me on this topic and I know he's a nut,

Fuck you too, bitch.

[Seth]

Oh, you're friends are not the only stupid people in the world, I can think of at least one of their friends who is abysmally stupid.

lol. from the same sook who reported me earlier for personal attack.

Indeed. That's because what I just wrote is not a personal attack, it's a vague reference to stupidity in his friends.

Where's that insane smilie? Of course it was a personal attack. This is why you got banned from both rd.net and ratskep. You think you are covering up your personal attacks, but you're not.

I guess it depends on how you define "personal attack," fuckwit.

(Now THAT'S a personal attack placed there as an example.)

[Seth]

A lot of people are killed by automobiles, yet most people think having the freedom to drive an automobile is worth the trade off. This does not mean people who oppose car bans "don't give a toss if other people get killed and injured..."

Most people enjoy having a certain degree of autonomy, despite the risks.

That's fair enough, but it's not exactly comparing like with like, is it?

Cars are for transport. People are killed and injured by accident. Regrettable, but as you say, most people accept that the risk is acceptable, given the benefits of cars.

Guns are for killing and injuring people. They are designed to make killing and injuring people easier. That's where they differ from cars.

Only people that need to be killed or injured because they have posed a lethal threat to a law-abiding citizen. In that respect they are no different from cars because they are both inanimate lumps of metal that can be used for various purposes, including killing people. The vast majority of guns are never, in fact, used to kill people. Only the tiniest fraction are. Most guns are used for punching holes in paper from a distance and for hunting, and that's all they are ever used for.

Merely possessing a firearm poses no danger to anyone if properly handled, just like possessing a car.

[Wumbologist]

Wumbo

How would you feel about the idea of a gun license, similar to a driving license, in that the recipient would have to undergo training and prove both knowledge and competency before being permitted to buy a firearm? And, of course, a police check to ensure the person is not someone who has been a criminal?

Everyone should be competent in the use of a firearm before being allowed to own one, but I take issues with the potential for abuse by anti-gun municipalities, with the potential cost of such training becoming like a "poll tax" and discouraging law-abiding low-income people from legally obtaining firearms when they might be in the greatest need of self-defense, and the potential redundancy of such training. In my case, when I took my MA required safety class, it was almost all new to me. If I had been competent in what was being taught, however, the long wait for a class and the cost of signing up to hear what I already know would be frustrating to say the least.

To put it simply, I don't oppose the idea of requiring some basics out of gun owners but properly implementing it could be tricky.

As far as background checks, we already have those. In addition to the background check I was subjected to when I applied for my license to carry, a background check is run on me every time that I purchase a gun. So far, every one has come back clean.