Gun laws

[Chief8000]

I was raised with guns and i have guns, I also have 5 kids but i don not worry about them. most of my guns are in a safe, however i teach my kids gun safety if they ask to see them i show them to them all the while teaching them about safe handling. that way they are not this mistical mistery item that dad has that they want to sneak around and try to get to. The EO that the president signed are not really infringing on the 2nd but the proposal for congress to pass another AWB that does infringe. it would be like the goverment saying you can't talk about certain topics and then other topics you can only use so many words.

 

[ChristianGolfer]

Semi-blind post:

I think it's a little ironic that people are worried about a toddler getting hurt by a gun so they get a dog instead.

Do you have any idea how many children are bit by dogs every year?

 

[DZoolander]

lol - I'd be looking to use the dog as an alarm.

So - weighing "gun vs. yipping dog" - I'd let my toddler take her chances against the yorkie or whatever it may be.

 

[Avniel]

Semi-blind post:

I think it's a little ironic that people are worried about a toddler getting hurt by a gun so they get a dog instead.

Do you have any idea how many children are bit by dogs every year?

I think that's because a lot of people don't know how to train a dog properly, they don't understand dogs and they treat them like children instead of dogs.

Also why would someone leave a child particularly a toddler alone with a dog?

 

[ChristianGolfer]

It's not always training. It depends on the breed of dog. A well-trained dog that is, by nature and breeding, more aggressive will sometimes go after a toddler because the toddler's movements and actions prompt a predatory response in the dog.

And people leave their children alone with dogs because they think the dog is well-trained, it has never bit before, etc.


And.... similar things can be said about guns. Proper training and storage will keep a toddler safe from a gun. It's an inanimate object. Unlike a dog, a gun doesn't have a brain or instincts. It doesn't get annoyed when a little kid tries to ride it or pull its tail.

I have nothing against dogs. But... I'll let my kids play with guns before I let them play with pit bulls.

 

[tannicv2]

If it wasn't for my mom possessing guns I don't think I"ll be alive today. #realtalk

 

[Tropical Wilds]

I favor gun control. There are guns out there, plenty of them, which don't need to be in civilian hands. Reasonable gun ownership by reasonable people doesn't bother me, but there are weapons widely available that have no business being in a common household. And the argument that "criminals who will use guns will still get them," just falls on deaf ears for me. It's like saying "people are going to drive drunk regardless of any laws we have, so why bother having them?" Laws are designed to govern and while it's desired that they'll have 100% compliance, reasonably we know that's not true. Every 19 minutes a child is abused by an adult, that doesn't mean we say that there's no point in legislating against child abuse.

And that's all I'll say on the matter.

As for dogs, not the source of security you'd hope. While I worked at the police department, the most common thing I heard after somebody's house was broken into was "I can't believe the dog didn't bark." Most times, the dogs don't bark. Or criminals are smart enough to know to bring dog treats with them to pacify dogs. We had a German Shepherd, nicest dog in the world, but we got in a car accident and couldn't get home to let him out. We had a neighbor, and good friend, go in to let him out. The dog did as expected... Growled, looked vicious, foamed and snarled... My neighbor shut the door and left. He came back, opened the door and threw in a handful of jerky... After that, our dog would have showed him where the stereo was and helped him load it into the car.

And honestly, if you have a family, the type of dog that wouldn't be pacified by that simple trick isn't the kind of dog you'd want around your kids...

 

[WolfGate]

Almost everybody favors some gun control. The real issue is where the lines are drawn. Very few people are going to argue that violent felons, for example, should be allowed to legally own guns. Or that anyone should be able to just waltz into the store and buy an RPG. Or that someone who is proven mentally unstable should be able to own a handgun.

At the same time, almost everybody favors some level of gun ownership rights. The question is where to draw the lines.

I own two rifles. One is an operational bolt action. The other is a historical piece, from the mid 1800s. Also have an old derringer from the same timeframe. They are in a gun safe in the closet. Additionally we have two 9mm handguns - one compact for concealed carry. I do have a CCP but pretty much never carry. It's more an "in case" type of thing. The CC gun is also in the gun safe.

The regular size 9mm semi-automatic handgun is in it's own safe in a dresser about 8 feet from the bed. It has a quick to open electronic lock. That's close enough to get quickly and quietly and far enough away that I have to wake up sufficiently to get it.

Personally, I'm fine with expanded background checks. The whole gun show loophole seems wrong to me. I'm fine with not allowing automatic weapons. I'm fine with requiring gun owners to take a reasonable training class - I had to spend 8 hours to get the CCP and qualify on a range. None of that is too restrictive IMHO.

Banning semi-automatic weapons would cross the line, in my opinion. If you do get in a situation where you have to defend yourself the delay of having non-semi weapons is significant. Some of the magazine size restrictions are rather small.

Regarding kids, one 13 and one 11. Neither has any idea or ability to get inside the gun safes. So I'm not worried about them in that regards.

 

[Avniel]

It's not always training. It depends on the breed of dog. A well-trained dog that is, by nature and breeding, more aggressive will sometimes go after a toddler because the toddler's movements and actions prompt a predatory response in the dog.

you have to understand your breed or even your individual dogs aggression and train him specifically for that. Most people own dogs that they don't have any business owning. A well trained dog will not attack it's owners family, attacking a child is not a well trained dog. The dog is more en likely under socialized and is aggressive because he is fearful or ignorant of that situation. That's why it's so important to socialize your dog. That's how you explain the "aggressive dog breeds" biting children. It tends to be because of lack of socialization if your dog is obedient and is not socialized well it is not a well trained dog.

Also the fact is pit bulls are considered an aggressive breed but golden retrievers bite more often then pitbulls. The only difference is the media coverage. Give me a well socialized obedient dog that considered aggressive over a dog considered less aggressive that is not socialized.


And people leave their children alone with dogs because they think the dog is well-trained, it has never bit before, etc.

i don't know why if I wouldn't leave a child with a cousin or stranger why would I leave a toddler alone with a dog. That honestly to me is unwise.

And.... similar things can be said about guns. Proper training and storage will keep a toddler safe from a gun. It's an inanimate object. Unlike a dog, a gun doesn't have a brain or instincts. It doesn't get annoyed when a little kid tries to ride it or pull its tail.

I have nothing against dogs. But... I'll let my kids play with guns before I let them play with pit bulls.

You would let your children play with guns before playing with pitbulls.

 

[Hetta]

Nobody's coming to take away your guns. The gun restrictions they're offering are superficial and meaningless at best. In short - nothing has been proposed that will have any meaningful effect on you whatsoever. Isn't that what you're arguing for? Is your argument really that Obama wasn't tough enough - cuz that's kinda the crux of it.

Thank you - particularly thank you for you as a Republican - for saying this. I am so tired of the hysteria in the public about "Obama's going to take our guns away." Many Republicans are using this as a massive club to beat the President with. In fact, he's not taking guns away. The only restriction is on the huge bullet clips. I don't see the use for these either.

As a general answer - I'm not opposed to people having guns, I just think they should have a more thorough background check and the military type weapons should be restricted to the military! Perhaps as part of owning a gun, you should also go through a training course.

 

[Avniel]

Thank you - particularly thank you for you as a Republican - for saying this. I am so tired of the hysteria in the public about "Obama's going to take our guns away." Many Republicans are using this as a massive club to beat the President with. In fact, he's not taking guns away. The only restriction is on the huge bullet clips. I don't see the use for these either.

As a general answer - I'm not opposed to people having guns, I just think they should have a more thorough background check and the military type weapons should be restricted to the military! Perhaps as part of owning a gun, you should also go through a training course.

You have just made a valid point, my question to you is do you think the american government shouldn't have access and why?

 

[DZoolander]

What do you mean by "the american government shouldn't have access"?

You know the Gov't includes the military, right? Is that what you're getting at?

 

[Avniel]

What do you mean by "the american government shouldn't have access"?

You know the Gov't includes the military, right? Is that what you're getting at?

I'm sorry I made a mistake I meant to say do you think the American government shouldn't give citzens the ability to access....

Parent and posting smh

 

[DZoolander]

Thank you - particularly thank you for you as a Republican - for saying this. I am so tired of the hysteria in the public about "Obama's going to take our guns away." Many Republicans are using this as a massive club to beat the President with. In fact, he's not taking guns away. The only restriction is on the huge bullet clips. I don't see the use for these either.

As a general answer - I'm not opposed to people having guns, I just think they should have a more thorough background check and the military type weapons should be restricted to the military! Perhaps as part of owning a gun, you should also go through a training course.

I'm pretty disgusted with my party right now - and a lot of my long time political friends have taken to calling me a RINO - but how things are ain't exactly what I signed up for. I didn't sign up to the GOP to be in favor of plutocracy - unrestricted gun ownership - etc. I signed up because I believed in the message of Teddy Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Lincoln and what Reagan said he was for.

You can only take fear mongering, scapegoatism and xenophobia for so long before you say "enough" though. The GOP in my eyes took an extreme turn in the mid 90's with the rise of Newt Gingrich, and still is suffering the consequences of that.

It seems disingenuous to me to hear them lambaste Obama for "class warfare" when every day I turn on the radio and hear the same pundits screaming about "half the population doesn't pay any taxes". They know better. Anyone with half a brain should know better...but they say it anyhow. When you say that poor people, who do not pay one specific tax (but all others) and who in reality probably have a greater portion of their income eaten up by taxes than the rich, are parasites who do not contribute, that is the most detestable form of class warfare in my eyes.

...and my party is rife with that kind of nonsense right now.

The gun stuff right now is equally offensive. Listening to the sturm und drang coming from my side - you'd swear that they are gearing up to take your stuff away. You hear the pundits lamenting about how "King Obama" signed a bunch of executive orders bypassing congress, etc...

Let's just be straight about what happened.

He signed a few executive orders which grease the wheels of communication between law enforcement agencies in order to streamline background checks, he authorized additional funds to provide for extra security in schools, and that's pretty much it. The only item that could in any way be controversial to me is the one about how if you bought a gun legally, then commit a crime that would disallow you to buy a gun (like certain felonies), and that gun gets confiscated...do you lose your right to get that gun back?

That's the ONLY one that'd dicey from a political standpoint in my eyes. Everything else is about as non-controversial as you can get.

The rest of it are merely suggestions on "opening dialogues" about this or that...which means nothing. They're SUGGESTING a limit on clip size, and a ban on "semi automatic assault weapons", but it's up to congress whether or not that happens.

So - that's what there is. It certainly is not this grand assault on your second amendment rights - and anyone that tells you such is a partisan hack.

 

[Hetta]

I'm pretty disgusted with my party right now - and a lot of my long time political friends have taken to calling me a RINO - but how things are ain't exactly what I signed up for. I didn't sign up to the GOP to be in favor of plutocracy - unrestricted gun ownership - etc. I signed up because I believed in the message of Teddy Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Lincoln and what Reagan said he was for.

You can only take fear mongering, scapegoatism and xenophobia for so long before you say "enough" though. The GOP in my eyes took an extreme turn in the mid 90's with the rise of Newt Gingrich, and still is suffering the consequences of that.

It seems disingenuous to me to hear them lambaste Obama for "class warfare" when every day I turn on the radio and hear the same pundits screaming about "half the population doesn't pay any taxes". They know better. Anyone with half a brain should know better...but they say it anyhow. When you say that poor people, who do not pay one specific tax (but all others) and who in reality probably have a greater portion of their income eaten up by taxes than the rich, are parasites who do not contribute, that is the most detestable form of class warfare in my eyes.

...and my party is rife with that kind of nonsense right now.

The gun stuff right now is equally offensive. Listening to the sturm und drang coming from my side - you'd swear that they are gearing up to take your stuff away. You hear the pundits lamenting about how "King Obama" signed a bunch of executive orders bypassing congress, etc...

Let's just be straight about what happened.

He signed a few executive orders which grease the wheels of communication between law enforcement agencies in order to streamline background checks, he authorized additional funds to provide for extra security in schools, and that's pretty much it. The only item that could in any way be controversial to me is the one about how if you bought a gun legally, then commit a crime that would disallow you to buy a gun (like certain felonies), and that gun gets confiscated...do you lose your right to get that gun back?

That's the ONLY one that'd dicey from a political standpoint in my eyes. Everything else is about as non-controversial as you can get.

The rest of it are merely suggestions on "opening dialogues" about this or that...which means nothing. They're SUGGESTING a limit on clip size, and a ban on "semi automatic assault weapons", but it's up to congress whether or not that happens.

So - that's what there is. It certainly is not this grand assault on your second amendment rights - and anyone that tells you such is a partisan hack.

At the risk of offending you - you are following the wrong party, Ezoo. The Democratic party is your natural home. I just had to say that.

I know what is being suggested too, and it is a far cry from "they are coming to take all of your guns." People become so very afraid, and as my husband was telling me - right now, people are panicking and stocking up on weapons in just this huge ridiculous fear that the government will seize their guns tomorrow. That's not even on the table.

 

[DZoolander]

Well, it's a byproduct of the nonsense the NRA has been feeding them.

How the NRA has any kind of swing always amazes me. The NRA is nothing but a lobbying organization for gun manufacturers, etc, with the sole goal of "move more product". Involving them in any serious discussion about gun violence/gun control/etc makes about as much sense to me as having a national discussion about obesity and letting the fast food lobby frame the debate.

As for switching to be a dem - I've thought about it - but ya know I enjoy the ability of being able to vote in the Republican primaries...the only time when an actual vote of protest against the fanatics can be heard.

 

[Avniel]

At the risk of offending you - you are following the wrong party, Ezoo. The Democratic party is your natural home. I just had to say that.

I know what is being suggested too, and it is a far cry from "they are coming to take all of your guns." People become so very afraid, and as my husband was telling me - right now, people are panicking and stocking up on weapons in just this huge ridiculous fear that the government will seize their guns tomorrow. That's not even on the table.

But to be honest if there were no illegal guns on the street me personally I wouldn't own one. I think America would be a safer place if there was a 100% ban on all fire arms similar to the UK. Their policy seems to be working and I like the part where the police aren't armed either. I think that is the best route to stop these nuts and criminals in general.

I just think its to risky, we live in a very violent culture. I think we need to get rid of this gun culture.

 

[Avniel]

Well, it's a byproduct of the nonsense the NRA has been feeding them.

How the NRA has any kind of swing always amazes me. The NRA is nothing but a lobbying organization for gun manufacturers, etc, with the sole goal of "move more product". Involving them in any serious discussion about gun violence/gun control/etc makes about as much sense to me as having a national discussion about obesity and letting the fast food lobby frame the debate.

As for switching to be a dem - I've thought about it - but ya know I enjoy the ability of being able to vote in the Republican primaries...the only time when an actual vote of protest against the fanatics can be heard.

Me personally I wish the republicans can get rid of the extremists and racists i their party and the American people can have some real options. Once mitt said 47% it really didnt even make sense to vote for him, I think we need more parties.

 

[DZoolander]

Well, to be honest, I lost all respect for Mitt during the election cycle. He sold his soul to the kooks - to no end anyhow since they never accepted him. He should've remained a decent, moderate Republican as he's always been.

As for the 47% comment - I thought that was a bunch of nonsense. He was talking about election strategy. Roughly 47% of the population wasn't going to vote for him anyhow - because they associate themselves as being Dem. That's 100% true. The same thing goes for Obama. Roughly 47% of the population won't vote for him - because they associate themselves as being Republican. Unfortunately people truly are partisan that way.

So - it wasn't that he was saying that 47% of the population doesn't matter...but rather it's not his job to try and sway the votes of people whose minds are predetermined long before the first word is uttered. I can understand that point of view - albeit don't necessarily believe it's the case.

(he did, however, put his foot in his mouth about the "handouts" stuff in the same breath. That part wasn't exaggerated).

BUT...that being said...how it was spun was a distortion of what was actually meant.

Same thing goes with Obama and the "You didn't build that" stuff. That wasn't what he meant - and anyone that listens to the actual tape should realize that.

So - in my mind those two things (ironically enough the most defining things in the election) were the most grossly inaccurate and opportunistic grabs for attention.

 

[Niffer]

So its stuff like that that's being posted all over my FB feed, how does no one else see the fundamental flaws here?!?