https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dGaLRsgofQ
What do you think? Seems pretty sensible to me. Doesn't infringe on your rights to own a gun but it does check your competence and responsibility to own one. That way no random gangbanger with no prior record can just go in and pick one up.
It baffles me that there are regular citizens against that level of regulation. Seems fairly reasonable and it would definitely take a giant bite out of irresponsible shit like straw purchases.
shareI challenge anyone to give me a good reason why people should have to get government's permission to exercise a natural right.
shareBecause it works in the military "according to this guy" where the government decides every decision for the marines including what they eat, where they sleep and who they kill. The original post speaks of gang bangers getting guns "like they buy them from gun shops" but the government is letting those "folks" out even after they commit gun crimes.
shareI could get behind this. It's the exact kind of middle ground we need to meet at.
About the gangbanger part though, I'm not sure I follow. Couldn't they just go through the safety course, shooting proficiency test and agree to store it safely?
So the government gets to decide who is allowed to exercise a Constitutional right? Brilliant, what could possibly go wrong?
Critical thinking is dead in this country.
A safety course and proficiency test would be incredibly easy. Anyone who isn't mentally challenged could pass it.
I had to do a safety course to get my LTC and all they went over is common sense shit. If anything, its an idiot test.
I repeat, so if you don’t pass a government test, you don’t get to exercise your rights?
How is training and a proficiency test is going to weed out mass murderers?
We already have to pass tests in the form of background checks and in a lot of States, safety courses. Again, this isn't going to stop anyone from obtaining a gun who wants one, unless they are the type of person who doesn't understand you shouldn't point a gun at someone, even if they think its unloaded, for example...Yes, this is the basic, common sense shit that they go over in safety courses. At the very least, maybe we can weed out inept idiots who don't have the basic knowledge of how to handle a firearm.
Concerning mass murdererss, you have a point there. These requirements will would likely do nothing.
But do you understand my point that you're allowing the government to determine who gets to exercise their rights and who does not? Who gets to decide the criteria? What is it going to cost and who decides that? One easy back door is to have yearly qualifications that cost more than the average person can pay. That's the kind of back door gun ban we worry about. Do you want that applied to free speech or the right to vote? You have to move beyond what is proposed and follow it to its logical, worst case conclusion. The only lives this will save are those from accidental shootings but at what cost? Freedom.
shareisnt there some rule where convicted felons can no longer own a gun?
I assume you are dead against this breach of god given rights as well?
So you think it's okay to treat ALL citizens like convicted felons?
shareno idiot ,nobody said that.
that would equate to "nobody is allowed a gun"
nobody is saying that .
You however keep insisting that any form of regulation is a "backdoor" to a total ban.
Hence I asked if you are for or against the current rule of not letting felons own guns.
So you just think people should get government permission before exercising their Constitutional rights?
Many regulations can and do lead to worst case scenarios. We know this because it's happened in other countries.
No, violent felons should not be able to own guns. They have had their due process. Do you not understand the difference? God, all you dumbasses need a civics class.
I do understand and already mentioned they already determine who gets exercise their rights with background checks and safety courses in some States. I honestly don't see asking someone to show firearm proficiency to be an infringement on 2A, something I very much support. 99.999% of people will pass this. Its an compromise I'm willing to make.
About your questions about yearly qualifications, no, I don't agree with that. One and done. Cost? It should be free in my opinion. If they were going to make a law, purposely making its extremely difficult for the average person to legally buy a gun, I would be staunchly against it.
And for the record, I'm against any ban on any type of gun on the market right now, but have no problem with going through a stupid safety course and proving I know how to handle a gun.
You're not looking beyond what is in front of you. Background checks are a concession to ensure ineligible people are not able to legally buy a firearm. Totally not the same as requiring a person to pass a test to exercise their rights. It's basically licensing. Treating a Constitutional right that is supposed to be protected FROM the government, as a privilege granted BY the government. Sure, it might start out one way but could easily be made into something else entirely. The point is, you're giving them control over something they should NEVER have control over.
Again, I ask what is this going to accomplish? If the goal is to prevent violence, this is not a solution.
Note the guy went further than this discussion. Saying that guns should be treated as they are in the Corps, under lock and key by a third party (the government) until they deem it okay for you to have it. This is 100% contradictory to the intent of the Constitution.
I'm just speaking as an individual gun owner. Many probably disagree with me, but I have no problem personally going through a safety course and proficiency test on the range because because I don't see it as an inconvenience, find it ridiculously easy and think it might deter certain people from obtaining a firearm, who otherwise might be scared of the process, i.e. some of the teen shooters who walk in and out of a gun stores and then murder scores of innocent people. Will it stop all violence? No, it probably won't even put a dent in it, but it might stop some of the high profile ones. I'm just going out on a limb here to assume the Uvalde and Buffalo shooter might have shown some signs of being batshit crazy, had they had gone through this process, got called out on it and perhaps abandoned their plans. Wishful thinking? Maybe, but I still don't mind a one day safety course and day on the range. Hell, I think it would be fun.
I don't think he was saying that privately owned guns should be treated as they are in the Corps - stored under lock and key. If that were the case, I would say "go pound sand!" I've heard many gun control people say guns should be stored at ranges, and frankly, fuck that. My property will stay in my home. I believe he, as a Marine vet, just thought it was ironic an 18 year old can buy an AR-15 when a soldier can't even keep a gun on base with their private belongings.
For all I know, this guy in the video could be a total kook, so I'm not completely backing him, but I still don't think a simple safety course and range day is too much to ask. If our Politicians abuse these very simple asking terms by sneaking it other laws, then they can go fuck themselves and I won't support it.
I think we're somewhat on the same page concerning gun rights, but simply disagree with having to complete a safety course/range day.
It's not about it being easy, hard or inconvenient. It's about giving that power to the government, who will undoubtedly abuse it.
shareNo - thousands of people are dead because of these dumbass notions of "natural rights" that go along with "natural" guns (?!?!) and a constitutional clause - made by men 300 years ago - which has been taken to careless and catastrophic ends.
Critical thinking? Plenty of us are thinking critically about your stance on what it means to live in society and just how wrong-headed and ugly it is. Plenty of critical thinking going on, and you bear the brunt of the criticism.
Being critical and critical thinking are two very different things. You criticize a lot but there's little thinking going on.
Those men who wrote those words nearly 250yrs ago (not 300) were intellectuals beyond your meager comprehension. You are a fool, criticizing things you do not even understand. You idiots never consider things all the way to their logical conclusion, because you have no logic. Your right to sit here and run your mouth (keyboard) was won by free men with rifles. It is continually secured by free men with rifles. While you sit here and criticize those words, you benefit 100% from those words.
It's not a Constitutional clause, it's the Bill of Rights. It is the foundation of American freedom. The fact that people like you freely criticize them in such a way is proof of the failures of our educational system.
Not to mention that the actions of democrat leaders in the last few years have demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt the absolute importance of an armed populace. Because you cocksuckers are voting for anarchy.
I'm not against background checks, permits, registering weapons, classes, or anything else he suggested, but any suggestion that doesn't involve literally cutting back on the number of guns on the streets is not enough. Civilians should be limited in what kind of and how many guns they can own. Ammo too.
shareSo not only are you going to limit our Constitutional rights but you're going to seize our property now too? And you call us the fascists???
Are you going to squeal when they limit your free speech?
I agree. Only allow Americans to own hand guns and shotguns. Because we've never had a mass shooting with those before......oh wait minute 🤷♂️
shareI would rather give my viewing money support to Hannah than the liberal commies that get support here.
shareLiberal commies ... please do continue to discredit any semblance of reasoned debate by using such idiotic sentiments.
We'd all be living in internment camps if you had your way.
Act like one, get labeled as one. You people throw around labels all day long but they never fit. This one, does.
share