HOME | DD
TheJewishMarxist — Gun Regulation Not Gun Control
#political #politics #opinionstamps #gun_control #controversial_opinions
Published: 2018-03-24 16:09:38 +0000 UTC; Views: 1106; Favourites: 52; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description
Warning!
Possible unfavourable opinion coming through. If you don't like my opinion, get out of here!
If you don't like my opinion, too bad, I'm not going to change my worldview just to please your feelings.
Pretty simple. I do not support over regulating guns to the point where you cannot buy one to protect your family, however, I DO NOT support giving a gun to every moron who wants one! I do support sane gun regulation to help keep guns out of the hands of bad people (Such as the Stoneman Douglas shooter) but I don't support the industry being regulated to death.
Related content
Comments: 39
A friend said: You should be able to own a gun as long as you aren't mentally ill
I dunno what you think
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
There is nothing wrong with making gun laws to ensure that they don't end up in the hands of criminals and people with some kind of mental sickness. I am a supporter of the 2nd Amendment, but not at the expense of common sense. Too many states and even more places make it too easy to get a gun, that's why when I look for a job around guns, I can't in good conscience look for one where guns are sold irresponsibly, like pawn shops.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Exactly. I believe one has the right to bear arms, but still, it should not come at the expense of public safety.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I agree with you that we should keep guns away from children, and criminals. However in addition to that I also believe that you gotta have a reason to own a gun too. Like if you wanna own a gun for hunting or you wanna protect yourself and your family from murderers, not just for the sake of owning a gun just because you love them. I also believe that open carry in public should be illegal. And that machine guns should be banned or highly restricted. I don't think the United States federal government should enforce gun laws as strict as places like Japan, Chicago or DC nor do I think it should loosen gun laws even further than they already are. In my opinion they should be right in the middle. The Second Amendment doesn't have to be absolute.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
What caused the shootings in Texas(that one church) and in Florida - Messed up law enforcement/government inefficacy.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It could have been prevented if the law required an ID to buy a gun.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I also think people in America and even people in other countries need to practice more common sense with their gun usuage. There's been a lot of deaths at shooting ranges because of parents for example giving their four year old a gun. I don't really think you should have access to the family gun till you're a teenager.
👍: 0 ⏩: 3
The 'safe age' for my area is around 10 and that's limited to BB guns or .22 rifles.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
All I know is that I don’t want to be treated as though I have I death wish just because I can’t use a gun.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I agree, still, four years old is a bit young to be honest with you. I think that being a teenager is a good age to where you can have access to the family gun. However, how would one legistlate it?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I don’t know if anyone would be able to legislate on such a thing in America, considering many people believe it is their right. Not everything needs to be legislated though. One just needs to put to the high number of gun accidents by children and persuade them otherwise.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
It's too vague, it's just centrist platitudes and straw men.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
No problem!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Eh it's fine. But why don't you support it? I'm not being bitchy here, but I'm just wondering what your reasoning behind your opinion as well as what side you take on this issue.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
The biggest problem is in this debate is Washington. Why on earth is the general government getting involved in gun control? The 10th Amendment says, and I quote, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." This is classic Congressional overreach.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I follow Marx on militant gun ownership, in order to overthrow the bourgeois, you need arms. Let them confiscating them from the worker is allowing them to fuck us in the ass and oppress us further. If anything, gun control is just another tactic to keep the proletarians down.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Yup. Universal background checks would be a good place to start. Maybe some gun buybacks in areas where there are a lot in rotation.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Yeah well I am not sure sane gun control isn't just like Common sense gun control with questions like "why do you need a semi-automatic rifle or a hand gun?" even though the second amendment allowed for automatic weapons like Puckleguns, howitzers and naval frigates, and all these demands for gun control are often biased gun grabbers looking for a reason to virtue signal.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Agreed. 
✓ Be over 18 or 21
✓ Not being mentally ill
✓ Have a clean record (that is, not being a criminal.)
✓ Have a license (given to you by the police if you fulfill the 3 prior steps)
👍: 0 ⏩: 3
Aaaand who decides who's mentally ill? And what "mentally ill" person is going to seek professional help when their rights to defend themselves will be stripped away if they do? And since when does being an ex-con---if you're a criminal you've obviously been caught doing some crime, that's how we would know you're a criminal---deny you the human right to self defense? How many people do you think are going to refuse plea bargains and resist arrest if THIS is the consequence? How many of these same ex-cons will be targets? If a man/woman commits man slaughter through drunk driving, what's to stop a victim or relative or friend of a victim from seeking a legally unarmed citizen for revenge? Do you see the flaws in your, I"m sure cathartic but very wrong-headed, ideas, here?
You already have to have a license. Have you ever bought a firearm?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
When I said “mental illness”, I was referring to psychopathy or schizophrenia. Ok, yes, psychopathy and schizophrenia are not "mental illnesses" but personality disorders. My bad, I didn't use the correct term. 
"And since when does being an ex-con---if you're a criminal you've obviously been caught doing some crime, that's how we would know you're a criminal---deny you the human right to self defense?"
Well, since a thing called risk of recidivism exists, which is why I don’t think it's safe to give firearms to persons who have been convicted - unless it's absolutely certain that they're not going to commit the crime again.
"If a man/woman commits manslaughter through drunk driving, what's to stop a victim or relative or friend of a victim from seeking a legally unarmed citizen for revenge?"
Well, by article 142 of the Spanish penal code (don't know about the US), this is a case of imprudent homicide. Given that the person driving had been severely imprudent - they shouldn't have taken a truck while being drunk - 1) the sentence should be up to 4 years of prison and 2) since the crime has been committed with a truck, the person will be banned from driving motor vehicles for up to 6 years. Needless to say that this must be determined by a judge.
Second, you say this: "what's to stop a victim or relative or friend of a victim from seeking a legally unarmed citizen for revenge", Revenge is not justice. Look, I understand the pain of the the victim or their family and friends, but an eye for an eye solves nothing. From a moral point of view, it's not understandable trying to repair a wrong by adding another wrong.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Those are good terms to be agreed upon.
But still, what would you define mental illness on?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Like schizophrenia or psychopathy (for example).
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Do you even know what psychopathy is?
"Are you a psychopath? Happens to the best of us. James Fallon, a neuroscientist studying Alzheimer’s effects on the brain, accidentally discovered that he was a psychopath and then he wrote a book about the experience. Fallon, like most people with psychopathic brains, wasn’t a violent person or a serial killer. But after discovering his brain pathology, he began interviewing friends, relatives and loved ones to see if there had been signs of psychopathy in his behavior all along. It turned out there were plenty. The diagnosis befuddled Fallon, but made total sense to pretty much everyone else in his life.
Just 1 percent of the overall population qualifies as psychopaths; in prison, that number skyrockets to 25 percent . Robert Hare developed the Hare Psychopathy Checklist in the 1980s, and it’s since become a tool widely used for assessing and diagnosing the condition. Contrary to popular notions, lots of psychopaths aren’t raging lunatics or violent criminals; in fact, most of them get along perfectly well in society. " www.alternet.org/culture/10-ca…
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
A large percentage of the population has a diagnosable mental illness. I agree with restrictions when the person is dangerous but "mentally ill" is too broad.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I understand. I meant a psychological problem like schizophrenia or psychopathy.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Sooo, because someone has to take pills not to hear voices, they shouldn't be able to defend themselves---because "arms" means weapons in general, not just guns---if they hear an intruder in their house?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Firearms like assault rifles, antimatter or sniper rifles, and sub-machine guns belong only in the military. The only guns that should be regulated to civilians should be pistols below .50, and shotguns. Mind you, no tactical shotguns.
Also, thorough background checks, and psyche analyses are a must.
Did I miss anything else? Because I'm certain that I did.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Hooo boy. Um, some literature:
A Crash Course in Semi-Automatic GunsJust to clarify, for everyone voting in the polls, a single action revolver, a gun that goes bang once every time you pull the trigger, is a semi-automatic weapon. If you are voting for a ban on semi-automatic weapons that includes hunting rifles and six-cylinder revolvers. Might I suggest that your intentions, however noble, are confused in their execution.
This...
This, the gun above, is not an automatic rifle and a bump stock doesn't make it automatic; you pull the trigger once and it spits out a round. What the bump stock does is use the recoil of the gun to make it contact with a stationary index finger. Still not automatic, but, yeah: pretty damn fast.
This, however, is an automatic. An honest to god machine gun:
I think you'll find the actual machine is a hell of a lot faster, even with a bump stock on the AR down below:
The AR, bump stock or not, still falls into the same category of fire arm as this...
The only difference between these two is A)one looks like an M
"Did I miss anything else? Because I'm certain that I did."
No. Just the Constitution, so, basically everything the central government has any authority to do or not do. In this case not do, according to the Articles and the 10th Amendment.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I thought I missed something. Thanks anyway.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Yeah, it's not a total fool-proof way of stopping bad people from getting guns, because you know, criminals don't follow the law. They'll get guns anyway.
But I think this will help
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Part 2
We certainly can't lay the source of the problem at the feet of guns. There was nothing to stop a kid in the 20's from buying a gun and shooting up a school house. No campus security, no metal detectors, and, yet, this behavior, for all its opportunities, was demonstrably abnormal. Much more so than it is even now, and it's still abnormal. So, what's changed to cause this shift in child and adult psychology, especially among boys and men? It can't be videogames, because an entire generation of kids were put through WW2, Korea and Nam. They had exposure to actual dehumanizing violence and that didn't turn the country into a shooting gallery; so how could a game be more effective in churning out crazy people? No, no, that hypothesis simply doesn't hold water. So what's the reason?
Well, at a guess, I'd say the rise of single mothers, the war on poverty and the war on drugs, have all, in a progressivist game of ring-a-round-the-rosie caused the country's most seminal socio-political infrastructure, the two parent household, to disintegrate. The result being boys and men raised in a society without positive formative role models. The Cruz kid was a bastard, raised in an orphanage with no lasting parental figure; adopted by two seniors, the surrogate father dying when the kid was 5; at which point he was raised by a single mother, never once being arrested for the 39 incidents the police were called; and then we scratch our heads at how this kid became a violent criminal? We blame guns for the moral disintegration of this country? I'm sorry, but I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
No. It won't. Couple of facts: California and Illinois have some of the strictest gun laws in the union; and their States have the highest body counts. Another fact: the majority of gun deaths, not shootings, gun deaths are suicides. The vast majority of gun violence is gang-related, which thrive most in Democrat-run cities like New York, LA and Chicago. But gun violence, according to the CDC, is tied with Parkinson's Disease as the 15th most common cause of death among the United States; with suicide being number 11. There were more poisonings last year than gun deaths, and that includes suicides, again, according to the CDC; and I don't see anyone fretting over people being able to buy rat poison over the counter.
Gun deaths and gun violence in general is an urban problem, not a rural one; where the vast majority of firearms are privately owned, and used most frequently, by US citizens; so, it stands to reason we don't have a "gun" issue, we have an urban culture issue. But what is the source of this issue? We certainly didn't have mass shootings 50 years ago, when gun regulations were most definitely laxer; and shootings have become more frequent now than they were in the 90's, despite crack downs on guns: soooo, what's the real issue, here?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
