What are legitimate reasons for citizens owning guns?

[Thebobo]

Those are places you want to live, not me. Old Communist and totalitarian states fit right in with your politics.

Oh you mean the countries who your Daddy loves, Russia, Philippines, Turkey, etc. He loves them all!

 

[Atreus21]

It amused me...

Not sure why you gotta bug ya mom about it. Give the woman some peace already. She already has to deal with her child's fear-based gun ownership and (persistent?) nightmares of an inability to measure up to the gun power all around him.

I don't suppose it'll do any good to say my mother has a gun for the same reason.

 

[Younigue]

I don't suppose it'll do any good to say my mother has a gun for the same reason.

Still shouldn't bug her with your [online] girl problems.

I'm not heartless. I disagree with her owning a gun. I certainly wonder on the size and usability of her penis and question why as a woman she'd buy into the envy and insecurity men feel due to their own... But no mother should have to endure a snotty nosed perpetually petrified child. It would be exhausting I imagine.

 

[Atreus21]

Still shouldn't bug her with your [online] girl problems.

Online girl problems?

I'm not heartless. I disagree with her owning a gun. I certainly wonder on the size and usability of her penis and question why as a woman she'd buy into the envy and insecurity men feel due to their own

Presumably because she agrees with their reasoning - self defense.

... But no mother should have to endure a snotty nosed perpetually petrified child. It would be exhausting I imagine.

Enduring scared sick children is precisely part of the calling of motherhood, as well as fatherhood.

Unless you refer to adult children.

 

[Younigue]

Online girl problems?



Presumably because she agrees with their reasoning - self defense.



Enduring scared sick children is precisely part of the calling of motherhood, as well as fatherhood.

Unless you refer to adult children.

~Yes, I am female AND disagreeing with you. ='s Girl problems.

~Because her penis is too small? Express my sympathies.

~Was I wrong in assuming you are her "adult" child? I admit to a pause to thought on the matter but I crossed my fingers and leapt.

~ Enduring it does not mean she enjoys it or should be subjected to it and again you're her "adult" child. The embarrassment must be overwhelming.

 

[Atreus21]

~Yes, I am female AND disagreeing with you. ='s Girl problems.

~Because her penis is too small? Express my sympathies.

~Was I wrong in assuming you are her "adult" child? I admit to a pause to thought on the matter but I crossed my fingers and leapt.

~ Enduring it does not mean she enjoys it or should be subjected to it and again you're her "adult" child. The embarrassment must be overwhelming.

You know, I keep making the mistake of thinking you're arguing in good faith, but you're interested primarily in insults so I'll stop.

 

[Younigue]

You know, I keep making the mistake of thinking you're arguing in good faith, but you're interested primarily in insults so I'll stop.

There is no need to debate with the likes of you. You start and finish with 'There is no solution'.

How that works in my personal relationship is I win. My husband has no solution and my any kind of solution gets us to where we need to go. Power on man. As long as you are convinced there is no solution there is absolutely a chance one will develop right under your nose and you'll have had no say in the matter. Talk about feeling powerless, you pro-gunners are likely courting just that.

It pleases me that you are going to take my dismissal literally.

 

[Puffnstuff]

but you're interested primarily in insults so I'll stop.

Too many people here resort to hurling them when someone disagrees with their position.

 

[Younigue]

Too many people here result to hurling them when someone disagrees with their position.

Come on Puff, you're not above saying unnecessary things.

 

[Thebobo]

+=

 

[J.Wilkins]

You know, I keep making the mistake of thinking you're arguing in good faith, but you're interested primarily in insults so I'll stop.

You don't get the argument so you think it's just insults... I've not yet decided if you are plainly stupid or actually wilfully ignorant and yes, one is far worse than the other.

 

[J.Wilkins]

There is no need to debate with the likes of you. You start and finish with 'There is no solution'.

How that works in my personal relationship is I win. My husband has no solution and my any kind of solution gets us to where we need to go. Power on man. As long as you are convinced there is no solution there is absolutely a chance one will develop right under your nose and you'll have had no say in the matter. Talk about feeling powerless, you pro-gunners are likely courting just that.

It pleases me that you are going to take my dismissal literally.

I agree with him on this much "nothing can ever be done".

The SC ruled to completely ignore the text of the second amendment and go with the gun lobby and you can't fix it in any foreseeable future or at least not until you have enough state houses to amend the constitution and even then... It's not going to happen.

Nothing can ever be done is a true statement on this issue because you locked yourselves in as a nation on this path and there is no way out.

 

[J.Wilkins]

Self defense is probably the most commonly deployed argument, and it applies directly to why I'm about to purchase a gun for the first time. I know that in several of the more gun-restricting countries, self defense is not sufficient justification.

Frankly, as paranoid as it seems, I think the best and ultimate justification is as a check against government tyranny. I assume this was in part the reason for its adoption in the first place. Usually I hear two objections to this:

One, that AR-15s have no chance against Abrams tanks, nuclear weapons and aircraft carriers, but I think the Taliban and Vietcong might disagree. Second, that the US government isn't likely to become tyrannical. But I think that's debatable, particularly in the wake of the 2016 election. Partisanship will lead us to do very stupid things.

So... You live in a city that resembles a third world shithole where this is needed? I live in London, I don't even lock my front door at night and apparently I'm smack in the middle of a "no go zone" according to Fox News.

 

[Younigue]

I agree with him on this much "nothing can ever be done".

The SC ruled to completely ignore the text of the second amendment and go with the gun lobby and you can't fix it in any foreseeable future or at least not until you have enough state houses to amend the constitution and even then... It's not going to happen.

Nothing can ever be done is a true statement on this issue because you locked yourselves in as a nation on this path and there is no way out.

I don't believe in the nothing to be done about it mantra. Ask my husband.

 

[J.Wilkins]

I don't believe in the nothing to be done about it mantra. Ask my husband.

Oh I wouldn't respect you as much as I do if I thought you did.

I'm merely giving you the parameters of the current standpoints. Unless you literally revoke the second amendment there is nothing that can be done.

I don't agree with it any more than you do or anyone who ever read the second amendment without going full retard while doing so would but the SC has the job of interpreting it and they didn't give a flying fuck about the text when they did so.

Start shooting CEO's and owners of big corps and this would change in a week, the SC would rescind its earlier bullshit ideas in a heartbeat in fear that its members might lose their massive incomes from lobbyists that tell them how to rule.

 

[Sunburn74]

I agree with him on this much "nothing can ever be done".

The SC ruled to completely ignore the text of the second amendment and go with the gun lobby and you can't fix it in any foreseeable future or at least not until you have enough state houses to amend the constitution and even then... It's not going to happen.

Nothing can ever be done is a true statement on this issue because you locked yourselves in as a nation on this path and there is no way out.

Well... I can't say nothing can ever be done. But it appears unlikely to happen in our lifetimes


One thing that may happen is that some unused legal tactic leads to a precedent is set that allows people to sue gun companies,or sellers, or bullet makers or any company in the supply chain relentlessly until they are out of business.

And of course there is always taxation/coercion by the government right? They could pass imports/tariffs/taxes on these products that make them essentially untenable, can make gun owners by high priced gun insurance as well, or could make people sign waivers of acknowledgement that any history of gun ownership disqualifies from federal healthcare as gun-ownership is a dangerous but legal endeavour the government shouldn't have to subsidize (like you can be denied benefits for skydiving or scubadiving and etc). Taxation is quite powerful if the political will is there. However it has to be there and sustained for a long time to really kill off these companies.

 

[J.Wilkins]

Well... I can't say nothing can ever be done. But it appears unlikely to happen in our lifetimes


One thing that may happen is that some unused legal tactic leads to a precedent is set that allows people to sue gun companies,or sellers, or bullet makers or any company in the supply chain relentlessly until they are out of business.

And of course there is always taxation/coercion by the government right? They could pass imports/tariffs/taxes on these products that make them essentially untenable, can make gun owners by high priced gun insurance as well, or could make people sign waivers of acknowledgement that any history of gun ownership disqualifies from federal healthcare as gun-ownership is a dangerous but legal endeavour the government shouldn't have to subsidize (like you can be denied benefits for skydiving or scubadiving and etc). Taxation is quite powerful if the political will is there. However it has to be there and sustained for a long time to really kill off these companies.

It's been ruled on by the SC.

Restriction of rights as enumerated by the constitution and interpreted by the SC do not depend on states rights nor do they depend on medical issues or anything else what so ever.

I can't believe I have to explain this to you, as an Englishman to an American but this is WHY mental illness CANNOT be an obstacle to owning firearms and IF restrictions are challenged they will inevitably come down on the side where the restrictions are absolved. A state cannot negotiate away rights.

 

[Sunburn74]

It's been ruled on by the SC.

Restriction of rights as enumerated by the constitution and interpreted by the SC do not depend on states rights nor do they depend on medical issues or anything else what so ever.

I can't believe I have to explain this to you, as an Englishman to an American but this is WHY mental illness CANNOT be an obstacle to owning firearms and IF restrictions are challenged they will inevitably come down on the side where the restrictions are absolved. A state cannot negotiate away rights.

Hmm... I would disagree. In example, if you look at abortion rights (and they are rights), states have taken tactics of raising costs of abortions (texas just passed a law making women have to buy separate abortion insurance even if their general medical plan is a private plan and all their TRAP laws were basically aimed at costs), cutting state and federal funding, and similar reimbursement to providers, etc etc .

Linking a history of gun ownership (a right) to medicare (currently an optional privilege) in no way reduces your right to own a gun. It simple disincentivizes it and the federal government can do that for pretty much anything. If you see health-insurance as a tax (which the SCOTUS does with the ACA ruling) you can link taxation to pretty much anything and its fair game because you have representation in terms of taxes.

 

[J.Wilkins]

Hmm... I would disagree. In example, if you look at abortion rights (and they are rights), states have taken tactics of raising costs of abortions (texas just passed a law making women have to buy separate abortion insurance even if their general medical plan is a private plan and all their TRAP laws were basically aimed at costs), cutting funding, and reimbursement to providers, etc etc .

Linking gun ownership (a right) to medicare (currently an optional privilege) in no way reduces your right to own a gun. It simple disincentivizes it and the federal government can do that for pretty much anything. If you see health-insurance as a tax (which the SCOTUS does with the ACA ruling) you can link taxation to pretty much anything and its fair game because you have representation in terms of taxes.

So basically you are saying that the rights enumerated in the constitution and interpreted by the SC are just not rights at all? You can't link gun ownership to medicare at all, it would be unconstitutional.

There is no enumerated right to have an abortion, unless you just updated your bullshit document that really doesn't matter at all.

 

[Paladin3]

I agree with him on this much "nothing can ever be done".

The SC ruled to completely ignore the text of the second amendment and go with the gun lobby and you can't fix it in any foreseeable future or at least not until you have enough state houses to amend the constitution and even then... It's not going to happen.

Nothing can ever be done is a true statement on this issue because you locked yourselves in as a nation on this path and there is no way out.

Most of us don't want out and agree with how our supreme court ruled on the Constitution 2A. Your first mistake is believing that your opinion is absolute truth and anyone who doesn't agree is nuts.

We understand that there are no laws that will stop the relatively small amount of gun violence we have in this country without violating our Constitution and effectively ending the principles of a free society so many have fought and died for. We don't ask for your approval or understanding from across the pond.

We have plenty of laws making murder illegal, further laws will only be followed by the law-abiding and those folks aren't the problem. 99.9%+ of all guns never hurt anyone. The best way to solve our problems are to teach our children better and do as much as possible for the angry, disenfranchised evil/sick/criminal elements of our society until our culture changes so we don't have so many willing to kill.

Dreaming that more restrictions on the tool will be effective at making the criminally violent play nice is insulting.

 

[Paladin3]

It's been ruled on by the SC.

Restriction of rights as enumerated by the constitution and interpreted by the SC do not depend on states rights nor do they depend on medical issues or anything else what so ever.

I can't believe I have to explain this to you, as an Englishman to an American but this is WHY mental illness CANNOT be an obstacle to owning firearms and IF restrictions are challenged they will inevitably come down on the side where the restrictions are absolved. A state cannot negotiate away rights.

Mental illness can and is a reason someone can be denied a gun in most (all?) of the US.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-...session-of-a-firearm-by-the-mentally-ill.aspx

But then you have this act of stupidity by our Commander in Chief:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...ng-obama-era-gun-checks-people-mental-n727221

"President Donald Trump quietly signed a bill into law Tuesday rolling back an Obama-era regulation that made it harder for people with mental illnesses to purchase a gun.

The rule, which was finalized in December, added people receiving Social Security checks for mental illnesses and people deemed unfit to handle their own financial affairs to the national background check database."

If you are too mentally ill to work or care for your own finances then you are too mentally ill to have a gun.

 

[Paladin3]

Hmm... I would disagree. In example, if you look at abortion rights (and they are rights), states have taken tactics of raising costs of abortions (texas just passed a law making women have to buy separate abortion insurance even if their general medical plan is a private plan and all their TRAP laws were basically aimed at costs), cutting state and federal funding, and similar reimbursement to providers, etc etc .

Linking a history of gun ownership (a right) to medicare (currently an optional privilege) in no way reduces your right to own a gun. It simple disincentivizes it and the federal government can do that for pretty much anything. If you see health-insurance as a tax (which the SCOTUS does with the ACA ruling) you can link taxation to pretty much anything and its fair game because you have representation in terms of taxes.

I wonder if that law Texas passed would stand up to a Constitutional challenge in court?

Anyway, you can't put undue burdens on folks trying to exercise their constitutional rights in an effort to "disincentivize" or take them away. It's why poll taxes were abolished, and why many feel even the simple requirement that a voter prove who they are with a state issued ID is too burdensome.

Also, there is a huge difference between abortion rights and the right to have an abortion provided to you free of charge. People need to pay for their own abortions and their own guns and their own bibles.

Though I'd love to see the US fund free condoms, since that is fairly low cost and the rewards to society are huge.

 

[ivwshane]

I wonder if that law Texas passed would stand up to a Constitutional challenge in court?

Anyway, you can't put undue burdens on folks trying to exercise their constitutional rights in an effort to "disincentivize" or take them away. It's why poll taxes were abolished, and why many feel even the simple requirement that a voter prove who they are with a state issued ID is too burdensome.

That's incorrect. Voter ID laws are generally found unconstitutional because they either required people to pay fees to get the necessary documents in order to get the required ID which is a direct violation of the constitution (it's considered a poll tax), or they unfairly discriminate against certain types of people.

Voter ID laws that were not ruled unconstitutional had free ID's or made reasonable accommodations to help citizens get the needed documentation.

 

[Kwatt]

... Voter ID laws that were not ruled unconstitutional had free ID's or made reasonable accommodations to help citizens get the needed documentation.

I wonder if a person could use that ruling to somehow get a free CC permit?

It's a $87.50 application fee here and no refunds if you don't get it....

.

 

[ivwshane]

I wonder if a person could use that ruling to somehow get a free CC permit?

It's a $87.50 application fee here and no refunds if you don't get it....

.

No they couldn't. There is nothing in the constitution about "poll taxes" on guns or any other right for that matter.