Question for the "Guns are Great" folks..

Who (in your opinion) shouldn't be able to own a gun?

~Cause it sounds to me (reading the redundant gun control threads) -like most of you would happily give guns to three year olds.
(sorry a bit of sarcasm there)
Anyways serious question.

reply to post by canucks555


I would never give a gun to a 3 year old! (horrified look)

My Son was 6 before I taught him to shoot, I'll have you know. He was 10 before he got his own rifle, too.

(and no, I'm not kidding. It's par for the course and normal in this part of the country. His rifle sits in my safe, right next to mine)

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


I was shooting guns by ten, under supervision, of course

Going off of what Wrabbit said, it is important to teach children gun safety. Not give them a gun and let them go off and play with it.
and to answer your question: anyone with a violent crime on their record should not be able to own a gun.
whats your point?

Originally posted by canucks555
Who (in you're opinion) shouldn't be able to own a gun?

Government... All of them.

~Cause it sounds to me (reading the redundant gun control threads) -like most of you would happily give guns to three year olds.
Anyways serious question.

Well if I had to choose between giving my 3 year old son a gun and giving all my guns up to government (Who would then have all the guns), I'd rather him learning to shoot than watching Yo Gabagaba and becoming a indoctrinated pussy..

Felons.

The mentally ill, serious cases, to be clear.

The latter is a slippery slope, though. How mentally ill is too ill? Who decides this? I define it by if they were deemed unfit by a judge in a court of law.

I believe we all have the right to protect ourselves, our families, and our property and we shouldn't deny that right to someone without good reason.

Just my opinion..

reply to post by Banquo


My point is this:
I believe (imo) that many here's hatred towards the current U.S administration is fogging their views on gun control.

It's not (for some) about self or family protection, it's purely politics.

Originally posted by canucks555
Who (in you're opinion) shouldn't be able to own a gun?

~Cause it sounds to me (reading the redundant gun control threads) -like most of you would happily give guns to three year olds.
Anyways serious question.

edit on 2-4-2013 by canucks555 because: (no reason given)

never give a monkey a gun. Or illegal immigrants.

reply to post by canucks555


Anyone who's not part of a well regulated militia.

Any legislator that proposes any laws or regulations that would infringe upon the second amendment should not be permitted to possess firearms, nor employ any person that possesses firearms.

They should then be impeached for treason, removed from office and forced to live in Chicago as an unarmed peasant.

Criminals convicted of violent crimes. People who are legitimately mentally ill and determined as such by a nongovernment doctor (Not just anyone who has PTSD or ADHD). And blind people I guess?
As for children, 3 is too young but I had an air rifle at 8. Many kids are solid, responsible and safe firearm handlers by 10 or 11.
What I don't understand is why people who grow up in a different culture from mine feel the need to force me and mine to conform to their cultural norms by force. By men with guns of all things. Hypocrisy?

USDA agents and most police officers. Of course the right of the people to keep and bear arms can't be infringed so everyone should own a gun. As for kids, if mom and dad say ok, who am I to demand the government to interfere in that decision?

I think ownership of guns should be handled exactly as driving licences.

Yes, this means that a test should be mandatory before you are allowed to buy and operate one.

Hey what are you on about? Guns are great!!! Guns are fantastic!!! Even in the hands of true professionals they can be a great tool for really f*ing up your life.







Yep, get the guns in boys! Shoot em' up!

reply to post by SELAboy


Well from what I've read, everyone seems to be up in arms (no pun intended) about mental back ground checks.
I don't see a problem with that, but many here do. (?)

Originally posted by ZeroReady
reply to post by canucks555

 

Anyone who's not part of a well regulated militia.

Exactly!! And the only way to become well regulated is to get the tools you need. You see, in 1789 "well regulated" meant "ready" or "prepared"

Originally posted by canucks555
Who (in you're opinion) shouldn't be able to own a gun?

~Cause it sounds to me (reading the redundant gun control threads) -like most of you would happily give guns to three year olds.
Anyways serious question.

Seriously? A serious question? WHERE in ANY gun thread has anyone advocated giving guns to three-year olds? Your hyperbole betrays your attitude. You aren't serious at all. You just want to display your sarcasm. Frankly, I don't know anyone, and I've never read of anyone advocating anything anywhere close to what you suggest.

Originally posted by canucks555
reply to post by SELAboy

 

Well from what I've read, everyone seems to be up in arms (no pun intended) about mental back ground checks.
I don't see a problem with that, but many here do. (?)

Because the government can define mentally ill any way they want to. What if they decide the desire to have a gun is itself a form of mental illness?

Originally posted by ZeroReady
reply to post by canucks555

 

Anyone who's not part of a well regulated militia.

You are the militia(if you are an American citizen). And "well regulated" in the context of the time meant well armed and trained. By modern standards (Militia Act of 1903), all males eligible for Selective Service constitute the unorganized militia.
Oh, and "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is pretty clearcut. At least it certainly was by the standards of all Americans until the "progressives" of the mid 20th century decided that only elites should control firearms.