Don't take my guns Cons

[Crampknees]

Ok guys, set me straight if you have to, thick skin here. I don't believe anyone should take your guns and it is a right to own some but also feel nobody needs scores of them adding in AK's.  Do you need to take your AK which shoots 600 rounds a minute to drop off Brittney and Tiffany at day care?  I know tomorrow I can go purchase guns at a private store or if you need to see a selfie of me at Wal-Mart I can have two baskets full.  Guns are not being taken away.

 

The Rubik's cube to me with the cons is if guns don't kill people, people do.  Why are you pissed more people don't get more guns?  Give them to more people, isn't the guns fault. Maybe I can go on Hannity and he can slap me with his coon skin toupee.

 

Sorry for another Un-American thread. 

[nate]

[Crampknees]

Nate and Geoff always catch these early.

[TobiasFunke]

Patiently waiting for Juan Savage

[Adam]

You can only shoot one at a time anyway

[halobob]

This question would be better posed on the Rangers board.

[Crampknees]

This question would be better posed on the Rangers board.

Texas Rangers or New York Rangers?  If it is the Texas Rangers board Chuck Norris will kick my door down.  

 

I haven't gotten the outrage I was looking for yet but it is still early. 

[arch stanton]

My first thought on this is that what you are proposing will not really have the effect you want in preventing gun deaths. Prohibition, war on drugs, prostitution, etc should have taught us that you can't keep people from getting what they want. Big picture to me is that it just creates another black market run by gangsters and creates new violence without really putting a dent in the old violence. Are there really so many people carrying AK's to the A&P that it's actually a problem?

[Jason]

Automatic AKs or other guns haven't been legal in a long time, if ever.

[tdawg87]

The more guns you own, the smaller your penis is.

[arch stanton]

If gun ownership correlates to penis size where does that leave those who own none?

[mtangelsfan]

and cals is happy to use his trusty ruler whenever you ask

[BaseballMom]

Don't you mean yardstick?

[gotbeer]

The more guns you own, the smaller your penis is.

 

So untrue.  I have no guns, and....

[Jason]

So untrue.  I have no guns, and....

I don't know. I own a few and TDawg may be right.

[tdawg87]

I have 0 guns and my dick is 6.1 inches.

 

The other day at Walmart I was looking at guns and when I got home it was 5.88 inches.

 

This is just science.

[Jason]

I have 0 guns and my dick is 6.1 inches.

 

The other day at Walmart I was looking at guns and when I got home it was 5.88 inches.

 

This is just science.

Your Wal-Mart still sells guns?

[Crampknees]

Sadly I don't own a gun so don't know the penis/gun ratio.  I could figure out an IF statement, maybe.

 

I do have a laser sight I can attach down there. Great fun at pool parties and the beach. 

[juansavage1]

Patiently waiting for Juan Savage

The problem is discussing the topic in good faith. I think most gun owners are fine with keeping guns away from people who have a history of violence and mental illness.

Some of the regulations make no sense to gun owners and because of this, they may suspect that it's an attempt to restrict guns just because some people don't like guns.

And, you must admit that there are some people who don't think people should have guns. These facts combine to create a little defensiveness in some people.

[gotbeer]

Since this thread is obviously not getting the attention it deserves.  

 

What do people think about having all gun owners licensed?  Say like a drivers license type situation.  

 

For handguns/shotguns (pretty much home defense type stuff) you would need a basic license.  Which includes a written test to show competency in using, storing, maintaining your gun.  And a firearm test, to show that you at least have some competency of shooting the gun, including the use of the safety, and other basic uses.  

 

Then you would have higher levels of a license for more powerful type guns, which includes a mental and physical eval depending on the class of gun.  

 

Of course background checks that are in place now would be involved on all levels.  

 

Then when you want to buy ammo or a gun, you would show a license, it would get verified, and away you go.  Similar to 21 and over for alcohol, for buying ammo, although you would only be able to buy ammo for the class level of gun you are approved for.  

 

Just a thought.

[juansavage1]

I think a background check is fine and we have mandatory safety classes.

If it's a license like a car, then there's a philosophical difference because driving is a privilege not a right, right?

Many gun owners don't trust the intentions of people who want licensing. Why? Because the same philosophy that drives vociferous anti gun people here drives people in places without any gun ownership at all. It's a legitimate suspicion.

I don't think guns are a right in the natural sense, but self defense is so taking guns away wouldn't be immoral in itself.

I think it's more desirable to have an armed public because an an armed public is more independent and less gay.

[mtangelsfan]

Since this thread is obviously not getting the attention it deserves.  

 

What do people think about having all gun owners licensed?  Say like a drivers license type situation.  

 

For handguns/shotguns (pretty much home defense type stuff) you would need a basic license.  Which includes a written test to show competency in using, storing, maintaining your gun.  And a firearm test, to show that you at least have some competency of shooting the gun, including the use of the safety, and other basic uses.  

 

Then you would have higher levels of a license for more powerful type guns, which includes a mental and physical eval depending on the class of gun.  

 

Of course background checks that are in place now would be involved on all levels.  

 

Then when you want to buy ammo or a gun, you would show a license, it would get verified, and away you go.  Similar to 21 and over for alcohol, for buying ammo, although you would only be able to buy ammo for the class level of gun you are approved for.  

 

Just a thought.

 

Here is the big difference as I see it.  Driving is a privilege, gun ownership is a right.  I do not see a connection between the two of them at all.

 

This is what I struggle with and arch touched on it.  If history has told us anything about the U.S., the moment you make something "illegal" is the moment you open yourself up to entire new avenues of crime.  Also, seems like every time the government wants to take our rights away, it is in the name of being safer.  That really hasn't worked out for us too much either. 

[Crampknees]

The problem is discussing the topic in good faith. I think most gun owners are fine with keeping guns away from people who have a history of violence and mental illness.

Some of the regulations make no sense to gun owners and because of this, they may suspect that it's an attempt to restrict guns just because some people don't like guns.

And, you must admit that there are some people who don't think people should have guns. These facts combine to create a little defensiveness in some people.

This is a good point Juan.  I have never said no guns but have restrictions.  Part of my tom-foolery starting this thread was the ones I worry about are those that think their guns are being taken.  Now while this group at AW I do not include in this theory, there are still millions of one-toothed Juniors out there. This has become a mania and you need more because you think they are being taken but you couldn't get more if they are being taken, could you?  Is it not the ultimate circle jerk logic?

[arch stanton]

Who would create the standards for licensing and who would judge the competency? Same with psychological evaluation. Bottom line is that proactivity doesn't jibe with free society. It's unfortunate that you find out after the fact that someone has abused his ownership but even with licensing cars and drivers and creating laws preventing them from being used under the influence, etc, they still kill more people than guns.

[Crampknees]

Agree Arch, You can never police abuse of ownership.  NRA could make it so better standards were in place for licensing.  Really are not very high standards in their playbook.  Standards are not taking away rights.  I still have to stop at a red light because there was a standard.

 

 

But all this aside, Trump has my vote coming up.  I can get the anti-aircraft launcher and when you look in the sight it is just a video of his head, "fire or your'e fired".