namelesstavern.net

MorAns?

my dipshit dad just went to buy one yesterday. never in his life has he needed a gun, nor does he know what to do with one, but he decided it's his right as an american and he won't let obama take away his rights so since it's his right he'll go ahead and buy one just for the sake of it. so cong wasting 300+ bucks on something that's going to sit in the closet. I seriously hope he accidentally shoots himself in the arm for the blatant obnoxiousness and stupidity.

it's akin to if the republicans won me running and getting knocked up just so i could have an abortion because you know, it's my right.

stupid shit.

people like that annoy me.. while i do beleive you have a right to own a gun via 2nd amendment it is very much like a car in that it is a deadly weapon that you will kill yourself or someone else if you dont know how to use it

he needs to go to a target range club and learn to shoot as well as gun safety

I believe in the 2nd amendment too, for good reason.

having a gun for the sake of having a gun because it's your right is not a good reason.

I also believe it should be more difficult to get a gun. It's insane how easy it is to get one. Go into a shop, answer a few questions that you're of course going to say no to (are you a terrorist? oh, well yes, I am. thanks for asking.), don't have a record and you're golden. You also shouldn't be able to purchase things like uzis - seriously, who needs that? Just because you can doesn't mean you should. I can go into Burger King and eat 30 whoppers. Does it mean I should? Jesus no. I have no need to do it. It's my right, but I'm not going to do it just because. It's stupid.

If I lived in the ghetto where crime was rampant and I felt unsafe, I might consider a gun. I might consider it because I was unsafe, not because Fox told me Obama's gonna take my guns away and yeehaw, that ain't gonna happen, boy!

That gun sales are so high right now is disgusting. It's ignorance at its finest, and I'm embarrassed that someone who contributed to my genetic makeup is one of the stupid ones.

lol you are only gunna make it harder for the people who wish to purchase and own legally to get a gun. Criminals will NOT be affected

I know a lot of people that have purchased new guns. But it wasn't cause of Obama. It's funny that gun sales skyrocketed a week before deer hunting season started. I'm not saying everyone out there bought a gun for that reason, but when you take those numbers along with everything else I think the media is trying to make this into something it is not.

I've also heard that guns sales go up when there are market downturns, recessions, etc that come up in history. Sort of like alcohol and tobacco sales tend to go up during times like this.

I'm telling you, for fact, right now, that not everyone bought a gun for that reason and it's not just media hype. My father bought *solely* because of Obama and he has heaps of friends that are just as stupid as he is.

The store he bought a gun at has advertisements offering buy one get one half off and you get a free hat. My dad is not a criminal (at the moment), but he is also not a responsible gun owner. He's not a responsible pet owner for crying out loud, he certainly doesn't need a gun.

These are two extremes; most people fall in between - not knowledgeable enough to be responsible, not dangerous enough to randomly shoot up a school. If you are on the responsible extreme, absolutely have your gun. If you are somewhere in the middle, you should be required to get the education to become responsible before a gun is placed in your hands. Laws should be in place to weed irresponsible clueless owners out, INCLUDING non criminals, and they're simply not.

Gyps do you own a handgun? have you ever went on the trip to buy a handgun ? You can walk into a sporting goods store and buy a long gun all day long but for a pistol you have to get permission from the cops or have a clp.

Think back to 1994 gyps. What did a democrat pres and house do ? For you to act like the fear of any kind of gun ban is just nonsense shows to me you might not understand gun rights and thier history over the last 20 years. I would go by a 7.62 of some sort tomorrow if i had money just in case.

As far as all types of training to buy it goes. That would prolly make the second an amendment that only applys to people with money over time. Besides you would be shocked how easy it is to care for a pistol and to shoot one.


Oh yea its really classy to wish your dad a gun accident becuase youve got your panties in a twist about people buying guns right now.

What an abhorrent idea; limiting rights based on some precondition. What's the standard for responsible? Who gets to set said standards? Why not have one for voting? If you name the candidates then you have to go through "voter education" so you don't misuse your right to vote. God forbid you voted for someone just because you like the way the name looks....

Good post dude.

Eziekial wrote:What an abhorrent idea; limiting rights based on some precondition. What's the standard for responsible? Who gets to set said standards? Why not have one for voting? If you name the candidates then you have to go through "voter education" so you don't misuse your right to vote. God forbid you voted for someone just because you like the way the name looks....

Because a child cannot take your vote and use it to blow a hole in his sister's head.
Because you can't get drunk and vote someone to death.
Because you can't lose it and take a vote into your work/school and vote down your peers.

I'm all for requiring higher standards on voters, however the two don't compare beyond the fact that they are rights that can be revoked by an authority.

Personally, I think that, given the 2nd amendment, everyone has the right to own guns.

But, just like freedom of speech is limited in that you cannot directly advocate violence, yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater, or threaten the president, etc. because of the health risks involved, there needs to be SOME limit on the right to own firearms, as improperly handled, stored and cared for, they DO represent a risk.

I would propose the following, then:

1) Any non-felon and non-mentally-ill person may buy and own firearms.

2) Anyone wishing to take firearms home must pass a written safety exam, as well as a practical one. These exams should cost no more than is necessary to cover the cost of giving the exam, and may be given at either police stations or licensed gun ranges, etc. Note that no class shall be necessary to take the test, as many people get adequate training from relatives, parents, etc. Also, veterans and honorably quit ex-police are exempt from this requirement, as they will have had FAR more training than is necessary to pass such a test.

3) Police departments and licensed gun ranges should offer safety and ownership training classes at some nominal fee for those who need the training to pass the above test.

4) Anyone who does not fulfill item #2 above may own any number of guns they wish, but may not keep them at home, in their car, or any other private setting until they do. They may have them stored at a firing range, police precinct, or similar location.

5) Make the owner of a gun equally legally responsible for anything that happens with that gun, unless it is stolen and reported as such. Don't lock the gun up properly, and your kid finds it and shoots and kills himself? You're up on manslaughter charges, as the gun was YOUR responsibility, and you failed.


There. Anyone and everyone (except for felons and crazy people) can own as many firearms as they like, even if they are utterly irresponsible with them, they just can't keep them at home. No one who can prove they know gun safety has to take a class, and those who can't prove it, and thus would be dangerous, must GET such a class so they know what they're doing before they can put anyone at risk with their firearm(s).

I don't see how this presents any barrier for any legitimate, safe owner, nor do I consider the hoops necessary to jump through to be more than extremely minorly limiting upon the basic right, and ensures greater public safety by having provably safe gun owners, as well as stiffened penalties for those who ARE unsafe with them in practice, after deterministically proving they should know better by passing the test.

I can't see at all how this would be objectionable, honestly, no matter how much of a gun fan you are, unless for some reason you like the idea of unsafe owners....

-Arlos

first - spazz, nice to see you again. you haven't posted in some time.

we could get into a debate about gun rights, but it's one that's been rehashed constantly over the years on NT and would get us nowhere. I'm of the opinion that having something that's sole purpose is to injure or maim should require regulation. It's not something I personally feel is a commodity to have just for the sake of having, and quite frankly it's bothersome that we, as Americans, are of the mindset that since we can have something, we should, especially when it comes to something like a weapon.

No, I do not own a handgun, but yes, I have been in stores with someone while buying one. it was a questionnaire, a few days to pend a background check, and he got his gun by the following week. Again, you don't have to be a criminal to be someone who really shouldn't have a gun, and at least in my experience, there was no check for irresponsibility.

second, about my dad - you can think it as unclassy as you wish - you don't know my father or what the backstory with him is. if you knew him or half the shit he's put his daughters through, you might understand a bit better. I don't wish him to be seriously injured, but I don't think he looks at a gun as a weapon as much as a commodity, and I seriously think it'd take him a knick in the arm before he really understood what it was capable of. He doesn't have rational thought.

Why not have one for voting? If you name the candidates then you have to go through "voter education" so you don't misuse your right to vote. God forbid you voted for someone just because you like the way the name looks

actually, I fully agree with having regulations for voting. I think it's unfortunate that people who haven't a clue about anything going on get to cast a ballot completely based on superficial reasons.

Rights for the sake of rights is a dangerous thing - I think often its forgotten that many of these rights were made in very different times under very different conditions, and a few things need to be tweaked to modernize them. I don't have any desire to take away the 2nd amendment, so please don't misinterpret me. I just think there need to be balances in place for our ever growing society.

Arlos wrote:Personally, I think that, given the 2nd amendment, everyone has the right to own guns.

But, just like freedom of speech is limited in that you cannot directly advocate violence, yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater, or threaten the president, etc. because of the health risks involved, there needs to be SOME limit on the right to own firearms, as improperly handled, stored and cared for, they DO represent a risk.

I would propose the following, then:

1) Any non-felon and non-mentally-ill person may buy and own firearms.

2) Anyone wishing to take firearms home must pass a written safety exam, as well as a practical one. These exams should cost no more than is necessary to cover the cost of giving the exam, and may be given at either police stations or licensed gun ranges, etc. Note that no class shall be necessary to take the test, as many people get adequate training from relatives, parents, etc. Also, veterans and honorably quit ex-police are exempt from this requirement, as they will have had FAR more training than is necessary to pass such a test.

3) Police departments and licensed gun ranges should offer safety and ownership training classes at some nominal fee for those who need the training to pass the above test.

4) Anyone who does not fulfill item #2 above may own any number of guns they wish, but may not keep them at home, in their car, or any other private setting until they do. They may have them stored at a firing range, police precinct, or similar location.

5) Make the owner of a gun equally legally responsible for anything that happens with that gun, unless it is stolen and reported as such. Don't lock the gun up properly, and your kid finds it and shoots and kills himself? You're up on manslaughter charges, as the gun was YOUR responsibility, and you failed.


There. Anyone and everyone (except for felons and crazy people) can own as many firearms as they like, even if they are utterly irresponsible with them, they just can't keep them at home. No one who can prove they know gun safety has to take a class, and those who can't prove it, and thus would be dangerous, must GET such a class so they know what they're doing before they can put anyone at risk with their firearm(s).

I don't see how this presents any barrier for any legitimate, safe owner, nor do I consider the hoops necessary to jump through to be more than extremely minorly limiting upon the basic right, and ensures greater public safety by having provably safe gun owners, as well as stiffened penalties for those who ARE unsafe with them in practice, after deterministically proving they should know better by passing the test.

I can't see at all how this would be objectionable, honestly, no matter how much of a gun fan you are, unless for some reason you like the idea of unsafe owners....

-Arlos

^---he's a smart cookie, I tell you.

1. Rights are above authority, hence rights and not privileges.

2. The 2nd amendment is a check against tyranny. History has shown time and time again that an unarmed people are at the whims of those in power. Just because your candidate go elected today, does not mean he/she will be elected tomorrow. The fact that you are quick to jump on the "voter education" bandwagon shows just how much faith we have in our fellow man in choosing our leaders.

as staunch a gun advocate is I would support what arlos suggested. I would even add more to include Muzzle loaders, bows and crossbows, ammo reloading, having a license to purchase powder etc.

Eziekial wrote:1. Rights are above authority, hence rights and not privileges.

2. The 2nd amendment is a check against tyranny. History has shown time and time again that an unarmed people are at the whims of those in power. Just because your candidate go elected today, does not mean he/she will be elected tomorrow. The fact that you are quick to jump on the "voter education" bandwagon shows just how much faith we have in our fellow man in choosing our leaders.

I'm not jumping on the bandwagon.. it doesn't matter who got elected, I'd still feel voters need more education; don't you? Are you okay with someone voting for Obama because he's half black or voting for McCain because he has a hot VP, neither voter knowing where either candidate stands? If so, that's sad to me. I'd like to know that people are getting hired for the right reasons, and yet we have countless people who voted in the election for the very reasons I just mentioned.

The average voter knows jack and shit about what they're voting for. That's a problem. That'll be a problem whether the guy I'm gunning for wins or not. Unfortunately, it's a problem that's not likely to be answered.

Do you honestly feel that the second amendment is still necessary for a check against tyranny in today's society? Are you that frightened of our government? I think it's unfortunate that as Americans in supposedly the greatest country on earth, we fear our government more than any other first world country.

Gyps i would argue with you that just like a knife, a gun isnt allways a weapon. It is all in how you use it. Arlos what you purpose is more and more charges on gun owners. The cost would rise each year and eventually it would be to a point where it really was a luxury ( a lot of people would argue we are there now). Your brilliant gun ideas would have us in a country where the criminals were armed and the citizens at there mercy..... My wife could have stopped that dude from raping and choking her to death with her own panties but her fuckin gun was at the police station. Arlos i really do think you might be one of the smartest if not the smartest person on this board but i think your liberalism and emotions blind you on this issue.

Thanks for the kind words.

I'm curious as to what Eziekial thinks of my plan, honestly. Yes, it does slightly infringe upon the right. But no more than the right to free speech is infringed upon by the conditions I've mentioned.

I can agree with Evermore's extensions as well, including things like buying ammo as well, unless you're buying ammo to use at a gun range where your guns are stored, in which case you may do so, but you need to store any unused ammo in the same locker as your guns when you leave.

-Arlos

Eziekial wrote:1. Rights are above authority, hence rights and not privileges.

2. The 2nd amendment is a check against tyranny. History has shown time and time again that an unarmed people are at the whims of those in power. Just because your candidate go elected today, does not mean he/she will be elected tomorrow. The fact that you are quick to jump on the "voter education" bandwagon shows just how much faith we have in our fellow man in choosing our leaders.

I couldn't agree with 2 more.

I think people are WAY too complacent these days. We are almost entirely under the thumb of the government as is. Remove our rights to own guns and we might as well just rename the country.

Shit can hit the fan, and has in the past. We are not exempt from the mistakes of the past repeating themselves. I think people are forgetting that because they are so detached from the types of things Eastern Europeans, Middle Easterners, etc. are accustomed to over the past few decades. Shit happens.

out of curiosity, spazz - what else is a gun used for, if not a weapon?

a knife is used in cooking and preparing meals.. that I know. knives are used in homes every day for purposes no other tool can accomplish.

a gun has one purpose. every time it's used, it's intended to puncture the target. does it have a functional use I'm missing?

Eziekial wrote:1. Rights are above authority, hence rights and not privileges.

Where do these rights come from? An authority.
You don't have a divine right to bear arms; you have a Constitutionally defined right to bear arms.

I did not vote for a candidate that was elected at the federal level, sorry to burst your bubble there.

Sport shooting at a range?
Professional-level competitions?