Guns, Guns Guns

Restricting to the same level as other first world countries, whihc is to say to about the same level as you might need for a heavy vehicles license, or some other tiered responsibility thing you have over there (most common one I could think off). Show you have more than 2 brain cells to rub together that arent currently being used for the process of breathing, no anger issues, no mental problems, pass a stage 1 safety course, get a stage 1 license, for long guns(bolt,pump etc). This is probably the main one for hunters undergo a second, longer safety course, prove still no anger issues, no mental issues, complete a gun violence course (looks at preventing harm to yourself and others when robbery etc occurs, and you and/or them have a gun), get stage 2 license (pistols). further relevant courses, safety audit of site etc, get stage 3(collector/salesmen of stage 1/2). And special people who really need/already have them, get a stage 4(restricted weapons, machine guns, rocket launchers, mil power sniper rifles, etc.) Stage one is probably all most people would ever need for legitimate reasons, aside from those who do pistol club shooting etc. In no way is this a disarmed america. It is merely an America where people who prove their competence get the ability to have a gun, and those that prove they don't, committing crimes, lose it permanently. Just like the rest of the first world. Here, you lose your license if theres an accusation of threatening someone with it. doesnt need substantiation, just the accusation, and you must surrender the license and your guns. What i propose is still far less restrictive.

You don't need an armed populace to remind the government power comes from the people, and if you do, it doesn't seemed to have reached the politicians in the US.


I don't wish to nullify your 2nd, only to put 21st century boundaries on it to prevent occasion where it becomes the case that it is removed by your politicians completely, instead of just being slightly fettered.

Zakharra wrote: But you're doing it with [i the intention of restricting -everyone's-[/i] ability to have and own firearms. Which is why it would not fly with a lot of country folk. The more urban people are far more likely to want gun restrictions for whatever reason, but not the rest of us. Your stated goal: a disarmed US population in 30 years. Hell no.
One of the main reasons for an armed populace is to have a populace that can defend itself if need be, and to ensure that the government keep in mind that it its power comes from the people. Not the other way around. I think the idea is if the government overreached its power (remember the Constitution is supposed to limit the federal government's power, not enhance it) the citizens can do something about it. 'We the People' sort of thing..

With that as our history, those of us that love out country and Constitution see any attempt to restrict gun ownership and sales as attempts to disarm the populace and nullify the 2nd Amendment. I know the Democrat party would remove the 2nd if they could. they don't like it at all.

You know Spacekiwi you are preaching change to the only first world country still stubbornly using English measurements don't you.

Poker

Spacekiwi wrote:Restricting to the same level as other first world countries, whihc is to say to about the same level as you might need for a heavy vehicles license, or some other tiered responsibility thing you have over there (most common one I could think off). Show you have more than 2 brain cells to rub together that arent currently being used for the process of breathing, no anger issues, no mental problems, pass a stage 1 safety course, get a stage 1 license, for long guns(bolt,pump etc). This is probably the main one for hunters undergo a second, longer safety course, prove still no anger issues, no mental issues, complete a gun violence course (looks at preventing harm to yourself and others when robbery etc occurs, and you and/or them have a gun), get stage 2 license (pistols). further relevant courses, safety audit of site etc, get stage 3(collector/salesmen of stage 1/2). And special people who really need/already have them, get a stage 4(restricted weapons, machine guns, rocket launchers, mil power sniper rifles, etc.) Stage one is probably all most people would ever need for legitimate reasons, aside from those who do pistol club shooting etc. In no way is this a disarmed america. It is merely an America where people who prove their competence get the ability to have a gun, and those that prove they don't, committing crimes, lose it permanently. Just like the rest of the first world. Here, you lose your license if theres an accusation of threatening someone with it. doesnt need substantiation, just the accusation, and you must surrender the license and your guns. What i propose is still far less restrictive.

So qualifications to indicate that you're suitable to be part of a "well-regulated militia" perhaps?

Pretty much, except to a more stringent set of rules than current, to match the 21st century,and the recognisation that people who have committed a crime with a gun shouldn't be allowed to use them again, and that kids under 7 or 8 shouldn't be using guns. Its not about the guns, or the amount of guns, its about the regulation being loose enough to allow small kids to handle guns without being able to comprehend the consequences, and allowing people who may not have the right motivations from owning guns.

Starsaber wrote:

Spacekiwi wrote:Restricting to the same level as other first world countries, whihc is to say to about the same level as you might need for a heavy vehicles license, or some other tiered responsibility thing you have over there (most common one I could think off). Show you have more than 2 brain cells to rub together that arent currently being used for the process of breathing, no anger issues, no mental problems, pass a stage 1 safety course, get a stage 1 license, for long guns(bolt,pump etc). This is probably the main one for hunters undergo a second, longer safety course, prove still no anger issues, no mental issues, complete a gun violence course (looks at preventing harm to yourself and others when robbery etc occurs, and you and/or them have a gun), get stage 2 license (pistols). further relevant courses, safety audit of site etc, get stage 3(collector/salesmen of stage 1/2). And special people who really need/already have them, get a stage 4(restricted weapons, machine guns, rocket launchers, mil power sniper rifles, etc.) Stage one is probably all most people would ever need for legitimate reasons, aside from those who do pistol club shooting etc. In no way is this a disarmed america. It is merely an America where people who prove their competence get the ability to have a gun, and those that prove they don't, committing crimes, lose it permanently. Just like the rest of the first world. Here, you lose your license if theres an accusation of threatening someone with it. doesnt need substantiation, just the accusation, and you must surrender the license and your guns. What i propose is still far less restrictive.

So qualifications to indicate that you're suitable to be part of a "well-regulated militia" perhaps?

Spacekiwi wrote:Pretty much, except to a more stringent set of rules than current, to match the 21st century,and the recognisation that people who have committed a crime with a gun shouldn't be allowed to use them again, and that kids under 7 or 8 shouldn't be using guns. Its not about the guns, or the amount of guns, its about the regulation being loose enough to allow small kids to handle guns without being able to comprehend the consequences, and allowing people who may not have the right motivations from owning guns.

Starsaber wrote: quote="Spacekiwi"Restricting to the same level as other first world countries, whihc is to say to about the same level as you might need for a heavy vehicles license, or some other tiered responsibility thing you have over there (most common one I could think off). Show you have more than 2 brain cells to rub together that arent currently being used for the process of breathing, no anger issues, no mental problems, pass a stage 1 safety course, get a stage 1 license, for long guns(bolt,pump etc). This is probably the main one for hunters undergo a second, longer safety course, prove still no anger issues, no mental issues, complete a gun violence course (looks at preventing harm to yourself and others when robbery etc occurs, and you and/or them have a gun), get stage 2 license (pistols). further relevant courses, safety audit of site etc, get stage 3(collector/salesmen of stage 1/2). And special people who really need/already have them, get a stage 4(restricted weapons, machine guns, rocket launchers, mil power sniper rifles, etc.) Stage one is probably all most people would ever need for legitimate reasons, aside from those who do pistol club shooting etc. In no way is this a disarmed america. It is merely an America where people who prove their competence get the ability to have a gun, and those that prove they don't, committing crimes, lose it permanently. Just like the rest of the first world. Here, you lose your license if theres an accusation of threatening someone with it. doesnt need substantiation, just the accusation, and you must surrender the license and your guns. What i propose is still far less restrictive.
quote

So qualifications to indicate that you're suitable to be part of a "well-regulated militia" perhaps?

The thing is it's restricting a right guaranteed in the 2nd Amendment. There is no licensing restriction on the 1st or 3rd or any of the other rights, but you would install one on the 2nd for what you consider safety reasons. How about instead of licensing to keep firearms away from children, we improve the culture so gun owners wouldn't allow children under a certain age to use guns (not that would stop irresponsible gun owners anyways. All the licensing in the world won't stop people from being idiots. It doesn't stop idiots from driving now...). It comes down to no matter how you spin it it is a restriction on a right when none of the other rights have any such restrictions. And for a long time, the US Supreme Court has agreed that it's an individual's right to own a firearm without any real restrictions (aside from violent criminal records, and under the restrictions you list out, it would be damned hard to prove you are mentally competent).

Another thing is, the US isn't Europe or Japan or Korea, please stop suggesting we become more like them by restricting our freedoms.

Zakharra wrote: Another thing is, the US isn't Europe or Japan or Korea, please stop suggesting we become more like them by restricting our freedoms.

You are obviously confused. To become more like Europe you would have to expand your freedom.

Of course, it´s nicer to live in illusions than reality. Feel free to continue.

The thing is it's restricting a right guaranteed in the 2nd Amendment.

Read it. it´s complete rubbish to claim that that "right" is universal.

"well regulated militia"... And no, you can´t separate the two parts, because then there´s 1 sentence and one partial sentence that makes no sense.

I don't think that those of us outside the US are really trying to tell you how to behave in your own country, just trying to have a civilised discussion regarding the difference between cultures.
For myself I am continually surprised by the beliefs and values expressed here from a number of posters who are obviously quite intelligent, but seem to come from a different planet than the non US people. I also wonder if these values are represented across the US society, or just in the bible belt or fly over states.

Opinions from the New Zealander, British, Swedish, German, Australian and other developed countries citizens here are quite similar regarding the safe ownership of guns.

The concepts of everyone having an absolute right to own a gun, and to contemplate using that gun to kill members of their government in order to get a government you agree with; are quite alien to us.

We see US movies and TV shows and see these opinions, but imagine that the producers are exaggerating them for dramatic effect, yet from this forum it isn't fiction. Scary stuff.

It possibly explains how US foreign policy is quite comfortable with the concept of using armed force to change foreign sovereign governments. If you can't see an ethical problem with doing it to your own government then others would be even less worrying.

Daryl wrote:I don't think that those of us outside the US are really trying to tell you how to behave in your own country, just trying to have a civilised discussion regarding the difference between cultures.
For myself I am continually surprised by the beliefs and values expressed here from a number of posters who are obviously quite intelligent, but seem to come from a different planet than the non US people. I also wonder if these values are represented across the US society, or just in the bible belt or fly over states.

Opinions from the New Zealander, British, Swedish, German, Australian and other developed countries citizens here are quite similar regarding the safe ownership of guns.

The concepts of everyone having an absolute right to own a gun, and to contemplate using that gun to kill members of their government in order to get a government you agree with; are quite alien to us.

We see US movies and TV shows and see these opinions, but imagine that the producers are exaggerating them for dramatic effect, yet from this forum it isn't fiction. Scary stuff.

It possibly explains how US foreign policy is quite comfortable with the concept of using armed force to change foreign sovereign governments. If you can't see an ethical problem with doing it to your own government then others would be even less worrying.

That viewpoint is not out of the mainstream of thought in the USA. It is definitely a right viewpoint and the left does disagree with it rather vigorously at times but it is well within the mainstream of American political discourse.

Legislatively the pendulum is now swinging against gun control and the majority of new laws passed reduce gun control.

Tenshinai wrote:

Zakharra wrote: Another thing is, the US isn't Europe or Japan or Korea, please stop suggesting we become more like them by restricting our freedoms.

You are obviously confused. To become more like Europe you would have to expand your freedom.

Of course, it´s nicer to live in illusions than reality. Feel free to continue.

The thing is it's restricting a right guaranteed in the 2nd Amendment.

Read it. it´s complete rubbish to claim that that "right" is universal.

"well regulated militia"... And no, you can´t separate the two parts, because then there´s 1 sentence and one partial sentence that makes no sense.

As far as I know, the US is one of the only nations in the world to guarantee the freedom of speech as a right, most European nations, as far as I know -don't- have that as a right.


We also have a very different culture than that of Europe or Asia and for us, as a part of the history of the country, access to firearms is a deep part of it. We also have the US Supreme Court backing the notion that the 2nd Amendment is for -everyone- and not a state regulated militia. if it was a state regulated militia, then only the National Guardsmen (and women) would be the only citizens allowed to have firearms as some on the left have tried to dictate that the Nat. Guards are the militia mentioned in the Constitution. The US Supreme Court disagrees with that and upholds that the 2nd means every citizen (criminals clearly not apply) has the legal right to have and own firearms. The 2nd is there to help the citizens protect themselves from the government. Remember when it was written, not too long after the new nation had broken away from the British, most of the soldiers in it were militiamen who picked up their gun (often just used for hunting) and helped support the Continental Army. Not soldiers, but average ordinary men that believed in a cause to throw off the chains of an oppressive and despotic king (no representation with the British government or parliament, totally ruled from England).

I don't know why they just don't ammend the bloody thing so it makes sense.
I'd also add the right to vote btw.
(Is voting 'Free Speach'? If money is surely voting has to be. So any laws that make voting difficult like Texas' voter ID law or Florida's extreemly loose felon voting laws must be unconstitutional. )

Actually, the poster above who said that the first and third have no limitations, well there's huge limitations on the first.Defamation, libel, NDA's. There's even limitations on the third, though invuilt into itself.