So, a high rate of gun violence probably points to severe societal problems.
Yes.
In that case, would it not be responsible to make the access to guns more difficult to reduce the tendency to solve these problems at gunpoint?
The problem there is that it won't really work. We'd switch to knives and bats to solve disagreements. It might make spree killings harder, but those are so far into the minority to not be much of a factor here.
Furtheremore, there are a LOT of guns in the country, and they won't go away if banned. Even if all guns were made illegal in the US, any criminal who wanted one would be able to get one. All gun control here would do is disarm those who actually obey the law.
Same goes for carrying concealed weapons. But criminals don't care and drive and carry regardless. that should not be a reflection on law abiding people.Again, try to understand this, a car is far more capable of mass death than any handgun and no one tries to restrict them, no one cares about the guy driving around.Um, also, there's this thing, Citizen R, it's called a driver's license, and, if you drive without one you can go to jail.
So, then, someone does try to restict the operation of motor vehicles, right?
I get the point and see why any legislation in that area is not easy. Still, is it outrageous to suggest that a 200+ year old legislation might be in need of revision?To Americans, the bill of rights isn't just a law that was passed by our 'first' legislature: Its the ten commandments given to our nation by its patron saints during our founding mytholgy. It has all the force of a holy writ as well as the sanction of law. Re- interpreting it to be more reasonable in a day of automatic weaponry is tricky, abolishing it would be blasphemy.
Federal courts have, however, consistently rejected an individual right(s) interpretation of the 2nd amendment. Gun enthusiasts don't like to talk about this, despite their claims of fervent belief in our system and in the rule of law. Not surprisingly, most "gun people" feel that the Constitution happens to mean precisely what they want it to mean.
|
So, then, someone does try to restict the operation of motor vehicles, right?Same goes for carrying concealed weapons. But criminals don't care and drive and carry regardless. that should not be a reflection on law abiding people.Again, try to understand this, a car is far more capable of mass death than any handgun and no one tries to restrict them, no one cares about the guy driving around.Um, also, there's this thing, Citizen R, it's called a driver's license, and, if you drive without one you can go to jail.
And most states already have rules to register, beg permission to buy, and special licencing to carry guns. What more do you want?
|
|
Federal courts have, however, consistently rejected an individual right(s) interpretation of the 2nd amendment. Gun enthusiasts don't like to talk about this, despite their claims of fervent belief in our system and in the rule of law. Not surprisingly, most "gun people" feel that the Constitution happens to mean precisely what they want it to mean.I get the point and see why any legislation in that area is not easy. Still, is it outrageous to suggest that a 200+ year old legislation might be in need of revision?To Americans, the bill of rights isn't just a law that was passed by our 'first' legislature: Its the ten commandments given to our nation by its patron saints during our founding mytholgy. It has all the force of a holy writ as well as the sanction of law. Re- interpreting it to be more reasonable in a day of automatic weaponry is tricky, abolishing it would be blasphemy.
Much like the first is used for whatever they want. And the other side for what THEY want.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Federal courts have, however, consistently rejected an individual right(s) interpretation of the 2nd amendment. Gun enthusiasts don't like to talk about this, despite their claims of fervent belief in our system and in the rule of law. Not surprisingly, most "gun people" feel that the Constitution happens to mean precisely what they want it to mean.I get the point and see why any legislation in that area is not easy. Still, is it outrageous to suggest that a 200+ year old legislation might be in need of revision?To Americans, the bill of rights isn't just a law that was passed by our 'first' legislature: Its the ten commandments given to our nation by its patron saints during our founding mytholgy. It has all the force of a holy writ as well as the sanction of law. Re- interpreting it to be more reasonable in a day of automatic weaponry is tricky, abolishing it would be blasphemy.
Well the Supreme Court said it does, so I guess those lower courts now have to change their tune.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well the Supreme Court said it does, so I guess those lower courts now have to change their tune.Federal courts have, however, consistently rejected an individual right(s) interpretation of the 2nd amendment. Gun enthusiasts don't like to talk about this, despite their claims of fervent belief in our system and in the rule of law. Not surprisingly, most "gun people" feel that the Constitution happens to mean precisely what they want it to mean.I get the point and see why any legislation in that area is not easy. Still, is it outrageous to suggest that a 200+ year old legislation might be in need of revision?To Americans, the bill of rights isn't just a law that was passed by our 'first' legislature: Its the ten commandments given to our nation by its patron saints during our founding mytholgy. It has all the force of a holy writ as well as the sanction of law. Re- interpreting it to be more reasonable in a day of automatic weaponry is tricky, abolishing it would be blasphemy.
Federal has never liked challenges to it's control by anything so big surprise
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And most states already have rules to register, beg permission to buy, and special licencing to carry guns. What more do you want?So, then, someone does try to restict the operation of motor vehicles, right?Same goes for carrying concealed weapons. But criminals don't care and drive and carry regardless. that should not be a reflection on law abiding people.Again, try to understand this, a car is far more capable of mass death than any handgun and no one tries to restrict them, no one cares about the guy driving around.Um, also, there's this thing, Citizen R, it's called a driver's license, and, if you drive without one you can go to jail.
What do I want? I want you to admit that the bolded portion is a stupid thing to say.
As for gun control, I'm against it.
|
|
And most states already have rules to register, beg permission to buy, and special licencing to carry guns. What more do you want?So, then, someone does try to restict the operation of motor vehicles, right?Same goes for carrying concealed weapons. But criminals don't care and drive and carry regardless. that should not be a reflection on law abiding people.Again, try to understand this, a car is far more capable of mass death than any handgun and no one tries to restrict them, no one cares about the guy driving around.Um, also, there's this thing, Citizen R, it's called a driver's license, and, if you drive without one you can go to jail.
What do I want? I want you to admit that the bolded portion is a stupid thing to say.
As for gun control, I'm against it.
Stupid how, i can go out right now and buy any car i want, i have to go through hoops to buy a handgun.
Because there are all kinds of restrictions surrounding the use of motor vehicles.
Because there are all kinds of restrictions surrounding the use of motor vehicles.And all kinds on the use of firearms, your point?
My point is that you stated, and I quote, "A car is far more capable of mass death than any handgun and no one tries to restrict them."
When, in fact, there are all kinds of restrictions around motor vehicles.
|
|
Because there are all kinds of restrictions surrounding the use of motor vehicles.And all kinds on the use of firearms, your point?My point is that you stated, and I quote, "A car is far more capable of mass death than any handgun and no one tries to restrict them."
When, in fact, there are all kinds of restrictions around motor vehicles.
They can be purchased with no restriction. people do not try to keep vehicles out of areas with crowds nearby but all sort of restriction on where legal licensed gun holders can carry. Maybe i should have worded better than no restrictions but VERY few in comparison. Still easier to get and use for that purpose than any handgun
Laws tend to be all or nothing things. You are allowed or not allowed to do soemthing. Laws with a bunch of caveats are even harder to enforce and clog up bureaucrasy and also usually do little toward the purpose they have been written. We have many laws like this.
The second anmendment says US citizens may keep and bear arms. So any law that would be passed would have to be very carefully worded, or be repealed due to being unconstitutional. I can understand why a foreigner would have trouble with our legislative process :)As to whether or not those criminals would have had access to guns, you'd have to ask yourself whether criminals would obey any gun legislation in the first place.
In fairness, it isn't that simple. More restrictive laws would make it harder to get guns illegally. Whether or not a given criminal would still have managed it is unknowable.
In any event, until those who wish to make gun ownership illegal can amend the Constitution, the point is moot. "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed" is pretty clear.
So, a high rate of gun violence probably points to severe societal problems.Yes.
In that case, would it not be responsible to make the access to guns more difficult to reduce the tendency to solve these problems at gunpoint?The problem there is that it won't really work. We'd switch to knives and bats to solve disagreements. It might make spree killings harder, but those are so far into the minority to not be much of a factor here.
Not much of a factor, eh? I think the families of those killed in said spree killings would disagree. But I guess they are just acceptable collateral damage so people can get their shiny cool guns.
Furtheremore, there are a LOT of guns in the country, and they won't go away if banned. Even if all guns were made illegal in the US, any criminal who wanted one would be able to get one. All gun control here would do is disarm those who actually obey the law.
Yup, like the guy who just legally purchased all the weapons he used to kill 12 people.
And gun control =/= a complete ban on guns. It's a straw man argument.
OTOH, it's kind of funny, in a sick way, but...
I posted an article to NH crime stats frome earlier this year that got deleted from the other spree-killing thread and at least two of the killings were vehicular homicides.
I still blame people from Massachusetts.
|
|
So, a high rate of gun violence probably points to severe societal problems.Yes.
In that case, would it not be responsible to make the access to guns more difficult to reduce the tendency to solve these problems at gunpoint?The problem there is that it won't really work. We'd switch to knives and bats to solve disagreements. It might make spree killings harder, but those are so far into the minority to not be much of a factor here.Not much of a factor, eh? I think the families of those killed in said spree killings would disagree. But I guess they are just acceptable collateral damage so people can get their shiny cool guns.
Furtheremore, there are a LOT of guns in the country, and they won't go away if banned. Even if all guns were made illegal in the US, any criminal who wanted one would be able to get one. All gun control here would do is disarm those who actually obey the law.Yup, like the guy who just legally purchased all the weapons he used to kill 12 people.
And gun control =/= a complete ban on guns. It's a straw man argument.
If i want lots dead i would go fire, bomb or car. A gun is low on the list of choices for high body count. But it is plain this is about your hate of guns.
|
on the list of choices for high body count. But it is plain this is about your hate of guns.
And freedom!
Unless you are gay, then you got to do all them thing that Jesus said about not being queer. You know, all of those thing Jesus said about homosexuality...
Or...perhaps we realize that much like my 11 month old daughter probably shouldn't have legos quite yet, perhaps there should be some reasonable criteria about who can and who cannot, purchase, say assault rifles.
Maybe, and this is just me, it would be a bad idea to allow someone who is declared dangerous (as Cho was) to buy a firearm because he went to a state without the check. Or perhaps someone heavily medicated (when he took them...Hi Jared Loughner) shouldn't be able to walk into a gun shop and pick up a glock.
Now we can all create strawmen, or we can actually say "Isn't it completely reasonable to put some kind of restriction on people with serious mental illness purchasing guns?"
I mean, seriously. Who is for people who have been identified as dangerously mentally ill buying guns?
|
|
A lot of people really hate the idea of the nanny state. If you are not my biological father, your are invited to stay out of my business - and my business is buying guns and having a good time with them.
Or...perhaps we realize that much like my 11 month old daughter probably shouldn't have legos quite yet, perhaps there should be some reasonable criteria about who can and who cannot, purchase, say assault rifles.
And if you are so crazy that therapists don't think you should be armed, you don't get to legally buy guns in the same way that if they guy at the MVA says you fail the eye test, you can't legally drive a car.
Only a gun is more dangerous and a licensed therapist is much better trained.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, if you don't like the nanny state, get solar panels (hand delivered, because that is the nanny postal service) , dig a well, stay off public roads (which will make it hard to get to the solar panels...also pay full price since you don't like subsidies...).
In short, the "nanny state" is why you aren't living like they live in Somalia.
But keep the dream of the myth...we don't need vaccines either I bet...
A lot of people really hate the idea of the nanny state. If you are not my biological father, your are invited to stay out of my business - and my business is buying guns and having a good time with them.
Or...perhaps we realize that much like my 11 month old daughter probably shouldn't have legos quite yet, perhaps there should be some reasonable criteria about who can and who cannot, purchase, say assault rifles.
And you don't think someone's ability to buy guns should depend rather directly on what they mean when they say "have fun with them"?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And you don't think someone's ability to buy guns should depend rather directly on what they mean when they say "have fun with them"?A lot of people really hate the idea of the nanny state. If you are not my biological father, your are invited to stay out of my business - and my business is buying guns and having a good time with them.
Or...perhaps we realize that much like my 11 month old daughter probably shouldn't have legos quite yet, perhaps there should be some reasonable criteria about who can and who cannot, purchase, say assault rifles.
Edit: Speaking honestly, as someone who was taught how to use guns by my father, wanting to have fun with them rather than knowing how to use them responsibly is what I consider a warning sign, no insult.
Hm; guess I should have said "reply" there. :P
|
|
I'm being sarcastic mostly. I've never shot one.And you don't think someone's ability to buy guns should depend rather directly on what they mean when they say "have fun with them"?A lot of people really hate the idea of the nanny state. If you are not my biological father, your are invited to stay out of my business - and my business is buying guns and having a good time with them.
Or...perhaps we realize that much like my 11 month old daughter probably shouldn't have legos quite yet, perhaps there should be some reasonable criteria about who can and who cannot, purchase, say assault rifles.
Edit: Speaking honestly, as someone who was taught how to use guns by my father, wanting to have fun with them rather than knowing how to use them responsibly is what I consider a warning sign, no insult.
Hm; guess I should have said "reply" there. :P
I have. My family is one generation removed from the hills of West By God Virginia and it is 100% a right of passage to be taught firearm safety and to use a firearm (generally starting with a .22) and I have chewed out city folk who don't get the fact that if you are from the country, the police ain't coming until long past when they could have done any good.
So I get it.
At the same time, crazy drunk ass rednecks who shouldn't be allowed to have guns are part of why reasonable law abiding citizens do need guns.
I wish we could get to a point where the discussion of regulating who can have guns, or at least some types of guns, would be tempered with the understanding that it is completely reasonable for someone to want not just firearms, but powerful firearms capable of serious lethal applications.
Because some places are so rural that you actually are effectively a militia, for all the good calling 911 will do you.
On the other hand, if you live in New York or a major metro area where the cops can get there in minutes, you don't want them to be outgunned when they arrive.
Either way, we should all agree crazy people shouldn't have guns.
Arguing against that is just ridiculous, IMHO.
Either way, we should all agree crazy people shouldn't have guns.
Arguing against that is just ridiculous, IMHO
We are arguing about what you mean by "crazy". This is not a scientific term, so we have no idea what you mean by it. Someone that is diagnosed with depression? Postpartum (which another form of depression)? Combat stress reaction? Bi-Polar?
I'm in the same boat Cire. I have a gun around the house mostly because I live in a semi rural area (suburban subdivisions have sprung up since I was a tyke) on the edge of a state park and, on the off chance that a rabid coyote shows up I don't want to be trapped inside until animal control shows up.
On the subject off drunken rednecks, I can't really describe how disquieting it is to run into a guy who's too drunk to walk straight and is carrying a hunting rifle. I'm really, really glad I make an effort to wear plenty of orange during hunting season.
|
|
We are arguing about what you mean by "crazy". This is not a scientific term, so we have no idea what you mean by it. Someone that is diagnosed with depression? Postpartum (which another form of depression)? Combat stress reaction? Bi-Polar?Either way, we should all agree crazy people shouldn't have guns.
Arguing against that is just ridiculous, IMHO
I've defined the criteria many times, I'll do it again.
If a trained licensed therapist fills out a form saying they believe it would be unsafe for you to purchase a firearm, you can't pending an appeal.
Would you argue against that as the criteria. And let me remind you someone with that certification could easily get someone involuntarily committed to a psychiatric ward.
Something far more restrictive.
What are the legal definitions that the therapist is using to make this determination? Their own judgment? So if one therapist thinks that because the person is depressed, they shouldn't be allowed to own a gun, then that is enough? What if the therapist doesn't believe anyone should own a gun? How do we control for that?
You haven't given any specifics how what method the therapist will use to determine the person shouldn't own a gun. Removing a constitutional right probably should be outlined a little more clearly (there is the whole due process issue), then just, "I trusted this guy's judgement."
Would you be ok with revoking someone's freedom of speech rights based on a therapist's recommendation? Their right to vote? Their religious rights?
Y'know what's telling about this conversation? Every time Ciretose raises the (reasonable imo) idea of giving certified mental health professionals the ability to flag their patients, there are people who seem to think that a large body of the population will get certified specifically to remove other people's rights. Given what he's describing ( granted, much was in another thread, and may have been removed) that wouldn't really be possible.
I'm not Cire, but in answer to your question Pres, in a case where the patient is harmful to themselves or others, I think a mental health professional should be able to have them committed to an institution where they'll have close to zero rights in any effective way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think there are a few things that fall outside of a therapists client/patient confidentiality. Like "this person is a danger to himself and others. He mentioned owning a hand gun, and this individual is of no mind and judgement to have control of one."
Notifies the police, his premesis is searched, firearm removed.
I have no problem with this. If a dude is so batshit insane he freaks out a licensed therapist, take his guns. Please.
|
|
What is the legal definition a doctor uses when prescribing medication or performing surgery?
As I said in the other thread, the DSM V isn't a check off box. Defining specific diagnosis that would or would not preclude firearms is like saying anyone who needs glasses can't drive because they are visually impaired.
The gradations and severity are part of the diagnosis.
Diagnosis by a trained therapist is sufficient to involuntarily commit someone, but not to restrict access to firearms?
Hell a police officer takes people he believes to the therapist to do the evaluation to determine if they can be released or should be committed.
Who is more qualified to make that determination?
|
|
I think there are a few things that fall outside of a therapists client/patient confidentiality. Like "this person is a danger to himself and others. He mentioned owning a hand gun, and this individual is of no mind and judgement to have control of one."
Notifies the police, his premesis is searched, firearm removed.I have no problem with this. If a dude is so b@*%!!# insane he freaks out a licensed therapist, take his guns. Please.
A court order is needed to seize, but I've gotten one and been part of executing the order.
I'm not even asking for that. I am just asking that they be flagged for not being able to purchase.
Ideally I would also like the therapist notified of attempted purchase, which would not be hard to do since they already notify parole and probation.
If they then want to submit a court request for more, that is up to the judge. Hell, I'd be fine with the request getting signed, as every judge I know would sign that kind of thing without even reading the memo.
Well, I was assuming part of the process of telling the police would include securing a warrant or writ to go get the firearm, and take the crazy guy into custody.
But if a person is being prescribed anti-psychotics or other medication to keep schizophrenic behavior at bay, then no, you don't get to purchase a fire-arm.
Yeah, see the constitution errs on the side of the many, not the few. A few random whackos using a firearm of any kind to kill people in no way means the entire rest of the populace can not use them responsibly.Right. But then, there should be some kind of control to prevent (or at least reduce the likelyhood) the whackos from getting said guns IMO. I do understand that the US have a history of citizens being armed. Still, some control might be not bad.
Restrictive gun laws also prevent said responsible citizens from preventing crimes in progress (i.e. this).That depends. We do not know why the man had a concealed weapons permit, and restrictive gun laws do not necessarily lead to no one owning a gun legally. (Again, I accept that the US are different in that regard.) And we do not know if one of the criminals might have been prevented from wielding a gun if there were more restrictive laws in place. The story how the man used his gun could indicate that he might have some kind of professional background, perhaps police or military.
Stefan
You mention "some kind of control". I must point out that there are literally tens of thousands of laws on the books that regulate firearms, ammunition, and firearms parts and accessories.
The US system of local, state, and federal laws means that there is a lot of overlap, but there are extremely draconian gun laws in many parts of the US.
Why We Need Guns
:)!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do find it strange that some people are so afraid of someone with a mental illness, that they feel the need to limit their rights, but they are perfectly fine with them walking around otherwise.
"That guy is going to kill someone if they ever get a gun!"
"But they will still kill someone if they don't get one, right?"
"Nope. They have a mental condition called 'gun crazy'. Anytime they get a gun they go CRAZY! Otherwise they are perfectly normal at all times. Heck I let one of those guys marry my daughter. Great guy. Just never let him near a gun. CRAZY!"
But the vast majority of these crimes wouldn't be stopped by having a gun and might even be escalated.Virtually everyone I know has been victimized at some point, counting people breaking into your car and following you down the street screaming.I cannot help but wonder just how often the average US citizen is a crime victim? From some statements, I get the impression that everybody gets robbed/assaulted/threatened/shot/your home burglarized at a daily basis in the US. I do recall that the US has a comparatively high crime rate, but is it truly an anarchic war zone?But then, calling 911 and letting professionals handle it is normally the better option.And when seconds count, the police are just minutes away.I've only recently been arguing for gun ownership. I've usually thought / argued against it.
Unless you can draw your weapon, get the safety off, and fire accurately without hitting someone you didn't want to hit while someone else already has a weapon pointed at you, and you can do all of that without making your gun known to people so that you are more likely to be robbed, and without accidently shooting yourself or using it in anger on a family member, then it might be useful to you. Otherwise, all it is good for is attacking people.
I must reject this as an absurd over generalization.
Draconian?
No not just Draconian, but extremely Draconian.
I presume they are written in blood and involve beatings?
Facing decades in a federal penitentiary for mere possession of a weapon or two when you have never threatened or harmed anyone else for a first offense strikes me as "extremely draconian", but you may think this is a good start.
Otherwise, all it is good for is attacking people.Thats what it is built for in the first place - attacking living beings, with the intent to kill them. Perhaps that is why I don´t like the idea of everyone having the right to bear arms - it is basically a statement that "I can kill anybody anytime".
Wow. This strikes me as a bizarre way of looking at it. I don't view my fire extinguisher as a way of making a statement that "I can stop any fire at any time.". I view it as a tool that can save lives and property in some circumstances. YMMV
Well, the line has to be drawn somewhere.
Otherwise you start arguing that the difference between 18" and 17.5" is negligible and then that 17.5" and 17" is as well and then 17" and 16.5" and so on and you have no regulation at all.
That's when a female tells me that length doesn't matter, I laugh and laugh and laugh. And she breaks kayfabes and acknowledges her fib.
EDIT: I know I'm off topic. It just needed a Comrade Anklebiter moment.
|
|
Facing decades in a federal penitentiary for mere possession of a weapon or two when you have never threatened or harmed anyone else for a first offense strikes me as "extremely draconian", but you may think this is a good start.Draconian?
No not just Draconian, but extremely Draconian.
I presume they are written in blood and involve beatings?
Rocket launcher?
|
|
I do find it strange that some people are so afraid of someone with a mental illness, that they feel the need to limit their rights, but they are perfectly fine with them walking around otherwise.
"That guy is going to kill someone if they ever get a gun!"
"But they will still kill someone if they don't get one, right?"
"Nope. They have a mental condition called 'gun crazy'. Anytime they get a gun they go CRAZY! Otherwise they are perfectly normal at all times. Heck I let one of those guys marry my daughter. Great guy. Just never let him near a gun. CRAZY!"
So felons should be able to get guns, since they are rehabilitated, right?
I mean, if history is irrelevant and all.
Thank god the idiot that shot her used a gun and not a bomb. If he had shown up and used a fertilizer truck bomb instead of the gun, a ton more people would have been hurt or killed.Why stop at a fertilizer truck bomb fear.
We should give all of the mentally unstable people guns, lest they build nuclear weapons and destroy entire cities.
The logic is flawless.
Or, and this is an out there idea I know but stick with me, maybe when someone is believed to be dangerous by the people who are treating them, they could be able to restrict them purchasing firearms while also being notified if they attempt a purchase.
Wild idea I know, I mean it isn't like the Virginia Tech shooter and Loughner had been in treatment for a significant amount of time and were of great concern to those working with them.
Once again the laws and bureaucracy were in place to disqualify the VT shooter from lawfully purchase a firearm, and that system failed. At the time Virginia was considered a leader in compliance with the law.
Rocket launcher?Facing decades in a federal penitentiary for mere possession of a weapon or two when you have never threatened or harmed anyone else for a first offense strikes me as "extremely draconian", but you may think this is a good start.Draconian?
No not just Draconian, but extremely Draconian.
I presume they are written in blood and involve beatings?
or a malfunctioning antique weapon
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do find it strange that some people are so afraid of someone with a mental illness, that they feel the need to limit their rights, but they are perfectly fine with them walking around otherwise.
"That guy is going to kill someone if they ever get a gun!"
"But they will still kill someone if they don't get one, right?"
"Nope. They have a mental condition called 'gun crazy'. Anytime they get a gun they go CRAZY! Otherwise they are perfectly normal at all times. Heck I let one of those guys marry my daughter. Great guy. Just never let him near a gun. CRAZY!"So felons should be able to get guns, since they are rehabilitated, right?
I mean, if history is irrelevant and all.
If felons who have all of done their time are so dangerous that they can never be around a firearm why are they loose?
To put it another way, if you spent time in prison for pot when you were 18 should you be denied access to firearms for the rest of your life? I think not.
(To say nothing of the right to vote.)
Government authority doesn't have all the answers, and individual liberty matters.
I haven't been able to track down a source or citation, and I don't recall where I first heard it, so let's just put it down to "urban myth" and move on. :)I'd like to see a source for that. Or at least enough details, like names and/or dates, to be able to track it down.
Because it sounds like made up Red Dawn style propaganda.
Isoroku Yamamoto's blade of grass quote might be relevant.
As the idea that making guns illegal would make them more likely to stop gun violence seems a illogical argument as well.
It isn't like we have facts and statistics showing the crime rate is significantly lower in those areas....
I actually believe people should be able to purchase firearms. I am in favor of concealed carry laws and even access to assault rifles. I've had at various times multiple assault rifles stored in my home.
But I also think reasonable certification for those types of things makes sense.
If you want to pick up a .22 for your kid so you all can go hunting while you teach him proper firearm safety I have no issue. If you decide when he is, say 16 or so to get a more powerful hunting rifle for him for christmas, great.
When we are talking about firearms that are only really practical for killing another human being, I don't think some level of licensing and certification is unreasonable.
And part of the certification process would include if a therapist working with you says "no" you don't get to legally buy a gun until you can get approval from a review board.
If you have actually been in possession of multiple assault rifles unlawfully then you are subject to multiple decades of federal prison time and tens of thousands of dollars of fines.
Are you licensed to possess fully automatic weapons like assault rifles?
You may want to be more careful about what you say online.
There are several processes in place. I know of no state where you can just get a firearm without some kind of a permit, meaning you acquired one from a court house or local police department. They do a background check before you get one. I had to have one, and wait a few days when I bought my pistol.Big exception to that rule.... Gun Shows.
This varies wildly on where you live.