Gun Control: Democrats Only

[Frodo]

1. amend the us constitution to ban all handguns. after ratification of the amendment, allow for a one year grace period for people to turn in handguns without penalty. after the grace period has expired, anyone convicted of having a handgun should face severe penalties. anyone convicted of using a handgun in the commision of a crime, should receive a minimum of a 25 year prison sentence.

2. shotguns and rifles should only be sold to persons over 21 years of age, who have successfully passed a background check and a gun safety course. all guns should be registered.

3. repeal any and all legislation that has been passed to exempt gun manufacturers from civil or criminal liabilities in wrongful death cases.

[adam]

Not a Democrat, and no I don't. I don't believe the consitution should ever be amended to take rights away. I also do not hold the unrealistic belief that taking handguns away from law abiding citizens will remove them from the hands of criminals.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Abolish gun control for native born americans but prohibit immigrants, violent felons and noncitizens from owning any weapons.

[Gabu]

I think it's a little extreme.  Point 3 would definitely lead to problems, and the gun registry in Canada has largely been a complete failure, so I wouldn't agree with that part, either.  I do agree with requiring a background check, however.  I'm unsure about handguns.  I do agree that banning them will obviously not make criminals go "oh, I guess I shouldn't use a handgun", but it would nevertheless seem to me that it would be much harder for criminals to get one.

Gun control has always been my ultimate cold-button issue, though.  I've never made much of an attempt to create a well-formed, coherent stance on the issue.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Waltermitty hates american values of liberty, doing what you want and owning firearms.

[Nym90]

He goes too far, so I voted no.

I'd support mandatory gun registration in theory, although it would probably be expensive and complicated enough to be more trouble than it would be worth. Gabu's mention of it not working well in Canada helps to temper my stance on that a bit. It would have the potential to be highly beneficial to the police however in fighting crime, both in terms of tracing a weapon's origin and determining its owner, and also as one of those things they can use to hold someone for a couple days if they feel they have commited a greater crime but don't yet have enough evidence (yeah, I know civil libertarians will cry foul on that one, but it's hard to prove someone is guilty of a crime, and extra time in which to do it and to keep the guy off the streets and keep him from bolting the state or country can make all the difference in the world), since presumably most felons won't be registering their weapon.

I strongly support background checks; it shouldn't be legal to buy a gun without one.

I definitely wouldn't support banning handguns. Ownership of one should require a permit, but it shouldn't be horribly difficult to get one.

I don't support exempting gun manufacturers from liability, although in many cases they indeed shouldn't be liable unless they are encouraging unlawful use of their products. I tend to believe that judges and juries are the best ones to decide if a lawsuit is legitimate or not, not politicians, so I tend to be highly suspicious of any laws that attempt to restrict specifically who is or isn't liable for certain situations.

I think that overall, gun control is not the way to reduce crime; education and economic growth are. So overall, it's not an issue that should get much attention overall in my opinion.

[Dr. Cynic]

No... The only control I do support is the waiting period. Proposal number two isn't bad, but the rest of it goes too far for my tastes, so I'd have to vote no.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I look at this from a TOTALLY different perspective.

I would never want a gun, I would never understand why a person would want the RESPONSIBLITY of having a lethal weapon.

Just because something is a "right" doesn't mean you don't have to have controls.

What, for the love of God, is wrong with a personal gun licence and the registration of firearms??

Give me an argument besides constitutional rights - because that is barely passable to me as it is.

Yes, snotty foreigner... I know.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Why do you aussies and euros always assumev thatj ust because it exists that the divine state has a god given right to control it?

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Why do you aussies and euros always assumev thatj ust because it exists that the divine state has a god given right to control it?

My concern is nothing to do with the state having control - my conern is that I don't want just anyone having contact with a lethal weapon... call me stupid. 

Maybe because we don't believe that something written more than two hundred years ago (for the political realities of 200 years ago) is akin to the divine right that so many link to this right. Even most people on here admit that the actual need for this right to exist doesn't really exist... but because the right is there....?

[Wakie]

You know ... if you really want to limit weapons AND do something which supports American business then treat guns like cars.

*You would have to be at least 16 to operate one.
*You would have to pass a test to prove you can safely operate one before being licensed.
*Failure to possess a license while operating one results in hefty fines and/or jail time.
*In order to operate a firearm you must carry insurance for doing so.  You must carry seperate insurance for each weapon and the more dangerous the weapon the heavier the insurance.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Why do you aussies and euros always assumev thatj ust because it exists that the divine state has a god given right to control it?

My concern is nothing to do with the state having control - my conern is that I don't want just anyone having contact with a lethal weapon... call me stupid. 

Maybe because we don't believe that something written more than two hundred years ago (for the political realities of 200 years ago) is akin to the divine right that so many link to this right. Even most people on here admit that the actual need for this right to exist doesn't really exist... but because the right is there....?

So you want only the elites to be able to have guns? Just like in medieval europe where onyl the feudal lords had weapons?

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

No, I want NO ONE to own guns (but that's just me - I understand that), this has nothing to do with class, elitism etc etc.

If people are going to have them - as it is a responsibility as much as a right - what fear do people have in having a gun licence and registering firearms? Does that remove the right?

I don't care where you live, how much you earn, who you vote for.

[Bono]

I look at this from a TOTALLY different perspective.

I would never want a gun, I would never understand why a person would want the RESPONSIBLITY of having a lethal weapon.

Just because something is a "right" doesn't mean you don't have to have controls.

What, for the love of God, is wrong with a personal gun licence and the registration of firearms??

Give me an argument besides constitutional rights - because that is barely passable to me as it is.

Yes, snotty foreigner... I know.

For one thing they are bureocratic arbitrary procedures. For another, they make confiscation much easier, but at least you are straighforward enough to admit that confiscation is what you want to begin with. I belive the issue is not "What's wrong with licenses", but "Why should licenses be needed."
Since you are the one who wants to remove a right, the burden of proof is on you.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

What, for the love of God, is wrong with a personal gun licence and the registration of firearms??

Mitty's proposal goes A LOT further than that.

[Bono]

You know ... if you really want to limit weapons AND do something which supports American business then treat guns like cars.

*You would have to be at least 16 to operate one.

I don't know anywhere in the US where that is not the case.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ridiculous and actually just intended to make gun ownership restricted to the elites.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

What, for the love of God, is wrong with a personal gun licence and the registration of firearms??

Mitty's proposal goes A LOT further than that.

Because mitty hates america

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

That's a VERY old argument - guns only have one function, to blast holes in things - usually to kill.

Bricks, knives, planks of wood, cars etc etc... all have other uses.

I don't feel the need to play games - I am honest in my feelings toward guns - and as Bono said the burden is on those who want to change things - but on this issue there is a huge chasm between either side.

[Bono]

That's a VERY old argument - guns only have one function, to blast holes in things - usually to kill.

Actually, guns have the function of propelling a projectile through the air.
But that is neither here nor there. Clearly guns are used for many other uses than murder, including lawful killings, and other self-defense uses.

[Ban my account ffs!]

This is so ridiculous.  It actually tires me to read this stuff.  And I get all fired up, and then by the time I'm done reading I'm so tired that I don't even want to respond.

Nobody is going to change their mind on the gun control issue.  You will always have the NRA out there fighting to put guns in childrens' hands and you will always have the anti-gun groups out there to take guns away from hunters....

We're all terribly out of focus.

Maybe if the two sides weren't facing away from each other when they made their arguments, this could go somewhere.

[ilikeverin]

It's a bit harsh, but I'd support it just to anger gun nuts, who I find to be some of the most completely un-understandable people in the world.

[opebo]

I support Mitty's ideas, though I don't think technically an amendment to the constitution is really necessary as there is no individual right to gun ownership in there.

[MaC]

Why do you aussies and euros always assumev thatj ust because it exists that the divine state has a god given right to control it?

My concern is nothing to do with the state having control - my conern is that I don't want just anyone having contact with a lethal weapon... call me stupid. 

you are stupid

[WalterMitty]

of course democrats dont support my gun control ideas.

long ago the democrats sacrificed their principles to appeal to dullards.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Why do you aussies and euros always assumev thatj ust because it exists that the divine state has a god given right to control it?

My concern is nothing to do with the state having control - my conern is that I don't want just anyone having contact with a lethal weapon... call me stupid. 

you are stupid

Ah charming political rhetoric.