Gun Control: What Are The Limits To Your Rights?

[Xemmy]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Infringe-
1. Actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.): "infringe a copyright".
2. Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on: "infringe on his privacy".

It's pretty easy to argue that the original Second Amendment has been infringed. In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two Second Amendment decisions. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

These additional restrictions piss off a lot of constitutional purists and gun nuts. But to be fair SOME restriction is absolutely necessary. If we took the Second Amendment as literally as possible then every person in our country should have the right own a nuclear missile. I'm quite grateful that we don't have that right. But everyone's got limits. Some people think that there's no need for someone to own an Uzi, and someone having one just gives them the power to hurt more people. Others want to keep there Uzi and other military grade weapons for reasons varying from fun, protection, to the keep the power of revolution. I would argue that the latter was indeed the founding father's original intent. But we've all got limits-

What's Your Limit On Gun Control?

Are There Particular Laws That You Find Unfair, Wrong, or Any Other General Negative Adjective?

 

[klunderbunker]

Gun control is a really difficult one. I don't think there's really a right answer to it, but here's my take.

As with almost everything, it's somewhere in the middle. I have zero problem with someone owning a gun for the sake of self defense. Not a thing wrong with that. If you want to own some weapons like rifles etc, cool, have fun. However, there are some guns that there are no reason for private citizens to own. Things like automatic weapons or guns that fire a clip of 30 bullets (arbitrary number) or something like that. Yes, you may be able to handle yourself with a weapon like that, but look at the Arizona congresswoman that was shot earlier this year. Crazy dude got one at a gun show and went on a shooting rampage because he could. I want someone to tell me why that should be allowed. My guess is it'll be something like "I don't want the government taking away my FREEDOM." That seems to be the answer for people that seem to think they have freedom to do whatever so it'll likely be used at least once here.

In summation, I don't think there is any issue with people owning guns, but owning them to excess can only lead to potential problems, because there wil always be people that are unable to properly use them.

 

[Sinister Shadows]

this is a difficult one to have a clear cut decision on. there are so many types of guns out there that the average person has no logical purpose for in everyday life. but part of the reason behind it being in the constitution is to keep the people available to protect themselves if the government tries to assert too much control over the country. (which the government is slowly taking away everyone's freedom)

This is a difficult debate, i can see both sides. while i think we absolutely should have rights to have guns, i do think that regulation is a good thing, not everyone should be in possession of deadly weapons.

So i guess i'm just going to say that i'm for gun regulation, and there are gun models out there that i see no reason for average people to own... (what the hell are automatics good for other than violence?)

 

[JWGunslinger]

Firstoff thank you Xemnas for making this thread, it's a topic that I care alot about and am glad I can discuss it with all the great folks on WZ. I live in California where purchasing guns is a pain in the ass and mentioning that you enjoy recreational shooting makes you a lunatic in the general public's eyes. I've lived in both a family that frowned on anything gun related and then later in a family of shooting enthusiasts. When I lived in a family where going out to the range is a fun weekend activity, as young kids we did not get to shoot but we were taught safety and we had to be very well versed in all of the safety rules that apply to using a firearm. Now as you might imagine I believe that current gun laws are unfair, but what I want is to get rid of pointless laws and replace them with more laws that will keep things safer.

On the topic of more laws, I want to see more background checking on people who are buying a firearm. I want to make sure that people who are buying guns are sensible people who are compitent to handle something that can end a life.
Another thing that I think would be instrumental in preventing pointless accidental deaths with firearms is a class that you would be required to take if you purchase a gun. The class would go over general gun safety(keep unloaded, never point at anyone, etc...) along with safety and use of the specific gun they are getting.

What I dont like are pointless laws that were made with the intention of preventing deaths but all they do is make things harder on law abiding citizens who want to aquire a firearm for personal use. What people dont realize is that criminals are not going to go through the legel process to get a gun, there will always be ways for criminals to get these guns. Why make the good man go up against the bad guy with less firepower? Now i'm not saying let everyone have whatever they want, there definitely need to be restrictions but keep them reasonable. There definitely need to be restrictions but we dont need to be french either
I'd write more but I have some work to get done so i'll hit this and discuss with anyone on the thread later

 

[Dagger Dias]

My thoughts on gun control are that to a certain degree it is necessary. I don't support it to the extent that anyone can walk around anywhere with a gun under their coat or in their backpack. That takes it too far. However, outlawing guns completely is just as bad. What would be next, outlawing knives? People need to be able to defend themselves, and that is why I support gun rights as far as being allowed to carry your weapon on your property or in your home because then you can defend yourself and others if you get attacked at home. Gun Control ideas get taken too far. Burglars are not going to care about the legality of holding a gun when they rob you, so it hurts the victim more than the attacker to outlaw guns. They do need some control though, or else somebody would be getting shot at every street corner.

 

[WWWYKI777]

Well I think the way it is seems to work

I think making guns completely accessible and purchasable instantly over the counter with none of that checking & waiting stuff would be a horrible idea and alot of people would probably kill others , murder rates would skyrocket , it would be ridiculous

I think outlawing guns entirely in concept , it would have worked if it was from the very beggining. Problem is millions already own guns and confiscating them all would be nearly impossible. Then the ones who already own guns have an upper hand as criminals. So if guns were never legal for non military use in the 1st place I beleive it could have worked this way but since thats not the case , then no.

If guns were never legal in the 1st place (Except military use) then in that case I'd say throw in confiscation of their weapons before sending them home and that if a state of war on our own turf was ever declared then by all means legalzie guns at that point and pass them out like halloween candy so as to not be taken over. BUT like I said , this right here is only a what if guns were never legal for civilians in the 1st place so you can basically ignore this whole paragraph really.

All in all I sort of think they should have a more thorough screening process to purchase a gun , maybe throw in a lie detector test featuring questions such as "Are you affiliated with a gang?" "Do you want to kill people sometimes?" and "Do you honestly think you'd ever use this thing for any reason other than self defense?" "Do you plan to give or sell this gun to someone else?" , you know.. questions like that. Cause even though they background check and put serial numbers and stuff , doesn't mean someone who buys a gun isn't a closet-maniac or in a gang or something.

Overall the way we have gun control set up seems to mostly work , I would just like I said perhaps make a mandatory lie detector test for people to pass in order to purchase a firearm

 

[Xemmy]

A mandatory lie detector test isn't a reasonable requirement for buying firearms. Lie detectors are unreliable. I gave you the example that Charles Manson passed his without a problem. To elaborate-

A polygraph (popularly referred to as a lie detector) is an instrument that measures and records several physiological indices such as blood pressure, pulse, respiration, and skin conductivity while the subject is asked and answers a series of questions, in the belief that deceptive answers will produce physiological responses that can be differentiated from those associated with non-deceptive answers.

The problem is that polygraphs are widely rejected by the scientific community because they consider them to be bullshit. This is the reason Lie Detectors are not used in most courts. They can be beaten, but more importantly can screw people over. If you're incredibly nervous, a polygraph can make you look like a lying son of bitch.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

When it comes to gun control, I don't believe that there's anything that's going to be able to satisfy anyone. I think the idea of prohibiting people to legally own and purchase guns is a foolish idea. Most people that own guns are responsible adults that don't treat them as toys or a representation of machismo, although there are certainly those that are the exact opposite.

I've come across a couple of huge problems in my time that only seem to enforce the fears of the anti-gun crowd. One problem is that far too many gun shop owners don't bother to follow the laws and regulations that are currently on the books. Little things like mandatory waiting periods seem to be treated more as a guideline than actual laws. Some owners are more than willing to let you have your firearm right then and there for perhaps a little extra cash slipped to them under the table. A lot don't bother to check identification or get legible signatures for paperwork. Some sell guns over the internet without any type of contact whatsoever with the person or persons they're selling to. Sometimes, they'll sell a few pieces off the books here and there, do a little creative bookkeeping, muddle with their inventory lists, etc. And why should they worry when the punishment typically amounts to little more than a slap on the wrist most of the time? Guns are dangerous and they're designed to be so. Way too often, the people that have the responsibility to sell these dangerous weapons properly simply don't do what they're supposed to out of old fashioned greed, laziness, hate of gun control laws, etc.

Another huge problem are gun shows. Gun shows can be a very convenient and easy way of avoiding all the legal necessities of owning a gun altogether. I've been to a couple, out of sheer curiosity, and most of the people that had booths at those shows didn't give a damn who you were or what your past was or whatever. If you had the cash, they'd sell you a weapon. I saw people being sold guns without being asked any questions at all. No background checks, no requests to see ID, nothing whatsoever.

I've no problem with responsible people owning guns to hunt, to protect their homes, to shoot competitively with, etc. However, too many of the wrong kinds of people are able to get their hands on guns because current laws are either impotent & powerless and/or lawmakers are unwilling to create harsher penalties.

If someone wants to purchase a gun, I believe there should be a vigorous screening process that should be heavily enforced. If you want to buy a firearm, you should be willing to allow your life to be combed through with an extreme level of thoroughness. I also think it should be mandatory to take courses on gun safety and be required to pass a test, undergo background checks, the whole nine yards. Gun store owners that don't do what they're supposed to should be subject to extreme fines, possibly even the loss of their business. It simply shouldn't be as easy as ordering an Egg McMuffin & a cup of coffee from McDonald's as it is to purchase a gun.

 

[SalvIsWin]

Gun laws are something that I am inherently interested in first and foremost. I think there needs to be obvious restrictions on automatic weapons, and explosive devices - I think this is a restriction most reasonable people would be comfortable making. I don't think that a country needs to outlaw firearms for example, I think there are problems other than that which contribute to firearm violence. I think it's mostly American culture, education, etc that need to be addressed for violence to be reduced.

 

[TheNewStyle]

I think guns should be legal to own everywhere. Some people might misuse them for killing sprees or other insane reasons but the regular person wants it for self-defense purposes. One of the main reasons I want to move to the United States is to get a hold of a gun of my own choice. To avoid casualties, though, people should be asked the reason they want to own a gun. People who are truly insane will probably give away their motivations about how they plan on doing something stupid which saves some lives. But yes indeed, some guns have no other purposes than being used for crimes. Perfect example is a silenced pistol or any other gun attached with a silencer. The only reason you have a silencer there is to commit a crime and not get caught. Then other long range weapons like M16 and AKs are also weapons used for combat so maybe they can also be illegal. But personal weapons like handguns should be owned by people who's life can be in danger.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

So long as it is kept in their home, EVERYONE should have the right to own a firearm. I mean that for everyone, even for a mentally unstable individual or a convicted felon. No one should be denied the right to defend their home with deadly force, even if it comes in the form of a firearm. On the other hand, I agree that military-grade firearms shouldn't be available to the general public, but some automatic handguns should be available to them.

That being said, the only place where I disagree with avid gun rights supporters is on the issue of concealed firearms. This is a privilege that should only be given to civilians with a compelling need for it. However, I am not against concealed weapons per se; I personally have a Taser that I keep in my car and that I sometimes even keep on my person. I think it's ridiculous that some states have made owning a Taser a crime.