If not all people should have guns, who should have guns exactly?

I have a question to ardent gun control advocates.

If not all people should be allowed to have guns, who should have guns exactly?

Please explain in detail. What qualifications should a person have to have to be allowed to have/use one. Should security guards be allowed to have one? What sort of situations should people be allowed to have one in? Who should be put in charge of deciding?

Please tell what you really believe, what you would do if you were made supreme dictator and could come up with any law you wanted.
(I'm not buying the argument that you only want just a few more "reasonable regulations", we all know that's a thinly veiled facade)

 

if one can have a gun, any free American should be able too... even ex-felons that have done their time

it's the same as free speech and religion

 

Let me just put it out there, to get it out of the way, I'm okay restricting the rights of those that have been found guilty of murder, robbery, and rape in cases where it was very strong evidence and it wasn't just the testimony of one woman.

That's not really what this thread discussion is trying to focus on, however.

There are gun control proponents who believe very large swaths of the public, or even most of the public, should not have one and that ownership should be mostly illegal.

 

The mentally ill should not have guns. Anyone ever diagnosed with schizophrenia in particular should be barred for life from owning a gun.

 

My argument isn't about who should or shouldn't have guns. My argument is what type of guns should be allowed. Keep in mind, when the Constitution was written an expert rifleman could probably get off two shots in one minute. I'm sure the Constitution would have been worded differently if our founding fathers knew about today's capabilities.

 

Meet the "duck foot pistol"


The Duck Foot Pistol. source


And the early Puckle Gun (i.e. machine gun)





The Founding Fathers were well aware that firearms would become deadlier as time progressed.

It is additionally noteworthy that citizens owned firearms that were identical to those issued to the military.


Photos from:
https://www.thevintagenews.com/2016...firearms-with-wildly-unusual-characteristics/

 

Yeah, the Puckle was capable of shooting 9 shots per minute. I could shot a S & W Chief Special a lot faster than that.

 

Maybe, maybe not. Since I can't read the minds of the living I'm not going to try it with those of the dead. One thing is sure, while the Founders had issues with "cruel and unusual punishments" they had none with the timely execution of those sentenced to such. I'll make a stretch and imagine if the Founders were around today 1/3 would have been shot down in the streets, 1/3 would be beneath a Federal prison, and the remaining third underground fomenting another revolution. I don't believe they'd think much of us.

 

Guns should be allowed only for defense or hunting, not to attack other people.
Every gun owner should be checked for his or her psychological suitability.

 

My point was that the Founding Fathers would not have worded the 2nd Amendment any differently as you claimed since they knew that more advanced firearms were a certainty of the future.

By the way, Napoleon's infantrymen were expected to be able to fire three shots in a minute (1) and the first revolver was made in 1597 (1)



(1) "9 Oldest Guns in the World"
https://www.oldest.org/technology/guns/

4. Georg von Reichwein’s Revolver
Year Created: 1597
Country of Origin: Nuremburg, Germany
Gunsmith: Hans Stopler

 

George Washington would have been tickled pink, had every potential militiaman and frontiersman an AR15 over their fireplace.
Thus, the claim you are sure of has no rational basis.

 

I am too, but that happens during sentencing, the longer we want a murderer not to have a gun, the longer we sentence them... I say LWOP

 

Then why do most all gun control efforts fail to take that into account, and not make exceptions for old style technologies?

It seems obvious that that rationale is not really the rationale that is driving these gun control measures.

Perhaps an argument for a separate thread.

 

I'm sorry, that is the most ignorant comment I've ever heard. What does that even mean? What type of "attack other people" are you envisioning? Isn't that already very much illegal? (murder, attempted murder, deadly assault, etc)


Edit: Apologies for criticizing your response. I asked for your genuine opinions and you're giving them to us.

 

Oh, and how exactly do you check that?

 

An additional and most popular use for firearms is the many different forms of sport/target shooting that are sanctioned by the United States Practical Shooting Organization (USPSA), International Defensive Pistol Association (IDPA), the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) and other popular organizations such as the Olympic International Shooting Sports Foundation.

Target / sport shooting can be as informal as a relaxing afternoon of friends shooting at targets or as formal as highly competitive Olympic shooting that includes pistols, rifles and shotguns.

Of course personal defense and hunting are other legitimate uses for firearms but to be effective at either one has to practice, practice, practice.

Re:

I agree that the violently mentally ill should be prevented from possessing firearms. Before buying a firearm from a licensed gun dealer, one is required to reveal any history of mental illness or forced incarceration in a psychiatric facility. These episodes should show up on the background check that is required in most states.

My only concern about further checking for psychological suitability are potential abuses by government officials who simply feel that wanting a firearm is itself an indication of psychological unsuitability. It then becomes the responsibility of the buyer to prove that he is not psychologically unsuitable which is an impossible task when faced with government officials who oppose the 2nd Amendment and feel that a disarmed society is a safer society.

Even a cursory knowledge of history shows that disarming the citizens of a country is among the first steps toward reprehensible Fascism / Totalitarianism and since too many Americans seem eager to surrender their hard won Rights for the illusion of Security, I'm afraid that's the direction this country is headed.

Many are pressuring Biden to enact more gun control laws via "Executive Order"(2) and, therefore, bypass the legislative process altogether. If he does so, Americans can be certain that we are, indeed, well on the way to the same despicable Fascism that too many have died to oppose so far from home.

Yes, it can happen here.




(1) "Different Types of Competition Shooting"
https://schooloftrades.edu/different-types-of-competition-shooting/

EXCERPT "The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) states that 19 million plus Americans safely invest their time in target practice. They use handguns, shotguns and rifles. Some of this is for fun and much of it is for competitive shooting. Practice makes perfect." CONTINUED


(2) "Biden considering gun control executive orders, Psaki says"
https://nypost.com/2021/03/23/biden-considering-gun-control-executive-orders-psaki-says/

 

Not I do that. It's a job for professionals who understand mental conditions more than average people.

 

There are crazy guys who go to a neighbor or so, to blow his head off because his lawnmower is too loud. Don't say this never happened. These are exactly those people who should never have firearms.

 

Everyone. Every US citizen who wishes to own one and has the means should have one.
We would be a much more polite society. Violent Crime against others would be almost non existent if a perp knew most everyone was armed.

 

So you believe the criminally insane will obey gun laws?

Mentally ill is too broad of a term. Many fought for our country and returned home with PTSD. Do we deny them the very rights they risked their lives defending?

 

The people who sell them their guns are the ones who need to obey the laws and I don't care if you have the CMH hanging around your neck. If you are nutz you are nutz.

 

Liberals only.

 

Many killers passed their background check and bought their guns while others were denied their purchase because they have the same name as a criminal. Those who know they will fail a bk check will buy from other criminals of have their cousin buy it for them.

These failed laws only affect law abiding citizens and provide killers with easy victims.

 

Bet your arse . A victim of a gun crime doesn’t care how a mentally ill person got that way.

 

So you're defending snatching away gun rights from veterans with PTSD who try to get help for their problem?!

I bet if you did that, fewer of them would seek out help, and probably the suicide rate would go up. Not that your side would care...