Donald Trump running for president

[Jiigzz]

So the ones currently out there would be “grandfathered in?”

Yeah I suppose so. It makes more sense to phase and not just ban.

 

[thebigt]

Yeah I suppose so. It makes more sense to phase and not just ban.

that is the best argument from the NRA, and why they fight almost every concession on gun control.

personally I would be in favor of some commonsense regulations, but I also see the point of the NRA-one thing leads to another.

 

[thebigt]

look to see more about jose campos, the guy is a real mystery!!!

 

[CJNator]

This is just me, and feel free to criticize:

-Stricter licencing and harsher penalties for carry without a permit. having various licences depending on the type of firearm and ammunition (i.e. recreational hunting shotgun or rifle vs an AR-15). More important for guns that require magazines.

-A move away from selling guns in places like walmart, and strictly to gun shops and ammo stores. This may sound silly, but moving alcohol out of supermarkets in West Auckland has dramatically cut down issues around alcohol in my part of the world (westies were notorious for problem drinking). We can still access alcohol, but with less exposure we are having fewer issues

-Conceal carry only, and only handguns for personal protection.

-No further restrictions on the type of guns you can own (same as current)

-Harsher penalties for breaking the law lol

That's kind of it. I own 2 handguns and love them to bits. I own a Cz 75 and a 9mm Springfield. But they were hard for me to obtain, and that's how I like it

I like the harsher penalties and separating firearms from stores that don’t strictly sell firearm and firearm related equipment. Strictly concealed carry is good too.

I personally would only have firearm purchases and permits tightened for people that live around and within an approximation of an area that’s high in crime and gang activity. Not to the point that they don’t want to buy a firearm but to a point that they’ll have to keep in touch with the local authorities to show that they haven’t lost, given, illegally sold or illegally used the firearm.

Also for each firearm they must take a course using their particular firearm and they must pass a shooting test, written test, and psychological test at the end(on the fence about these test being state regulated or not, I lean more towards state because theirs less private interest with the individuals passing). For that to work the state would issue purchasing permits for each firearm bought.

 

[Aleksandar37]

look to see more about jose campos, the guy is a real mystery!!!

psst, his name is Jesus Campos

 

[Jiigzz]

I like the harsher penalties and separating firearms from stores that don’t strictly sell firearm and firearm related equipment. Strictly concealed carry is good too.

I personally would only have firearm purchases and permits tightened for people that live around and within an approximation of an area that’s high in crime and gang activity. Not to the point that they don’t want to buy a firearm but to a point that they’ll have to keep in touch with the local authorities to show that they haven’t lost, given, illegally sold or illegally used the firearm.

Also for each firearm they must take a course using their particular firearm and they must pass a shooting test, written test, and psychological test at the end(on the fence about these test being state regulated or not, I lean more towards state because theirs less private interest with the individuals passing). For that to work the state would issue purchasing permits for each firearm bought.

You can't select groups based on "whether they are in crime areas or not". That's not fair and circumstance sometimes put people there. That's akin to saying, "if you're lucky enough to be rich, then we'll assume you're a good person, but if you're from the ghetto, you better believe we'll make it hard for you to get the same treatment as other".

Does that seem fair?

 

[Aleksandar37]

I personally would only have firearm purchases and permits tightened for people that live around and within an approximation of an area that’s high in crime and gang activity. Not to the point that they don’t want to buy a firearm but to a point that they’ll have to keep in touch with the local authorities to show that they haven’t lost, given, illegally sold or illegally used the firearm.

.

Does this also determine who can vote and where people are allowed to sit in busses?

 

[CJNator]

You can't select groups based on "whether they are in crime areas or not". That's not fair and circumstance sometimes put people there. That's akin to saying, "if you're lucky enough to be rich, then we'll assume you're a good person, but if you're from the ghetto, you better believe we'll make it hard for you to get the same treatment as other".

Does that seem fair?

You’re right, it’s not fair. It’s hard to go about a process that can be effective to deter crimes committed with firearms. IMO start with education, make schooling stricter and involve more discipline, not like the modern schooling, it’s seems like schools are turning into correctional facilities lol and vice versa.

I think police departments should keep track and regulate firearms and firearm stores within districts since they have on file who is a criminal and who not one. Plus they can see if a individual has gang tattoos or has been associated with a gang.

 

[Jiigzz]

You’re right, it’s not fair. It’s hard to go about a process that can be effective to deter crimes committed with firearms. IMO start with education, make schooling stricter and involve more discipline, not like the modern schooling, it’s seems like schools are turning into correctional facilities lol and vice versa.

I think police departments should keep track and regulate firearms and firearm stores within districts since they have on file who is a criminal and who not one. Plus they can see if a individual has gang tattoos or has been associated with a gang.

I do get what you mean, but in the real world those types of things dont play out well and you end up creating a racial divide

 

[muscleupcrohn]

I like the harsher penalties and separating firearms from stores that don’t strictly sell firearm and firearm related equipment. Strictly concealed carry is good too.

I personally would only have firearm purchases and permits tightened for people that live around and within an approximation of an area that’s high in crime and gang activity. Not to the point that they don’t want to buy a firearm but to a point that they’ll have to keep in touch with the local authorities to show that they haven’t lost, given, illegally sold or illegally used the firearm.

Also for each firearm they must take a course using their particular firearm and they must pass a shooting test, written test, and psychological test at the end(on the fence about these test being state regulated or not, I lean more towards state because theirs less private interest with the individuals passing). For that to work the state would issue purchasing permits for each firearm bought.

A full, multifaceted test/course for each gun is beyond redundant though. Maybe one for each type of gun, if that: one for handguns, one for rifles, one for shotguns. Once you have the “permit” for that type of gun, you don’t need it again for subsequent purchases of similar guns. Should you have to take three tests to but three shotguns? Also, who is going to “teach,” or more accurately, “administer,” these tests? Are people expected to pay the time and money for a course for every gun they buy? At this point it seems like a roundabout way to discourage people from buying guns, as taking the same course a fifth time isn’t really going to help people to be responsible gun owners.

 

[CJNator]

I do get what you mean, but in the real world those types of things dont play out well and you end up creating a racial divide

Yea you’re right, sometimes I get too worked up with utility without looking at the bigger picture. I believe decentralizing the regulator would be the best bet plus it’ll create more jobs.

A full, multifaceted test/course for each gun is beyond redundant though. Maybe one for each type of gun, if that: one for handguns, one for rifles, one for shotguns. Once you have the “permit” for that type of gun, you don’t need it again for subsequent purchases of similar guns. Should you have to take three tests to but three shotguns? Also, who is going to “teach,” or more accurately, “administer,” these tests? Are people expected to pay the time and money for a course for every gun they buy?

Well maybe make the first course full price and the other half price, I don’t know what price but that’s not up to me. Yea maybe a shooting test every time would be redundant but a overall functioning course wouldn’t to familiarize them or at least see how familiar they are with it. See and teach the individual how to take apart, put the firearm back together, to teach them how to clean it, and how to keep up with it to make sure it remains functional. They can also hire firearms specialists to do this training.

People aren’t entitled to own a firearm, they should go through a process, that’ll shows they are willing to sacrifice a little bit of their time plus it ensures that they can properly handle a firearm each time. Firearms should not be treated lightly. It’s not just about utility but also conscientiousness.

 

[muscleupcrohn]

Yea you’re right, sometimes I get too worked up with utility without looking at the bigger picture. I believe decentralizing the regulator would be the best bet plus it’ll create more jobs.



Well maybe make the first course full price and the other half price, I don’t know what price but that’s not up to me. Yea maybe a shooting test every time would be redundant but a overall functioning course wouldn’t to familiarize them or at least see how familiar they are with it. See and teach the individual how to take apart, put the firearm back together, to teach them how to clean it, and how to keep up with it to make sure it remains functional. They can also hire firearms specialists to do this training.

People aren’t entitled to own a firearm, they should go through a process, that’ll shows they are willing to sacrifice a little bit of their time plus it ensures that they can properly handle a firearm each time. Firearms should not be treated lightly. It’s not just about utility but also conscientiousness.

You say they aren’t “entitled,” but it’s a right in America, whether you like it or not. In fact, there is more of a “right” to own a gun than to drive in the US. Should we be required to take a course with each car we buy? We’re not entitled to drive, right? We just take a drivers license test, not a test for a Kia Sorrento, a test for a Kia Forte, a test for a Ford Mustang, and another for a Ford Explorer. That’s just silly. More people die in car crashes than shootings as well. So if someone has three Remington 870 shotguns and wants to buy a fourth, but a slightly different model, they should have to pay and take the time to have someone teach them what they already know and have been doing for years or decades? Someone buying their fourth different Glock model should have to pay and take the time to have someone teach them about a gun that is functionally identical to what they’ve been carrying for years or decades? You surely must be aware that if you hire “firearm specialists” to teach a course every time anyone buys a gun, that will drastically increase the effective price of buying a gun, probably more money than the gun itself in many cases. I could maybe see one course for each type of gun, but for every actual gun sounds insane to me, both in a logistic sense (personnel to conduct the tests, a place to teach them, time, etc), as well as a practical sense (as after taking the course once, it is almost entirely redundant and a waste of time and money). Frankly, it sounds like a roundabout method of gun control, trying to make it just too much time and money to buy a gun, forget multiple guns.

 

[CJNator]

You say they aren’t “entitled,” but it’s a right in America, whether you like it or not. In fact, there is more of a “right” to own a gun than to drive in the US. Should we be required to take a course with each car we buy? We’re not entitled to drive, right? We just take a drivers license test, not a test for a Kia Sorrento, a test for a Kia Forte, a test for a Ford Mustang, and another for a Ford Explorer. That’s just silly. More people die in car crashes than shootings as well. So if someone has three Remington 870 shotguns and wants to buy a fourth, but a slightly different model, they should have to pay and take the time to have someone teach them what they already know and have been doing for years or decades? Someone buying their fourth different Glock model should have to pay and take the time to have someone teach them about a gun that is functionally identical to what they’ve been carrying for years or decades? You surely must be aware that if you hire “firearm specialists” to teach a course every time anyone buys a gun, that will drastically increase the effective price of buying a gun, probably more money than the gun itself in many cases. I could maybe see one course for each type of gun, but for every actual gun sounds insane to me, both in a logistic sense (personnel to conduct the tests, a place to teach them, time, etc), as well as a practical sense (as after taking the course once, it is almost entirely redundant and a waste of time and money). Frankly, it sounds like a roundabout method of gun control, trying to make it just too much time and money to buy a gun, forget multiple guns.

The highest price I’ve seen a for a gun course was 130$, the lowest was 50$. It’s doesn’t need to be costly nor would it even be that time consuming. Just because this right is a reality doesn’t mean it should be one, plus your comparing apples and oranges. I say there should be a course on specifically a individual’s firearm so they can become familiarized with it under a professional’s supervision. People drive cars probably almost every single day of their life, there would be no need to have a driving course on every car they buy. People don’t take apart, clean, and shoot their firearms every since day of their life. Also something should be done about all the car crashing deaths but I know nothing about that situation.

You’re making this process seem like it more then it would be, yes it’s a method of gun control because if someone isn’t willing to spend a little extra money and time to ensure that they know how to work the firearm they just bought then they don’t deserve a firearm. I don’t care for liberal entitlement.

 

[muscleupcrohn]

The highest price I’ve seen a for a gun course was 130$, the lowest was 50$. It’s doesn’t need to be costly nor would it even be that time consuming. Just because this right is a reality doesn’t mean it should be one, plus your comparing apples and oranges. I say there should be a course on specifically a individual’s firearm so they can become familiarized with it under a professional’s supervision. People drive cars probably almost every single day of their life, there would be no need to have a driving course on every car they buy. People don’t take apart, clean, and shoot their firearms every since day of their life. Also something should be done about all the car crashing deaths but I know nothing about that situation.

You’re making this process seem like it more then it would be, yes it’s a method of gun control because if someone isn’t willing to spend a little extra money and time to ensure that they know how to work the firearm they just bought then they don’t deserve a firearm. I don’t care for liberal entitlement.

Do you own any guns? Have you used any? The vast majority of guns in a category are very similar to each other. You really don’t need a course for a Remington 870 if you already owned a Mossberg 500, or a course for a Glock 23 when you already have a 19. It’s stilly. My point in saying that it is an explicitly stated right while driving isn’t was to show that your “people aren’t entitled” argument is a purely emotional/subjective one, not a legal one, at least not in America. As to the car vs gun thing, many people don’t know how to clean and maintain their car just as they don’t know how to clean and maintain their firearm. Should we test to make sure drivers know how to fill up their gas tank, check and top off their fluids, fill their tires, change their tires, etc? It’s different for many cars, no? Drivers license tests don’t cover vehicle maintenance. Furthermore, I can take my drivers license test with an automatic and then buy and drive a stick with no testing or course on it. I can take my test in a Miata and then decided to drive a H1 or a F350. Those are much more different than, say, an 870 and a 500 shotgun are, and probably put more people’s lives in danger on a daily basis by not being properly able to drive these other vehicles safely. You don’t need a special course to buy a 700 horsepower sports car, but that can be very dangerous, no? Shouldn’t they have to put in a little extra time and money? Some “liberal entitlement” as you call it, right? A poorly maintained gun is not going to become sentient and go on a killing rampage, it just may not work, which would be a good thing for anti-gun people, no? What’s wrong with just taking one course to own guns? Or one course for each type of gun? What does taking a shotgun course seven times do besides act as a thinly-veiled attempt to limit gun ownership? It is a law that serves no purpose on its own, as the insane redundancy does not make people more responsible gun owners. You already need a background check and a waiting period for each gun purchased.

 

[CJNator]

Do you own any guns? Have you used any? The vast majority of guns in a category are very similar to each other. You really don’t need a course for a Remington 870 if you already owned a Mossberg 500, or a course for a Glock 23 when you already have a 19. It’s stilly. My point in saying that it is an explicitly stated right while driving isn’t was to show that your “people aren’t entitled” argument is a purely emotional/subjective one, not a legal one, at least not in America. As to the car vs gun thing, many people don’t know how to clean and maintain their car just as they don’t know how to clean and maintain their firearm. Should we test to make sure drivers know how to fill up their gas tank, check and top off their fluids, fill their tires, change their tires, etc? It’s different for many cars, no? Drivers license tests don’t cover vehicle maintenance. A poorly maintained gun is not going to become sentient and go on a killing rampage, it just may not work, which would be a good thing for anti-gun people, no? What’s wrong with just taking one course to own guns? Or one course for each type of gun? What does taking a shotgun course seven times do besides act as a thinly-veiled attempt to limit gun ownership? It is a law that serves no purpose on its own, as the insane redundancy does not make people more responsible gun owners. You already need a background check and a waiting period for each gun purchased.

Yes I own guns and the whole entitlement of firearm ownership is a issue, that’s why I call it out. It’s not the ownership of the firearm that’s the issue, it’s the liberal entitlement that’s the issue. The course would become redundant but the idea behind it is to ensure the person is properly familiarized with the firearm plus it’s a means to control gun owners into realizing they have to go through a process to obtain a firearm, tedious or not. Maybe people should be taught how to maintain a vehicle every time they get one, why not? Just because you can’t comprehend the purpose that I’ve mentioned several time doesn’t mean it doesn’t serve one. Yes there’s a background check but waiting periods vary, there’s no waiting period near me unless you order it online, then you’ll have to wait till it gets to the shop.

So what’s so horrible about this proposal? Spending possibly a extra few bucks and a hour or two for every firearm bought?

 

[muscleupcrohn]

Yes I own guns and the whole entitlement of firearm ownership is a issue, that’s why I call it out. It’s not the ownership of the firearm that’s the issue, it’s the liberal entitlement that’s the issue. The course would become redundant but the idea behind it is to ensure the person is properly familiarized with the firearm plus it’s a means to control gun owners into realizing they have to go through a process to obtain a firearm, tedious or not. Maybe people should be taught how to maintain a vehicle every time they get one, why not? Just because you can’t comprehend the purpose that I’ve mentioned several time doesn’t mean it doesn’t serve one. Yes there’s a background check but waiting periods vary, there’s no waiting period near me unless you order it online, then you’ll have to wait till it gets to the shop.

Saying I “can’t comprehend the purpose” makes no sense. I completely understand where you are coming from, but I disagree that it would be be necessary or even beneficial. Surely you can respect a difference of opinion without saying that I “don’t understand.” Is everyone who doesn’t agree with you simply not understanding? Do you have all the answers, a monopoly on truth? I think we’re beating a dead horse here. You think it’s a good idea, I don’t. We both have our reasons and justifications. We made our opinions clear, and now I think we should move on. Fair enough?

 

[CJNator]

Saying I “can’t comprehend the purpose” makes no sense. I completely understand where you are coming from, but I disagree that it would be be necessary or even beneficial. Surely you can respect a difference of opinion without saying that I “don’t understand.” Is everyone who doesn’t agree with you simply not understanding? Do you have all the answers, a monopoly on truth? I think we’re beating a dead horse here. You think it’s a good idea, I don’t. We both have our reasons and justifications. We made our opinions clear, and now I think we should move on. Fair enough?

You saying it serves no purpose isn’t a opinion unless you have nothing to back your statement, plus I don’t consider my statement(s) to be opinions, I’m either right or wrong. I say you don’t understand because of your opinion and your argument. I personally don’t care for opinions because they are irrelevant especially if I’m debating since opinions can’t be debated.

Yea we can move on, just FYI you started it lol I’ll debate on a topic till I learn something or the other person gives up.

 

[ax1]

Because it's the only proof we have of a working system. Try to break it, because until that point you can only speculate it'll be better for everyone. But my money is on not.

This country is in a 20 trillion dollar deficit artificially inflating the economy and pumping money out of thin air devaluing peoples life savings and income inequality is very bad. Federal powers have incrementally been infringing and trampling over peoples rights and way of life, military industrial complex has murdered millions around the world....you know the list I wont repeat it but its too strong and powerful for its own good.

If thats what you call a working system then nice job!!!!

I want out. If you think this is the best we can do you can live in the past. Im for innovating the future and trying new things.

 

[CJNator]

This country is in a 20 trillion dollar deficit artificially inflating the economy and pumping money out of thin air devaluing peoples life savings and income inequality is very bad. Federal powers have incrementally been infringing and trampling over peoples rights and way of life, military industrial complex has murdered millions around the world....you know the list I wont repeat it but its too strong and powerful for its own good.

If thats what you call a working system then nice job!!!!

I want out. If you think this is the best we can do you can live in the past. Im for innovating the future and trying new things.

That’s called corruption and it’s not the government’s fault, we are the government, this is what the majority wants. The government is our future and always will be, technology will keep advancing but government structures will stay the same and eventually crash because that’s life, if you want true innovation in our future let’s simplify our government to a simple hierarchical top to bottom structure. Let’s create order in society so we can all focus on the future of our nation and state. Let create a generation that wants to change things with action, not voting. Let’s create a generation that wants thing to work for our nation not ideas. Let’s create a generation for a better world.

 

[ax1]

That’s called corruption and it’s not the government’s fault, we are the government, this is what the majority wants. The government is our future and always will be, technology will keep advancing but government structures will stay the same and eventually crash because that’s life, if you want true innovation in our future let’s simplify our government to a simple hierarchical top to bottom structure. Let’s create order in society so we can all focus on the future of our nation and state. Let create a generation that wants to change things with action, not voting. Let’s create a generation that wants thing to work for our nation not ideas. Let’s create a generation for a better world.

The government is run by a bunch of oath breaking criminals and there is no accountability. Of course its their fault, they are committing crimes and getting away with murder. And of course I put blame in the voter as well but you cant say government is at fault.

Now what your talking about is much better than what Im hearing from some other people. Im hearing we have "proof" this system is working, but working for who? If you do the math this system is utter crap and I dont stand for it. All the proof shows is that this system is nothing but a ticket time bomb and completely broke and the regular joe is paying the price for it before they are even born. Im with you and we can work to change it from the inside out. Sorry not into fascism though

 

[CJNator]

Invalid Link Removed

I do hope you guys read this and understand that fascism is what America needs. I can’t say if America is ready for it or will be anytime soon but we should get the next generation on board with bettering our nation and advancing in this world.

 

[CJNator]

The government is run by a bunch of oath breaking criminals and there is no accountability. Of course its their fault, they are committing crimes and getting away with murder. And of course I put blame in the voter as well but you cant say government is at fault.

Now what your talking about is much better than what Im hearing from some other people. Im hearing we have "proof" this system is working, but working for who? If you do the math this system is utter crap and I dont stand for it. All the proof shows is that this system is nothing but a ticket time bomb and completely broke and the regular joe is paying the price for it before they are even born. Im with you and we can work to change it from the inside out. Sorry not into fascism though

I think you’ll come around to fascism even if it has a ugly name no there’s no proof that our current system works but we need to look at other countries that do work, then observe the difference between there and here.

Everything wrong and right with nations and societies are due to culture(or lack of)and government structure plus the age of the nation.

 

[ax1]

what makes you think no-one is wanting to take away guns?

nancy Pelosi said she hopes that banning bump stocks is a slippery slope, what do you think her final objective would be?


the nra gets support because they see every concession leading to more and more.....

As Diane Frankenstein out of Cali is on record saying on camera Mr. and Mrs. America, TURN THEM ALL IN!!!!

 

[ax1]

I’m pretty sure that Obama supported a handgun ban (but he may have moved away from that), and I know Feinstein is against pretty much all semi-automatic guns (including handguns). Hillary also is against “assault weapons,” which is largely a made-up term, and is not synonymous with actual assault rifles. Many people “define” an “assault weapon” as any gun, semi-automatic, pump, bolt-action, etc, as a gun with a pistol grip, forward grip, and a number of purely cosmetic characteristics that have nothing to do with functionality. THAT is not the “common sense” gun control we need. We’ve already talked about some things, and I agree some things can be done to improve things, but, the fact is that some, not all, but some, politicians DO want to take away as many guns from as many people as possible, regardless of if they are criminals, mentally unstable, or not. It is not accurate to say that “no-one” is trying to take guns, only “some people” are not.

Obama supported United Nation powers to restrict our guns, now that right there is enough for treason and impeachment.

As I just posted, Frankenstein really would love to take all guns away from people. Fortunatly her heavily armed security guards are keeping alot of pizzed off people away from her, lol!

 

[ax1]

I’m pretty sure that Obama supported a handgun ban (but he may have moved away from that), and I know Feinstein is against pretty much all semi-automatic guns (including handguns). Hillary also is against “assault weapons,” which is largely a made-up term, and is not synonymous with actual assault rifles. Many people “define” an “assault weapon” as any gun, semi-automatic, pump, bolt-action, etc, as a gun with a pistol grip, forward grip, and a number of purely cosmetic characteristics that have nothing to do with functionality. THAT is not the “common sense” gun control we need. We’ve already talked about some things, and I agree some things can be done to improve things, but, the fact is that some, not all, but some, politicians DO want to take away as many guns from as many people as possible, regardless of if they are criminals, mentally unstable, or not. It is not accurate to say that “no-one” is trying to take guns, only “some people” are not.

Obama supported United Nation powers to restrict our guns, now that right there is enough for treason and impeachment.

As I just posted, Frankenstein really would love to take all guns away from people. Fortunatly her heavily armed security guards are keeping alot of pizzed off people away from her, lol!

 

[ax1]

I rephrased my response to you - it should have read, "what do you think I mean by gun control". I realise that might differ from what is proposed, and in that case I 100% agree that it won't work. But let's see 'gun control' from a more middle ground where you still get what you want, but those who shouldnt have guns have a harder, if not impossible time getting access to them

Ive said this before, I heavily support gun control. We can start with the unconstitutional Federal bureaucrats enforcing illegal laws...we can take their guns away first, they dont need them. Srs, that is my number one gun control priority.

 

[ax1]

This is just me, and feel free to criticize:

-Stricter licencing and harsher penalties for carry without a permit. having various licences depending on the type of firearm and ammunition (i.e. recreational hunting shotgun or rifle vs an AR-15). More important for guns that require magazines.

-A move away from selling guns in places like walmart, and strictly to gun shops and ammo stores. This may sound silly, but moving alcohol out of supermarkets in West Auckland has dramatically cut down issues around alcohol in my part of the world (westies were notorious for problem drinking). We can still access alcohol, but with less exposure we are having fewer issues
Heroin is completely illegal here in the states yet we are having a epidemic running out of control even have 1.5 trillion dollars were spent fighting the war on drugs. When I was in high school it was easier to get cocaine which is completely illegal than to get alcohol as a teenager. So we dont really know if these laws truly work every time. There are black markets that give people reason to give incentives to make a crap load of money really quick.

I dont really care too much for walmart carrying guns though....we can regulate them away from family type stores. At my walmart the setup is toys, then guns, ROFL!!!!!

-Conceal carry only, and only handguns for personal protection.
I wish that is the case here in NY for regular law abiding citizens. You actually support deregulation in NY believe it or not!!!

-No further restrictions on the type of guns you can own (same as current)

-Harsher penalties for breaking the law lol
1000000% on the same page, depending on the law. They threw a decorated war veteran in the slammer a few years back here in NY just because he has big empty clips in his trunk that surpassed what the "law" allowed. People that use guns to harm others sure lets give them much harder penalties.

That's kind of it. I own 2 handguns and love them to bits. I own a Cz 75 and a 9mm Springfield. But they were hard for me to obtain, and that's how I like it

Just some comments above

 

[ax1]

The highest price I’ve seen a for a gun course was 130$, the lowest was 50$. It’s doesn’t need to be costly nor would it even be that time consuming. Just because this right is a reality doesn’t mean it should be one, plus your comparing apples and oranges. I say there should be a course on specifically a individual’s firearm so they can become familiarized with it under a professional’s supervision. People drive cars probably almost every single day of their life, there would be no need to have a driving course on every car they buy. People don’t take apart, clean, and shoot their firearms every since day of their life. Also something should be done about all the car crashing deaths but I know nothing about that situation.

You’re making this process seem like it more then it would be, yes it’s a method of gun control because if someone isn’t willing to spend a little extra money and time to ensure that they know how to work the firearm they just bought then they don’t deserve a firearm. I don’t care for liberal entitlement.

I think implementing gun training as a requirement to access them is fantastic. I have some ideas how we could make it work and Id be careful with federal regulations, Id keep it at state levels and have levels of anonymity to prevent tracking.

I also dont see why having gun education in high school would be a bad idea, we can start with general education of guns. We did archery in school, why not guns?

 

[CJNator]

I think implementing gun training as a requirement to access them is fantastic. I have some ideas how we could make it work and Id be careful with federal regulations, Id keep it at state levels and have levels of anonymity to prevent tracking.

I also dont see why having gun education in high school would be a bad idea, we can start with general education of guns. We did archery in school, why not guns?

Yea it should be state level but also the police departments should be in charge of the regulating of firearms since they are the ones that know about crime in whatever areas they are assigned to so they’d be able to determine how to go about it.

Also now in days you can’t or shouldn’t have shooting practice in certain schools that are in certain areas with high crime so it may be perceived as discriminatory if it was for some schools and not others. Also just in general kids are unstable now in days so in a high stress environment like school, it would be unsafe to have them handle firearms. I was thinking more like making schools paramilitary strictly for disciplinary reasons though not creating an army of kids lol.

 

[ax1]

Yea it should be state level but also the police departments should be in charge of the regulating of firearms since they are the ones that know about crime in whatever areas they are assigned to so they’d be able to determine how to go about it.

Also now in days you can’t or shouldn’t have shooting practice in certain schools that are in certain areas with high crime so it may be perceived as discriminatory if it was for some schools and not others. Also just in general kids are unstable now in days so in a high stress environment like school, it would be unsafe to have them handle firearms. I was thinking more like making schools paramilitary strictly for disciplinary reasons though not creating an army of kids lol.

Oh yes, the unstable kids, this is where I come out and start saying "meds!"

I think we are going to have a generation coming up thats really screwed up, this smartphone/gadget is hurting society imo.

Have you guys seen a change in culture in your gym over the past 8 years? Maybe Im getting old but I find it disturbing.

 

[youngandfree]

This is just me, and feel free to criticize:

-Stricter licencing and harsher penalties for carry without a permit. having various licences depending on the type of firearm and ammunition (i.e. recreational hunting shotgun or rifle vs an AR-15). More important for guns that require magazines.

-A move away from selling guns in places like walmart, and strictly to gun shops and ammo stores. This may sound silly, but moving alcohol out of supermarkets in West Auckland has dramatically cut down issues around alcohol in my part of the world (westies were notorious for problem drinking). We can still access alcohol, but with less exposure we are having fewer issues

-Conceal carry only, and only handguns for personal protection.

-No further restrictions on the type of guns you can own (same as current)

-Harsher penalties for breaking the law lol

That's kind of it. I own 2 handguns and love them to bits. I own a Cz 75 and a 9mm Springfield. But they were hard for me to obtain, and that's how I like it

You realize Walmart is a gun store with a Federal Firearms License, just like every other gun store. You don't just walk into walmart and grab one off the shelf. In fact it is a bit different in that they don't sell handguns there.

 

[youngandfree]

You wouldn't ban them though, you'd phase them out and just sell lower capacity mags

They did that during the Clinton AWB, and studies show it didn't reduce anything meaningful.

 

[youngandfree]

look to see more about jose campos, the guy is a real mystery!!!

It's Jesus Campos, no wonder you can't find anything about him.

 

[youngandfree]

I like the harsher penalties and separating firearms from stores that don’t strictly sell firearm and firearm related equipment. Strictly concealed carry is good too.

I personally would only have firearm purchases and permits tightened for people that live around and within an approximation of an area that’s high in crime and gang activity. Not to the point that they don’t want to buy a firearm but to a point that they’ll have to keep in touch with the local authorities to show that they haven’t lost, given, illegally sold or illegally used the firearm.

Also for each firearm they must take a course using their particular firearm and they must pass a shooting test, written test, and psychological test at the end(on the fence about these test being state regulated or not, I lean more towards state because theirs less private interest with the individuals passing). For that to work the state would issue purchasing permits for each firearm bought.

The problem is, now you put undue burdens on low income, law abiding people to be able to purchase a firearm to defend themselves. They have more reason to need to defend themselves for living in those areas.

 

[youngandfree]

Yea you’re right, sometimes I get too worked up with utility without looking at the bigger picture. I believe decentralizing the regulator would be the best bet plus it’ll create more jobs.



Well maybe make the first course full price and the other half price, I don’t know what price but that’s not up to me. Yea maybe a shooting test every time would be redundant but a overall functioning course wouldn’t to familiarize them or at least see how familiar they are with it. See and teach the individual how to take apart, put the firearm back together, to teach them how to clean it, and how to keep up with it to make sure it remains functional. They can also hire firearms specialists to do this training.

People aren’t entitled to own a firearm, they should go through a process, that’ll shows they are willing to sacrifice a little bit of their time plus it ensures that they can properly handle a firearm each time. Firearms should not be treated lightly. It’s not just about utility but also conscientiousness.

The 2A says people ARE entitled to own a firearm.

 

[youngandfree]

Yes I own guns and the whole entitlement of firearm ownership is a issue, that’s why I call it out. It’s not the ownership of the firearm that’s the issue, it’s the liberal entitlement that’s the issue. The course would become redundant but the idea behind it is to ensure the person is properly familiarized with the firearm plus it’s a means to control gun owners into realizing they have to go through a process to obtain a firearm, tedious or not. Maybe people should be taught how to maintain a vehicle every time they get one, why not? Just because you can’t comprehend the purpose that I’ve mentioned several time doesn’t mean it doesn’t serve one. Yes there’s a background check but waiting periods vary, there’s no waiting period near me unless you order it online, then you’ll have to wait till it gets to the shop.

So what’s so horrible about this proposal? Spending possibly a extra few bucks and a hour or two for every firearm bought?

Undue burden, was tossed out in the DC firearm lawsuit. DC was forced to allow concealed carry permits, but there was oy 1 FFL in the district. Their prices were so high, it created a burden. The licensing cost was high. Lawsuit was filed and court ruled they had placed undue burdens to own and carry a gun, by pricing the whole process too high.

Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed

 

[Jiigzz]

They did that during the Clinton AWB, and studies show it didn't reduce anything meaningful.

It's more to limit the amount of damage 1 mag can do. Sure, I could carry 30 mags of 10 rounds but in the time it takes to reload more often, you can minimise the impact if fired on people, but still enough rounds to play around with if you're shooting targets

 

[youngandfree]

It's more to limit the amount of damage 1 mag can do. Sure, I could carry 30 mags of 10 rounds but in the time it takes to reload more often, you can minimise the impact if fired on people, but still enough rounds to play around with if you're shooting targets

The Virginia Tech shooter used 2 handguns , one was a 9mm that had 15 round mags, and a 22lr pistol that used 10 round mags. Killed 30+ people.

 

[CJNator]

Oh yes, the unstable kids, this is where I come out and start saying "meds!"

I think we are going to have a generation coming up thats really screwed up, this smartphone/gadget is hurting society imo.

Have you guys seen a change in culture in your gym over the past 8 years? Maybe Im getting old but I find it disturbing.

Honestly I don’t blame medication, I blame broken families or single mothers. These leads to medication and/or drug abuse. A lot of issues in men are because they did have a fatherly role model and being raised by a single mother teaching them to hate their father which results in the hate of their masculinity which would be self hate.

These single mothers are created broken boys that turn into broken men, I almost was one of them so I can speak from experience.

 

[CJNator]

The problem is, now you put undue burdens on low income, law abiding people to be able to purchase a firearm to defend themselves. They have more reason to need to defend themselves for living in those areas.

I did change my stance of that after this post.

The 2A says people ARE entitled to own a firearm.

I believe this is an issue, the constitution was developed in a different time with different mentalities and different people.

Undue burden, was tossed out in the DC firearm lawsuit. DC was forced to allow concealed carry permits, but there was oy 1 FFL in the district. Their prices were so high, it created a burden. The licensing cost was high. Lawsuit was filed and court ruled they had placed undue burdens to own and carry a gun, by pricing the whole process too high.

Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed

That’s good that they filed that lawsuit. Good things happen when people take action.

 

[Jiigzz]

The Virginia Tech shooter used 2 handguns , one was a 9mm that had 15 round mags, and a 22lr pistol that used 10 round mags. Killed 30+ people.

Im not sure what you're trying to prove here?

So you want to ban handguns?

 

[ax1]

Honestly I don’t blame medication, I blame broken families or single mothers. These leads to medication and/or drug abuse. A lot of issues in men are because they did have a fatherly role model and being raised by a single mother teaching them to hate their father which results in the hate of their masculinity which would be self hate.

These single mothers are created broken boys that turn into broken men, I almost was one of them so I can speak from experience.

Well those are a couple of reasons of many that may or may not kids get on meds.

My nephew’s school wanted him on meds because he kept doing things...and his parents are together.

Yes I said he “kept doing things.” They prefer subvertant zombies I guess.

I’ve met kids without fathers who happen to be incredible people so I kinda disagree with you. It’s a case by case basis.

 

[youngandfree]

Im not sure what you're trying to prove here?

So you want to ban handguns?

It disproves your point that less than 30 round rifle magazines will lesson the carnage because of the time it takes to reload.

 

[Aleksandar37]

It disproves your point that less than 30 round rifle magazines will lesson the carnage because of the time it takes to reload.

Read up on "exception fallacy." One instance or even a few doesn't disprove anything. Vesna Vulovic fell out of a plane at over 33k feet and lived. That doesn't disprove that falling out of an airplane is dangerous.

 

[Jiigzz]

It disproves your point that less than 30 round rifle magazines will lesson the carnage because of the time it takes to reload.

How exactly are you disproving it? Of course a gun with 10 rounds can still kill people, I'm not saying it can't. But how do you know that him not having 30 round magazines could not have resulted in a greater loss of life?

All your point proves is that bullets are deadly. But you are not proving anything else

Think of it this way, if I could choose to have 2 balls or 1 ball to throw at someone, and I had 5 rounds to hit them as many times as possible, would having two balls increase or decrease the maximum amount of times I could hit someone? I can throw them one after another as well.
Easy math tells you 2 balls * 5 rounds = 10 potential hits vs 5.

 

[ax1]

Well in a ball free zone people are defensless against balls of any size or quantity.

 

[youngandfree]

How exactly are you disproving it? Of course a gun with 10 rounds can still kill people, I'm not saying it can't. But how do you know that him not having 30 round magazines could not have resulted in a greater loss of life?

All your point proves is that bullets are deadly. But you are not proving anything else

Think of it this way, if I could choose to have 2 balls or 1 ball to throw at someone, and I had 5 rounds to hit them as many times as possible, would having two balls increase or decrease the maximum amount of times I could hit someone? I can throw them one after another as well.
Easy math tells you 2 balls * 5 rounds = 10 potential hits vs 5.

You're making up false stats like you say Ax1 does. There's stats that show banning 30 round magazines didn't lower gun crime.

 

[thebigt]

HOLY COW...google Russian uranium deal


btw-I don't do links, just because I said jose when it should have been jesus doesn't make the story any less mysterious...google mandalay bay security guard.....there are many strange things going on with the vegas shooting, but I think the Russian uranium deal is going to steal the headlines-at least it should!!!

 

[youngandfree]

HOLY COW...google Russian uranium deal


btw-I don't do links, just because I said jose when it should have been jesus doesn't make the story any less mysterious...google mandalay bay security guard.....there are many strange things going on with the vegas shooting, but I think the Russian uranium deal is going to steal the headlines-at least it should!!!

Nothing like Clinton colluding with Putin to get payed kickbacks to Clinton crime foundation for approving Uranium One deal

 

[Jiigzz]

You're making up false stats like you say Ax1 does. There's stats that show banning 30 round magazines didn't lower gun crime.

What stats? Not doubting, but would like to see them!

I did try Google, and Google Scholar but turned up nothing.