The Gun Control Debate Thread

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,465
I'm a big 2A guy..everyone here knows that. But I just can't get behind open carry. Not in todays world where there is a crazy ass lunatic every city block. People are afraid, and having someone walk in with a big pistol on their side scares people even more...there's just no call for it or need for it.

Besides who is the bad guy gonna take out first, the guy sitting in the corner unobtrusively putting ketchup on his fries, or the dipshit who walks in with the 3 pound Colt 45 on his side for everyone to see? I mean, its ridiculous.
I'm torn on the issue. Because I think it's ridiculous to expect everyone to have a ccw in order to have a fire arm. I also don't think there is anything wrong with a person carrying a weapon. Hell the person whose firearm is visible is the last person who will commit some sort of a mass shooting. If you're planning on killing a bunch of people you're going to hide the fire arm until the last minute before the bullets start flying.

But I also look at it and say, what if everyone has a loaded fire arm on themselves and were carrying it around. That sounds like a pretty scary world to me that I wouldn't want. All it would take is for one jumpy as person to shoot a gun off and you'd have some sort of a chain reaction. Of course that's not really a realistic scenario either because most people will never open carry in public even though they have the right to.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
But owning a gun by itself creates absolutely no danger. What you're talking about is doing something additionally which is already a crime. Voting is the equivalent to owning a gun. Voting is not the equivalent to shooting that firearm. Do you understand the difference?
Right, owning a firearm doesn't create a danger, carrying a firearm does. Although there are risks associated with a firearm in the home, my main concern is people taking it out into public, without the understanding of when lethal force (aka all uses of that firearm) is reasonable. Again no one can accidentally kill someone by voting incorrectly.

It's a crime tp drive a car on the sidewalk, so I want anyone who's permitted to drive (not necessarily own) a car to know all the things that are dangerous and illegal before they take it out of the driveway.
 

Cotton

One-armed Knife Sharpener
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
119,732
Besides who is the bad guy gonna take out first, the guy sitting in the corner unobtrusively putting ketchup on his fries, or the dipshit who walks in with the 3 pound Colt 45 on his side for everyone to see? I mean, its ridiculous.
This is why I will never open carry. If someone is intent on killing people, he is killing the person with the obvious gun first.
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,465
It's a crime tp drive a car on the sidewalk, so I want anyone who's permitted to drive (not necessarily own) a car to know all the things that are dangerous and illegal before they take it out of the driveway.
The difference is you don't have a right to drive a car. You have a right to bare arms. I think the right of someone to defend themselves trumps the perceived dangers of a person open carrying a weapon but not shooting it.
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,465
This is why I will never open carry. If someone is intent on killing people, he is killing the person with the obvious gun first.
What if that open carry prevents the whole crime from happening in the first place? If you're going to shoot at people you'd much prefer a crowed of unarmed people.
 

Cotton

One-armed Knife Sharpener
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
119,732
What if that open carry prevents the whole crime from happening in the first place? If you're going to shoot at people you'd much prefer a crowed of unarmed people.
It could, I suppose. But, what I'm saying is, I am not the one that is going to be taking that risk.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
The difference is you don't have a right to drive a car. You have a right to bare arms. I think the right of someone to defend themselves trumps the perceived dangers of a person open carrying a weapon but not shooting it.
There's not explicitly a right to drive like there is to bear arms, but if a municipality decided to ban females from driving, like they do in Saudi Arabia, do you think it would hold up in court? Or would it be overturned as unconstitutional?
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,465
There's not explicitly a right to drive like there is to bear arms, but if a municipality decided to ban females from driving, like they do in Saudi Arabia, do you think it would hold up in court? Or would it be overturned as unconstitutional?
That's a bad example because the law applies unequally to women and men.

A better example would be, what if a municipality banned anyone from driving? It wouldn't be found unconstitutional but you can bet the federal government would strike down the law due to its impact on interstate commerce. Which is how Federal Laws have climbed all over states rights even though the constitution says otherwise.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
That's a bad example because the law applies unequally to women and men.

A better example would be, what if a municipality banned anyone from driving? It wouldn't be found unconstitutional but you can bet the federal government would strike down the law due to its impact on interstate commerce. Which is how Federal Laws have climbed all over states rights even though the constitution says otherwise.
Fair enough, the point is that we talk about driving as a "privilege" but it isn't. Frankly even if the forefathers had had the foresight to write "the right to drive cars" into the bill of rights, I'd still want procedures in place so that those drivers do not place other drivers and pedestrians in immediate harm.

I've said it before and I'll say it again an untrained individual going out into public with a lethal weapon constitutes a public hazard. It true for unlicensed drivers and it's true for untrained gun carriers. If that standard's good enough for not permitting a person to shout "fire", it's good enough to regulate licensed carriers.
 

Kbrown

Not So New Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
2,155
Fair enough, the point is that we talk about driving as a "privilege" but it isn't. Frankly even if the forefathers had had the foresight to write "the right to drive cars" into the bill of rights, I'd still want procedures in place so that those drivers do not place other drivers and pedestrians in immediate harm.

I've said it before and I'll say it again an untrained individual going out into public with a lethal weapon constitutes a public hazard. It true for unlicensed drivers and it's true for untrained gun carriers. If that standard's good enough for not permitting a person to shout "fire", it's good enough to regulate licensed carriers.
Who would handle the licensing? Would states and municipalities get to handle it themselves, or do you think we'd need yet another federal three-letter agency to administer the tests and keep the databases and dole out the tax penalties and whatever else?

If you are a "spirit of the Constitution" person, do you believe the framers would be in favor of federal regulation of what you acknowledge is an explicitly granted individual right?

I will say that I could see your plan gaining traction with white supremacists. With literacy tests and all the associated fees, no poor darky is going to have the means to own and carry a firearm legally, giving us yet another reason to lock them up.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
Who would handle the licensing? Would states and municipalities get to handle it themselves, or do you think we'd need yet another federal three-letter agency to administer the tests and keep the databases and dole out the tax penalties and whatever else?

If you are a "spirit of the Constitution" person, do you believe the framers would be in favor of federal regulation of what you acknowledge is an explicitly granted individual right?

I will say that I could see your plan gaining traction with white supremacists. With literacy tests and all the associated fees, no poor darky is going to have the means to own and carry a firearm legally, giving us yet another reason to lock them up.
I feel like white supremacists tend to fall squarely on the "gun rights" side of the equation. As it turns out they're not big on federal intervention, they've never forgiven the fed for outlawing slavery and guaranteeing voting rights.

I think there's a good point in an otherwise silly post that more regulation means more disenfranchised people will have those regulations enforced on them. The only thing I can say is just because black people likely get harassed more often for driving without a license doesn't mean you don't have to learn how to drive.
 

Kbrown

Not So New Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
2,155
I feel like white supremacists tend to fall squarely on the "gun rights" side of the equation. As it turns out they're not big on federal intervention, they've never forgiven the fed for outlawing slavery and guaranteeing voting rights.

I think there's a good point in an otherwise silly post that more regulation means more disenfranchised people will have those regulations enforced on them. The only thing I can say is just because black people likely get harassed more often for driving without a license doesn't mean you don't have to learn how to drive.
And yet, the fact remains that transportation is not an explicitly granted right in the Constitution.

I think our divide lies in the common liberal notion that "we" must do something to make sure that "we" are safer, where "we" actually means byzantine federal laws and bureaucracy.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
And yet, the fact remains that transportation is not an explicitly granted right in the Constitution.

I think our divide lies in the common liberal notion that "we" must do something to make sure that "we" are safer, where "we" actually means byzantine federal laws and bureaucracy.
It's a typical liberalism view that even though some rights exist as a matter of legalization by constitutional decree, it still needs to be examined further and administered in a program that is outlined and given oversight by the government. And indeed all matters should be dealt with in the same manner. The Democratic party had embodied this philosophy into their basic platform for governing the masses in total.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
And yet, the fact remains that transportation is not an explicitly granted right in the Constitution.

I think our divide lies in the common liberal notion that "we" must do something to make sure that "we" are safer, where "we" actually means byzantine federal laws and bureaucracy.
So if the right to transportation was explicitly stated, do you think we should do away with driver's licenses? Would that be oppressive?
 

Kbrown

Not So New Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
2,155
So if the right to transportation was explicitly stated, do you think we should do away with driver's licenses? Would that be oppressive?
I thought I let on earlier that I prefer to let states decide, then I would stay out of whatever state if I disagree with its laws strongly enough. But I know Washington needs to get involved often to make sure "we" get things done.

Perhaps driver's licensing should be handled federally. That way "we" can make sure to save some of these backwards states from themselves.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
I thought I let on earlier that I prefer to let states decide, then I would stay out of whatever state if I disagree with its laws strongly enough. But I know Washington needs to get involved often to make sure "we" get things done.

Perhaps driver's licensing should be handled federally. That way "we" can make sure to save some of these backwards states from themselves.
It seems disingenuous to bring up racial oppression and then act like that the state's haven't been the main source of that oppression. It was those damn illuminati feds, that decided that black people ought to get to vote and go to school, and not be property.

I personally don't know what the mechanism of a federal licensure would look like, but it seems like it would be a superior system since it would qualify someone to carry in any state, I feel like that would have a lot of advantages. It would also help prevent liberal states from having their own intentionally oppressive regulations meant to prevent people from possessing firearms. That seems like it would be a pretty good way to defend gun owners rights where gun rights aren't popular.
 

Kbrown

Not So New Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
2,155
It seems disingenuous to bring up racial oppression and then act like that the state's haven't been the main source of that oppression. It was those damn illuminati feds, that decided that black people ought to get to vote and go to school, and not be property.

I personally don't know what the mechanism of a federal licensure would look like, but it seems like it would be a superior system since it would qualify someone to carry in any state, I feel like that would have a lot of advantages. It would also help prevent liberal states from having their own intentionally oppressive regulations meant to prevent people from possessing firearms. That seems like it would be a pretty good way to defend gun owners rights where gun rights aren't popular.
No need to be condescending.

I thought the legal/cultural issues of today have nothing to do with the context of the past. That is the case with abortion and eugenics, right? States have done vile things in the past, therefore power should default to the federal government in all future issues? Not buying it.

Anyway, you are taking a few news clippings of gun owners acting irresponsibly and literally making a federal case of it. Psychos will get guns, and you know it. Meanwhile, the people who most legitimately need protection (i.e. poor minorities) will be locked out.

I don't want MA to be forced to allow me in with a handgun any more than I want their elected representatives dictating what Texans can and can't do. That's about all I have on the issue.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
No need to be condescending.

I thought the legal/cultural issues of today have nothing to do with the context of the past. That is the case with abortion and eugenics, right? States have done vile things in the past, therefore power should default to the federal government in all future issues? Not buying it.

Anyway, you are taking a few news clippings of gun owners acting irresponsibly and literally making a federal case of it. Psychos will get guns, and you know it. Meanwhile, the people who most legitimately need protection (i.e. poor minorities) will be locked out.

I don't want MA to be forced to allow me in with a handgun any more than I want their elected representatives dictating what Texans can and can't do. That's about all I have on the issue.
I don't honestly think we're far off in terms of what we want, and I don't think you're wrong that there is an element of elitism to requiring training. I also think you're right that maniacs will find a way to get a hold of weapons regardless of laws. Frankly I think liberals using every tragedy as a chance for political points is in poor taste at best and ghoulish opportunism at worst.

If anything, gun regulations could help untrained people who hurt themselves and others including the Plaxico Burresses of the world, from injuring themselves or others. There's an average of around 600 deaths per year due to accidental shootings so I think that's a little more significant than press clippings. There's a lot of guns that make it into criminals hands because incompetent gun owners leave them in unlocked cars and other places where they're easy to steal.

I don't think it's a magic bullet(no pun intended), I just think that gun ownership and the politics that support it would be dealing with a little less severe pressure from public opinion and the media, if they were held to a higher standard.
 

23margo

Brand New Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2016
Messages
1
Hey, friends! Should guns be allowed to have for everyone, I think, no, but there are people encouraging this decision and considering this safe and normal, follow to find out more information

Mod edit: URL removed
 
Last edited by a moderator:

mcnuttz

Senior Junior Mod
Staff member
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
15,667
Hey, friends! Should guns be allowed to have for everyone, I think, no, but there are people encouraging this decision and considering this safe and normal, follow to find out more information
Hello margo, is this a question?

If so, please complete the statement with the appropriate punctuation.

We don't play that run-on shit around here.
 
Top Bottom