Gun control - Why punish the law abiding rather than the criminals?

I drive a car on the public roadways. I demonstrated competence in operating it, registered it, and have it inspected. My Class M license also entitles me to operate a motorcycle, but I do not have a CDL license and so am not allowed to legally drive a 16-wheeler, even if I felt like it.

​

I understand and respect having to meet such requirements as a matter of public safety. If I were to start whining that I should be allowed to drive any type of vehicle anywhere because I'm a righteous individual, and that our government of, by, and for the People should exempt me and only regulate the automotive behavior of people whom the State suspects of being bad, that would be very silly.

Why should not everyone who wishes to own and operate a device that is potentially lethal be expected to show they can be trusted by society to do so?

I'm concerned about my safety, my family's, my friends', and my fellow Americans' in general, especially that of children. Why would I wish everyone to be allowed to drive without demonstrating that they can to trusted to do so safely?

 

First of all they're not "Assault Weapons", that is another BS leftist label. Nobody in the firearms industry ever referred to them as an assault weapon and calling them such is meaningless. The left attacked them because of their appearance rather than their capabilities. In fact there are many other firearms that do exactly the same thing, have the same rate of fire and capacity but they get a pass, just as deadly but not as scary looking. Citizens should be able to own any firearm they wish without interference from the hand wringers. Banning certain firearms because of a particular characteristic like the way it looks is not a good enough reason to do so. In fact there is really no good reason to ban any firearm.

 

Black and scary looking...

 

Why leave any stone unturned?

All laws "punish" the innocent.

 

Theoretical question for gun folks...

if there was a method of defense that made guns completely antiquated, would you give up your guns?

 

I'm waiting for the 2nd Coming also.

 

So that's a yes.

 

No. Guns aren't just for defense in fact they are more often used for sport than any other use. What you suggest doesn't exist and so pointless to talk about.

 

What makes you believe the U.S. would be exempt from the consequences of a leftist movement attempting to install a socialist government?

It will never happen because it has never happened before? Is this your logic?

Some on the left will argue that our constitution would shield us from such an effort, not realizing that the Second Amendment is in place just for this reason.

An ignorance of history does not excuse such poor logic...

 

I don't think it's pointless...

it just goes to show that people's obsessions with guns aren't really about self defense.

The 2nd amendment isn't about sport.

 

Well they do. Open your eyes . Assault weapons, please define .

 

So you just wanna scoop them all up correct )? Might as well just admit it already. The fat cat is out of the bag.

 

All I did was point out the fallacy that people want guns solely for self-defense and the fallacy of the 2nd Amendment.

That fat cat is out of the bag.

 

The second amendment does say that a militia is the only reason that we have a right to have guns. It gives that as a reason, but does not say that is the only reason.

 

So now the 2nd Amendment, which supposedly said it all, covers stuff it doesn't say?

Righhhhtttt.

 

I also notice these laws punish not only the sellers but also the persons who merely own one.
What's the real purpose of that?

 

It established the right. No further discussion was required. If the Constitution covered all possibilities it would take volumes rather than just pages. There are numerous rights guaranteed by the Constitution, but which are not specifically covered.

 

Regardless of the argument of whether it establishes a complete and utter right under any circumstances...

All I'm talking about is the concept of self-defense as the reason for many people's obsession in wanting or needing guns.

If it wasn't needed for self-defense, and the majority of people don't need them or want them for that....

Gun lovers would still demand "weapons of war" no matter how unreasonable..."I need a bazooka that can shoot 400 rounds per minute to blow the head off a deer".

 

Driving a truck has absolutely nothing to do with our Bill of Rights.

You might as well be talking about your 'right' to put avocado on your toast...

 

Keep in mind that a majority of the recent mass shootings were done by what technically would be labelled "law abiding citizens". Many of them had no priors and were legally entitled to buy the weapons they used for their heinous act.

Gun advocates not only conveniently forget that point, but also try to obfuscate or just downright lie about the unique firepower of assault weapons.

 

Most red flag laws are not in line with the constitution or our rule of law. If someone could come up with a way innocent people wouldn’t be hurt by them I don’t have a problem. People are hurt by having their property taken without due process and by a system where false reports are almost encouraged.

Expanded checks. I don’t even know what that means. We don’t prosecute people breaking current law I don’t see how more checks would help. And HIPPA would have to go to implement some versions. I’ve inherited a couple firearms with no check and purchased some with a NICS check. My state also requires a background check done by local LE before you can get a handgun purchase permit to buy handguns. Seems adequate to me. Never mind the laborious ridiculous process with the ATF to buy suppressors or short barreled weapons.

You haven’t defined your terms so it’s kind of hard to answer, but I use 30 rd mags a lot. For work. And I don’t shoot people. I use 30 rd AR mags when they are the best tool for the job and 20 rd mags when they are best. Any less would be analogous to governing all cars and pickups to 30 mph. You start down the road of what everyone needs or doesn’t need and pretty soon everyone ends up with two slices of bread with water twice a day. You don’t “need” much, and it’s not my business to decide what you need.

Why would you be opposed to things that would make your life more difficult and make it harder to do your job efficiently?

 

You can legally drive a semi without a CDL.

 

Are you saying there is no ban because Democrats aren't trying?

 

What is it that you want to ban?

 

If you truly want to know the facts on the right for civilians to carry firearms you have to go back in time for over 230 years. You know from the posts here that the gun nuts claim that the constitution gives them the right to carry guns. That derives from the fomentation of militias over 200 years ago so let’s see why militias were necessary to them.
First militias were formed by the British to guard the expanding boundaries of their colony which stretched from the Canadian border to the Deep South. Prior to the war of independence the seven year war against Spain was fought ending with victory for the British colony. George Washington himself was a member of a British militia and was captured by the Spanish.
Why the establishment of militias were instituted was because that the British regular troops amounted to only around 6000 which were much too small to protect the 1000s of square miles of the colony.
Also after the independence was granted, the American army was disbanded because there was no money left to support a standing army.

The idea that the conditions that faced the colonies in the late 1700s are relevant in anyway to the 21century is frankly stupid. I doubt if any of the founding fathers would approve of the measures they took over 200years ago could be taken to excuse the slaughter of today’s Americans by Americans.