Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
First, if you don't know by now, I am a liberal, and a member of the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party.
Second, I am a gun owner, I do not hunt, and the gun that own is a high capacity semi-automatic. I also hold a concealed weapons permit and I carry a firearm either on my person or in my car on a somewhat regular basis.
Third, I have always believed in the individual right to keep and bear arms.
Fourth, I also believe that, like Justice Scalia - I can't believe that I am saying this - stated in Heller, "
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
So, having said all of that that, is it possible to have a civil reasonable discussion about reasonable restrictions on guns.
If your position is that the 2nd Amendment is absolute, we've heard your arguments and this is not the thread to restate them.
If your position is that all guns, should be prohibited or that only guns for hunting should be allowed, this is not the thread for you either.
So what restrictions would be reasonable, and where do we find gaps in those restrictions that are in place?
I'm a liberal. I do not own nor "like" guns. I used to be extremely anti-gun. But after a few debates online and with my husband, I have relaxed my views a bit.
IMO, I grudgingly believe that the citizens of the country must have access to the same guns that the government does. Isn't the point (at least partly) of the Second Amendment the idea that the government shouldn't "bear arms" over it's citizens?
So what restrictions would be reasonable, and where do we find gaps in those restrictions that are in place?
Thorough, effective background checks before purchasing. It seems fairly simple, theoretically, to find the gaps here. It may be a good idea if people could demonstrate they actually knew how to use a gun as well.
I live on the Border, I know Gabby Giffords and supported her re-election. I carry a gun every day.
The mental health """Professionals""" always act like you can legislate away crazy.
Obviously this man was a Danger to Self or Others, the criteria for reporting, but he was not reported. Even if he had been reported the State of Arizona is a year behind reporting potential risks so he still might not have been reported in time for WALMART to turn down his purchase.
Face it, when it comes to Health Care or public safety in Arizona we are on our own
I would like to see a way to weed out the mentally ill from purchasing guns or ammo, but I don't trust the gov.(state or fed) to not abuse this and use it to ban guns.
I hunt with rifles, shotguns, muzzle loaders and pistols. I also shoot as a hobby. I also open carry where ever it is legal in my state.
It is my belief that there are plenty of gun and ammo laws on the books, Federal and State, today to deal with current modern weapons. Albeit too many and too restrictive in my opinion.
Knee jerk policies that are and will be proposed because of this recent tragedy in AZ are worthless. Law abiding gun owners do not need to be restricted by laws that are unenforceable on criminals or the mental ill.
In my opinion the only gaps are in enforcement of current laws.
I would like to see a way to weed out the mentally ill from purchasing guns or ammo, but I don't trust the gov.(state or fed) to not abuse this and use it to ban guns.
bill
As I said, even if the mental health people had decided he was a """Danger to Self or Others"""" and even if they had completed the paperwork to have him banned, the State is over a year behind in submitting those reports so that the store owner would recieve the flag to his purchase
I would like to see a way to weed out the mentally ill from purchasing guns or ammo, but I don't trust the gov.(state or fed) to not abuse this and use it to ban guns.
bill
I find that statement offensive and a real broad statement because I am considered a person of mental illness. I have never thought or acted to kill someone in my life and that would weed me out from ever having a firearm. I am afraid of guns, though I do own some.
I am not very well versed in the argument about owning firearms; however, I believe that license to carry through the gun classes do very little to manage firearms. People who intend to use guns in crime will very likely not take the class, they do not want to be registered through the law in a database.
The reasons people have firearms (not including murderers and the like)
are for sport and for protection. I am not in favor of banning firearms from the general public. A public that can not defend itself is at the mercy from criminals and other entities of fear.
The problem is that the judicial system does not deal with crimes through and by firearms in a manner that deters people from firearm crimes. There in is the answer. Not to ban guns but to render punishment severely enough to deter firearm crimes. Now, do not say 'but what about those people wrongly convicted'. That also does not lie in legislation but in the judicial system.
I find that statement offensive and a real broad statement because I am considered a person of mental illness. I have never thought or acted to kill someone in my life and that would weed me out from ever having a firearm. I am afraid of guns, though I do own some.
I am not very well versed in the argument about owning firearms; however, I believe that license to carry through the gun classes do very little to manage firearms.,,,,,,,,
Well, one of the few questions on the forms in most states when buying a new firearm is if you have ever experienced mental illness. Automatic disqualifier.
Also you can not possess firearms if under a restraining order, have to relocate them.
Really for all concerned. Very few firearms owned by lawful citizens are ever involved in violence. Problem is the ownership by criminals. Back in the 80's here in CA we had a shooting that started our restricted laws. In the incident the criminal had just bought the weapon in OR and brought it in the state to use..
No one needs an assault rifle with 30 round magazines. They should be banned.
No one needs silencers, uzis, or fully automatic weapons. Yes, I am aware the hoops one must jump through to obtain those weapons, but regardless, NO ONE should have one. They should be banned.
There is no practical use for a citizen owning those weapons. They are not used for hunting.
Target shooting? Find something else to shoot with.
Collecting? You don't need it.
Gun shows need to require the same background checks as every other place. All states need to regulate person-to-person transactions of weapons.
I am fine with the rest of the laws in place.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
