blakky97:

I wasn't expecting a thread like this to catch the interest of an iiiddiiot. like you

pickabeau1:

How can gun of ownership be a fundamental right

pickabeau1: I know....it was a rhetorical q


Making gun ownership fundamental is the bane of logic and good judgement

More will die...

niyitogun:

On the contrary it has reduced a lot more violent crimes and buglaries in more states. I know this might sound odd but research and data has shown this- since the second amendment violent crime rates has significantly reduced. But you seem to miss my point, gun control is not about banning guns, it is about what type of ammunition should a civilian be able to carry as well as whether they are allowed to carry them openly or concealed. There are incidents that have happened of mass shootings where automatic weapons like Ak 47s, AR 15s were used and caused a lot of casualties hence my support for "gun control" (which doesn't mean banning people from owning guns).....more crimes have and lives have been saved by law abiding civilians with their guns but this usually don't get headlines in the media because it's not bad news. You can read my previous post where i explained how this works. So please note i am an advocate for gun control contrary to what you think but i am not an advocate for disarming a nation. I have shared a link here for people who believe in facts and statistics.

niyitogun:

I do not see it this way. I think the issue here is about civil rights and the right to defend yourself by carrying a gun if need be. Government cannot just disarm people to deny them rights of self defense but i believe they can however put tighter controls on the kind of weapons being issued (not issuing automated weapons like the AR 15's capable of disseminating hundreds of bullets in a minute) and running mental assessment before guns are sold to qualified civilians (those without criminal records). I believe assess to "controlled firearms" reduces crime - think about it this way, if you are walking down the street or in your house, a robber would think twice before trying to attack you, steal from you or break into your home as he's is not sure whether you also have a gun but when people are denied complete access to firearms then the criminals who get them illegally anyways get a free arm to perpetrate their evil deeds. Just my point of view.
Most people that argue against control of automated weapons by limiting it's access only to law enforcement argue on the premise that police are to protect you but are not liable if they don't and you get robbed/shot(you cannot sue them) and it would take them a few minutes to get down when they are called, so why put civilians at a disadvantage by not having a chance to fight back if the criminal faces one with an automated weapon as a regular pistol has little chance to defend you against such a machine and the police who have them are not on the scene immediately at the onset of the incidence. While this may have it's fact the truth remains it might cause more harm than good if it falls into a wrong hand like the movie theater shooting at Michigan(I think).
It is also true the government generates a lot of revenue from firearm tax and money is also involved however this is not the most important factor in the debate but civil rights is.

pickabeau1: Dude I don't get you....


Where in my post did u see advocacy for banning of firearms


You better calm down... U r coming off like a NRA spokesman


What does a hunter need a semi automatic for
What's wrong in carrying out background checks before u sell certain types of guns

CFCfan:

I'm definitely not a Communist. I support the 2nd Amendment, but there is no where in the world where there is absolute freedom.
All I'm saying is that criminal background checks (including mental), should be done on all prospective gun buyers.

niyitogun:

Again you have taken me out of context. We both just said the same thing. You can read my post again.

pickabeau1: Dude I don't get you....


Where in my post did u see advocacy for banning of firearms


You better calm down... U r coming off like a NRA spokesman


What does a hunter need a semi automatic for
What's wrong in carrying out background checks before u sell certain types of guns

texanomaly:

I agree with all but the bolded. It falls under HIPAA. (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) Among other things, this Act protects the security and privacy of health data. This includes mental health.
The problem with freedom, is that it is never free. In order to protect the rights of some, we must step on the rights of others. Where do we draw the line? Who decides? I am a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment. I also support criminal background checks. Protecting the public can be a slippery slope to traverse, however. If medical information is open to scrutiny, what is to stop individuals from discriminating against us because of potential health issues? I know, I know…Should we sell guns to a ‘crazy person’? Where does it end though? Where do we draw the line between us, and ‘big brother’. Catch 22 don catch me.

Somorin#1:


I have a right to buy any weapons I want. The constitution did not specify what type. In fact I can argue that a well armed militia requires a full automatic with extra capacity more today than before.

HIPAA can be waived for the greater good of the population and it should.

Somorin#1:


I have a right to buy any weapons I want. The constitution did not specify what type. In fact I can argue that a well armed militia requires a full automatic with extra capacity more today than before.

HIPAA can be waived for the greater good of the population and it should.

pickabeau1:

ok... you are free afterall its a free world... people not guns right?

texanomaly:

But where does it end? Who decides where the greater good ends, and where infringement of rights begins? This is a slippery slope we are treading. We must be careful. This could set a dangerous precedent, that could have far reaching consequences.

Somorin#1:


Sorry I am not sure what you mean.

Somorin#1:


Where have you been? That slippery slope is a full fledged avalanche now with NSA.

Privacy, as we know it in the USA, is now gone completely.

As far as HIPPA. Won't you rather have your local CDC warn you that the family next door has contagious tuberculosis? I know I would.

texanomaly:

I believe there is a stipulation in the statute for that eventuality.

pickabeau1:
My post was.....
As they say people not guns kill people...

Somorin#1:


I see.

I agree with that sentiment. If not gun, a crazed person can also find a stick, knife, screwdriver, etc to further his bent ambition.

Somorin#1:


I see.

I agree with that sentiment. If not gun, a crazed person can also find a stick, knife, screwdriver, etc to further his bent ambition.

pickabeau1:

However I don't
There needs be some form of gun control...
It will only get worse

texanomaly:

I agree that there should be. It is just a tough subject. Especially where I come from.

pickabeau1:

In Switzerland which shares similar sentiments to The states there is a measure of control.

It's not perfect

http://world.time.com/2012/12/20/the-swiss-difference-a-gun-culture-that-works/



http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21379912