Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shakran
Sorry for not responding earlier. Missed this on the new posts the last time around. . .
|
Not a problem, we all have our things to take care of.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shakran
And while I do not favor a ban on guns, that does not mean the constitution necessarilly allows them. For example, there's no ban on sunglasses, even though the constitution does not say we're allowed to have them. Just because the 2nd doesn't mean what YOU want it to mean does not mean we have to ban guns.
|
ok, we can certainly do a constitutional discussion in another thread if we like. I feel that I put out enough information in my previous posts to clearly indicate that the 2A is an individual right, but we can work on that later.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shakran
What I AM in favor of is much stronger restrictions on who can get a gun and what they have to do to get it. Even if I accepted your premise that the citizenry could defeat a tyrannical government bent on our destruction (I still don't), I'm sure you would agree that not EVERYONE should be included in this "well regulated" "militia" of yours. Give an idiot a gun and he's as likely to shoot you as he is to shoot the enemy.
|
I see your point, I do agree with it, always have. I'm not in favor of opening up the ability to carry guns in public for everyone. I do feel that everyone should be able to OWN a gun in their own home though, for defensive purposes. People will use the 'violent felons' card here, but wouldn't this make a stronger case for keeping the murdering bastards locked up for life? my 2 cents.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shakran
That's why I advocate restrictions on who can have guns. Obviously no convicted felons, but beyond that, we need to restrict gun ownership to those who have had excellent training and a full psychological evaluation. And yes, I certainly advocate better training than the average cop gets.
|
certainly, no VIOLENT felons should be allowed to carry a gun. We must remember that not all felons are violent criminals, though some may display a tendency to do so, that is what background checks are for. The bad check writer could be a convicted felon but may have no aggressive tendencies at all. In these cases, I think that a full review by the courts (with psych evals etc.) could be used to determine whether or not to license.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shakran
|
great examples of what NOT to do with a gun.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shakran
I dunno about you but I want my neighbor to be a bit better trained than THAT if he's gonna be running around my neighborhood with a gun.
|
agreed. most states require training classes, could they be more stringent? maybe.