gun control?

if democrats have not determined that "gun control" is a losing issue they need to check their polls again. what dems need to control is not guns, but the message.

i am not interested in sending black helicopters into the hinterlands to grab the guns of law abiding citizens. the utopia where armed force is unimaginable is a long way off.

we do, however, need to control several classes of persons. these people do not need guns for any lawful purpose and their access to arms places themselves and their neighbors into danger. their guns need to be taken by competent authority.

we know that felons are not allowed to own firearms, and their possession of same is grounds for revoking parole or even harsher penalties.

we know that it was illegal, even in revolutionary times, to sell or distribute guns to certain classes of person : slaves or native americans, for example.

we know that it has been illegal to enter certain areas with a weapon. crossing the "dead line" in dodge city without handing your gun to the marshal carried an immediate death sentence,

i could list several "red flags" that should entail permanent or temporary loss of the right to keep and bear arms. in every case these should be thought as regulating people, not the guns. if a cowboy did not want to hand his sidearm to wyatt earp he could always stay out on the range.

 

The state should have to prove you are a dangerous person through commission of a felony. If you get your voting rights back you should get your gun rights back.

 

should you?

there are many schizophrenic's who walk our streets listening to voices. is commission of a felony really necessary to "prove" that they could be "ordered" by those voices to kill? i will grant that some sort of judicial ruling, at a local level, should be necessary.

 

We have laws against murder or using a gun in the act of a felony. We don't need more laws, we need stiffer penalties. Liberal judges and liberal politicians will always try to control law-abiding citizens with more laws while showing compassion for the criminal and human predator.

 

Very few mass shooters expect not to be punished - most expect it to end with their death in some crazed
"blaze of glory". Stiffer penalties would not deter such people. Many gun deaths are crimes of passion, unreasoned
anger or mental illness - stiffer penalties do not deter such crimes.

 

Chicago and Detroit are proof that gun control doesn't work. There's not much they can do about the 200 million guns and billions of rounds of ammo that are already in circulation either.

 

The end result of our idiotic non existent gun laws can be seen in Atlanta and the killing of 8 people. The gunman bought his gun and ammo the day of his killing spree. The same day we had a 13 year old kill his 12 year old sister when the mother asked the son to retrieve her gun from her car, on the way in he shot and killed his sister. We live in a perpetual war zone in America.

 

Taking away my gun would also not deter such people. I say hang 'em at sunrise in the town square. That might make at least one unreasoned angered person think twice. Fear is a great motivator.

 

And let 'em swing there till the rope rots.

 

Said every overthrown dictator ever ... fear it has its limits, and sometimes it just plain old boomerangs.

 

in chicago and detroit if a cop stops a gang member for questioning, and finds a gun, he can take the gun and press charges. do you know how many murders are prevented by this policy? maybe you are expecting perfection rather than a marginal improvement.

 

They have strict gun laws in Chicago. Eight fatal gunshots are not even noticed.

769 gun homicides in Chicago in 2020 and no one even pays any attention.

 

Correct, felons are not allowed to own a gun. So what's your issue here?

Slaves were not considered people and Native Americans were not considered citizens, but foreigners.

This was before the 14th Amendment incorporated the BoR's to the rest of the States.

Today, due to the 2nd Amendment being incorporated thanks to the 14th Amendment, Wyatt Earp would not be able to enforce such an edict. In fact if he did try he would be sued. If he shot someone because of it, he would be tried for murder.

 

You obviously have never been a part of any war zone. You disrespect those that have been.

 

Lol, I've spent a lot of times in warzones. Sorry, but we live in a paradise.

 

my point is that the 2nd amendment is no more absolute than the 1st, the 4th, or the 8th and that its application may be modified for the good of the nation as a whole.

 

The only times Rights do not apply is when they interfere with another persons Rights....ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS. <----capitalized to stress the importance. Hence why libel/slander laws are on a per person basis. (1st amendment) That is why a warrant is required for each and every single instance of searching a house (unless the violation of anothers right is immediate, then probable cause applies...but still on an individual basis) (4th Amendment) Also why bails are individualized based on an individual's history and crime in question. (8th Amendment)

Like the old saying goes: My Rights end at the tip of your nose. This is why Rights are not absolute. Because other people have Rights. Interfering with an innocent persons Rights is not something that the Government has the power to do.

 

At least do something to make me feel like I don't need to arm myself; stiffer penalties, restrained government

 

With at least 100 shot and killed every day and over 200 wounded, those are WAR ZONE numbers.

 

Get a dog or a sense of personal responsibility for your own defense.

 

then you understand that i am talking about removing guns from INDIVIDUALS diagnosed and treated for mental disease or other qualifying INDIVIDUAL conditions?

also sounds like you agree that there is no right not to mask in a situation where you might infect my nose?

 

As long as due process is done first, cool. Stripping any civil rights from any citizen outside of due process is unconstitutional (unlawful).

 

That would be places like Venezuela and El Salvadore, where guns are illegal and the people would happily trade our occassional gun tragedies for the far more numerous ones they suffer at the hands of cartels, gangs, vigilantes and their own murderous govts.

 

Depends on what you mean by "other qualifying INDIVIDUAL conditions". As for those mentally unfit...its already illegal for them to have a gun.

People have a Right to bodily autonomy. There is no right for you to be protected from other people's germs/viruses. Such a Right would not only be impossible to enforce, and even trying to would be tyrannical.

Note: I wear masks. So am obviously not against them and believe them to be beneficial. If you're wearing your mask, washing your hands regularly, keeping your hands away from your face, practicing social distancing, then you should have no worries about getting infected by by those that are not. But you have to do all of those things. Not just one. IIRC 70 percent of those that have been affected were wearing masks...but didn't do anything else.

Also, you are responsible for your own safety, no one else. Not even cops are legally obligated to help someone in danger.

 

concealed carry, wit permit, is allowed in venezuela. about the same as louisiana.

el salvadore issues firearms licenses.