Can we have a serious gun ownership discussion on this forum?

I'm a gun guy. I don't hunt (not really into killing anything I don't need to kill) but I own guns for protection & recreational shooting. I believe our Constitution guarantees me the right to own a gun or as many guns as I desire (and any kind of gun I desire) provided they aren't used for illegal purposes. That being said....I don't necessarily object to background checks. The way I see it, the only way to assure the law-abiding citizens rights to own guns aren't infringed is to do everything we can to keep guns out of the hands of the people who shouldn't be in possession of firearms such as criminals or folks with mental health issues.
I do not trust this radically liberal administration to enact a responsible system to conduct background checks and to leave it at that. I believe the ultimate goal is to ban private ownership of guns across the board.

Game on...

 

I also think that gun purchases should be well regulated. NOT banned but I believe that anyone should be scrutinized if they purchase a deadly weapon. ANYONE! It wouldn't prevent every gun crime but preventing all gun crime isn't the goal. It is merely a good start.

Presidents George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton issued executive orders banning certain semiautomatics and assault weapons. Reagan supported both the 1993’s Brady Bill and 1994’s Assault Weapons Ban after he left office. George W Bush tightened gun laws in 2008 by expanding the federal database used to screen gun purchases. So one would have to ask how the Obama Administration is really anymore radical than the administrations that have come before?

 

Your reply is part of the reason for my skepticism...say we pass tough regulations regarding gun purchases, if I pass those checks why should there be any limits on what I buy? If I'm a law-abiding citizen, who passes whatever checks are put into place, why shouldn't I be able to own any weapon I choose?

 

Do you mean any military type weapons? Shoulder launched missiles, 50 cal. guns, tanks, RPG's, hollow-point bullets, armor piercing ammo, etc....Anything?

 

Why not? If I happen to be a law-abiding citizen & pass the mandated regulatory checks...assuming they are effective...what would it matter?

 

I don't think even the 2nd Amendment guarantees you any type of weapon available. For instance, should any wealthy person with the money be able to buy nuclear weapons? You wouldn't have a problem with a private citizen owning a nuclear weapon?

 

If that's your stance, please tell us what firearms you think the Second Amendment DOES allow us to bear...

 

Being a strict Constitutionalists that I am, how about late 1700's muskets.

If you're going to jump into the conversation, how about being as civil as we are trying to be and answer the question I asked instead of asking one of your own.

 

My point is that if tough regulatory checks are the panacea the left claims they are, why would the type or quantity ever matter?

 

Because the person (S?) who broke into your house and stole the weapons would then have access to guns WAY beyond what out police/troupers/sheriffs have or should have. Even if they (the good guys) did have them, the collateral damage would be out of control.

Now the other side of that question - why should you have them? They are definitely not required (or likely even beneficial again due to collateral damage) for self protection.

 

The same reason automobile drivers licenses work. Why should they be any different?

 

Mr. Nation, using your logic about muskets, does your first amendment apply to the internet? I am all for expanded background checks.

 

Oh, I didn't know I asked a question. But, being the strict Constitutionalist that I am, I would say that I am for everything the Constitution guarantees. I'm for "arms" just like the amendment says. I wouldn't limit our freedom like you're advocating by limiting the type/style of firearm.

 

Are you also for the well regulated part of the 2nd Amendment?

 

Well, guns existed in the 1700's while the internet didn't. I seriously doubt that the founding fathers conceived of the internet. I don't think your analogy works very well. Maybe if we were restricted to only using the language spoken in the 1700's while online, then you might have an analogy.

I think the greater point here is that there is no way people over 300 years ago could have anticipated some of the weapons we have today and we can only come to a rational consensus amongst ourselves about the uses of these new technologies when absolute positions that need to be justified by current realities irrespective of what people who used leeches to heal medical conditions may have or may not have thought about it.

 

Who said that regulatory, I assume you mean "background" checks are a panacea? They are simply one tool or one step that brings us closer to a solution to at least some of the violence. Isn't eliminating some of it better than none of it? And why not try?

 

The Constitution says that a well-regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state. Who would be against that?? I'm also for the part of the amendment that says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

Come on, Teddy. It might make the violence a bit less lethal, but I have a bridge I would like to sell you if your really believe it takes guns to be violent. There are knives, fists, and even pressure cookers sometimes

 

I believe I'm on record saying that I don't necessarily object to background checks. Maybe we could apply for an initial license to buy guns that would entail a tough background check then each time we go back to purchase additional weapons they just check the database to make sure things haven't dramatically changed? If there's no "registry" component to it it may just get some support.

 

Well, let's be honest here, there is already over 90% support for expanded background checks. I don't really have an opinion on an initial background check followed by some abbreviated version for subsequent purchases. But I think it is important for all of us to understand how the current system works, at least when a background check is required which is in about 60% of gun purchases.

Here's how the current system works:

Once you have decided to purchase a gun from a retail outlet -- it could be a local gun shop or national chain such as Bass Pro Shops, Cabelas or Walmart -- the store enters your name and information into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, via a toll-free number or the Internet, to check the eligibility of the buyer.
The check usually takes a few minutes to complete.
The NICS system is linked to several databases managed by the FBI, including the National Crime Information Center, and runs an individual's name through federal and state criminal records.

Individuals can also be added to the NICS index outside of potential gun sales, on the recommendation of psychiatrists, mental health institutions and family members.
Under the current NICS system, buyers may be denied the purchase of a firearm for reasons such as being indicted or convicted of a felony, admitting to being addicted to a controlled substances, having been dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces, being subject to a restraining order, as well as other regulations.
Since its implementation in 1998, 2.1 million background checks have been denied out of 118 million requests, or almost 2%.