Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[petej0]

Most of the time that tea baggers cry "State's rights" it's about things like voter ID or other such things that are covered by the constitution. Two amendments cover that, the right to one vote for every legal citizen over the age of 18, and the right to one vote without a poll tax. Considering the tea party has yet to demonstrate any kind of mass voter fraud at the polls, or even any kind of mass voter fraud period (the limited instances they do find are at registration, not the polls, which voter ID does not fix), and the ~10% of Americans that would be blocked from the polls given various voter ID laws, the constitution shot them down and then 10th amendment does not apply. This is another case where the clause of the 10th amendment "The powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution..." are often ignored, and people seem to concentrate on the second half, because it suits their agenda better.

Thanks to the Affordable Care act, everyone is required to have insurance. I wonder how all these people without ID are going to be able to get care since you need ID to see your doctor covered by the ACA.

[Cthulhu 2020]

I just recently went to a new specialist for an injury.

I needed either my ID or an insurance card.

The right to vote is laid out in two constitutional amendments, and voter ID is considered a poll tax unless the state can supply an ID to the voter at no cost to them. That's why the voting rights act was shut down, not so that states could implement any kind of voting ID law they wanted, but ones that complied with the constitution and did not block people from voting. Texas, in a grand show of not surprising us in the least, made highly restrictive voter ID laws which blocked many minorities, married women, and students from voting, so the courts shot it down. Way to go Texas!

[PhaelixWW]

I'd still feel a little uneasy about giving high school seniors access to firearms, but it would certainly help.

High school seniors have always had access to firearms. Only Illinois, Hawaii, and D.C. have the age of purchase for long guns at 21. Everywhere else it's 18.

[petej0]

I just recently went to a new specialist for an injury.

I needed either my ID or an insurance card.

Funny, I needed both.

So, one can sign up for the ACA without any ID at all?

[Aeluron Lightsong]

High school seniors have always had access to firearms. Only Illinois, Hawaii, and D.C. have the age of purchase for long guns at 21. Everywhere else it's 18.

And I'm ok with it being at 21

[TZucchini]

High school seniors have always had access to firearms. Only Illinois, Hawaii, and D.C. have the age of purchase for long guns at 21. Everywhere else it's 18.

Ah, that's right. Only handguns are 21+. Well. There's another law I'd like to see changed I guess.

Can an 18 year old purchase any type of long gun? Semi-autos? Why the difference in age restriction? I'm guessing it has to do with the fact that handguns account for something like 80% of firearm homicides.

[Tinykong]

Ah, that's right. Only handguns are 21+. Well. There's another law I'd like to see changed I guess.

Can an 18 year old purchase any type of long gun? Semi-autos? Why the difference in age restriction? I'm guessing it has to do with the fact that handguns account for something like 80% of firearm homicides.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of_1968

[PhaelixWW]

Why are you against highly trained, responsible, and proficient citizens? Why do you support an individuals right to own a firearm, and lack all training necessary to operate it?

Why is it that you willfully misunderstand things so often? It makes it hard to have a rational discussion with you.

It should be obvious that nobody is against trained, responsible people. What people are against are legal requirements that might stand in the way of someone exercising their right to own a firearm, and more specifically to use a firearm for self-defense.

I'm not even against training requirements for certain classes of weapons, but putting extra bars in front of exercising your right to self-defense seems unconstitutional.

But trying to change that to imply that people on the other side of the argument want untrained, irresponsible people owning firearms is completely disingenuous.

[Zoranon]

Ah, that's right. Only handguns are 21+. Well. There's another law I'd like to see changed I guess.

Can an 18 year old purchase any type of long gun? Semi-autos? Why the difference in age restriction? I'm guessing it has to do with the fact that handguns account for something like 80% of firearm homicides.

Just out of curiosity is there anything you would not want changed about the current gun laws?

[PhaelixWW]

Then why is it the second amendment? Or better yet, why isn't it in the original Constitution?

Read up on history, maybe? The original Constitution couldn't get ratified. It was only when they agreed to make the Bill of Rights that the states could agree on ratification.

[TZucchini]

Why is it that you willfully misunderstand things so often? It makes it hard to have a rational discussion with you.

I asked that question, in that specific way, for very user-specific reasons.

It should be obvious that nobody is against trained, responsible people. What people are against are legal requirements that might stand in the way of someone exercising their right to own a firearm, and more specifically to use a firearm for self-defense.

If the right to own a firearm is more important than making sure every single person is responsible and proficient with said firearm, then what else am I to take away? Everyone's so fucking concerned about their rights being infringed, that no one wants to do a single thing to make sure people know how to properly and responsibly exercise said right. I can get a concealed carry permit in 8 hours, without having passed any type of proficiency test, and buy 1,000 firearms the next day. It's why our gun culture is complete shit. There's no respect for the weapon in this society.

But trying to change that to imply that people on the other side of the argument want untrained, irresponsible people owning firearms is completely disingenuous.

Of course you don't want untrained, irresponsible people owning firearms. But you also don't support anything to encourage the opposite. It's too "unconstitutional" to ask people to actually know how to use firearms.

[PhaelixWW]

I dont have any objections to registration, I understand why some would though. How do we come to a compromise on this issue?

The problem is with a centralized registry. Keep it decentralized (like it is already) and you avoid the potential for abuse.

[TZucchini]

Just out of curiosity is there anything you would not want changed about the current gun laws?

Probably. Nothing I can think of off the top of my head. I think it's completely possible for firearms to exist in our society, in a much more limited and regulated fashion. Our gun culture is a steaming pile of shit right now, and in dire need of a make-over.

[Zoranon]

Probably. Nothing I can think of off the top of my head. I think it's completely possible for firearms to exist in our society, in a much more limited and regulated fashion. Our gun culture is a steaming pile of shit right now, and in dire need of a make-over.

Hm thx for an honest answer. Do you realise that it would probably take nothing less than an act of god for this "vision" of yours to ever come true? And I say that as an agnostic.

[Tinykong]

Probably. Nothing I can think of off the top of my head. I think it's completely possible for firearms to exist in our society, in a much more limited and regulated fashion. Our gun culture is a steaming pile of shit right now, and in dire need of a make-over.

Because drug cartels wouldn't just sell firearms via their already thriving drug trade routes.

[PhaelixWW]

Ah, that's right. Only handguns are 21+. Well. There's another law I'd like to see changed I guess.

Can an 18 year old purchase any type of long gun? Semi-autos? Why the difference in age restriction? I'm guessing it has to do with the fact that handguns account for something like 80% of firearm homicides.

Federally speaking, the 21 for handguns and 18 for long guns is only for purchases from a licensed dealer. Ownership is different. You're allowed to own a handgun at 18 and there's no age requirement for owning a long gun.

[TZucchini]

Hm thx for an honest answer. Do you realise that it would probably take nothing less than an act of god for this "vision" of yours to ever come true? And I say that as an agnostic.

If by "an act of god" you mean "time", then yes. It would take a great deal of time. But we've been gravitating toward my position for some time, and I really don't see that stopping.

- - - Updated - - -

Because drug cartels wouldn't just sell firearms via their already thriving drug trade routes.

No, they probably would.

[Zoranon]

If by "an act of god" you mean "time", then yes. It would take a great deal of time. But we've been gravitating toward my position for some time, and I really don't see that stopping.

- - - Updated - - -



No, they probably would.

Gravitating as in gun laws getting looser in the last 20 years?

[Tinykong]

But we've been gravitating toward my position for some time, and I really don't see that stopping.

Except we really haven't been? Laws have been relaxing, someone posted a gif of states transitioning from like 1999 to current or something.

[TZucchini]

Yeah minor changes really negate the sweeping legislation enacted since the inception of the 2nd Amendment.

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/guntime1.html