Discussion about hot topics trending today

[SoulReaver]

The thing is that the government itself is opposed to the 2nd amendment. These clubs in favor of it. So that alone makes them a better choice in my opinion. The clubs do not become the government, they oppose the govt. on this issue.

correction: the leaders of these clubs are in favour of their own rights & that's the only thing you can be sure of. as for your rights - it depends on them & they can change their minds as they see fit
you're making them your de facto government

while you're at it would you have Monsanto decide & legislate on food safety regulations?

[Falcon Horus]

264 mass shootings for far in the US and 2015 ain't over yet. Congratulations!

Why aren't we being given the details?

I have been reading "details" on this case for 14 hours, and I live in Australia.

Same here - and I'm in Europe.

These clubs themselves are operated by gun enthusiasts, who are very much in favor of protecting the right to bear arms. I'd far sooner trust such an organization than I would the government or any organization the government has control of.

And how objective do you think they would be?

[Annoyed]

Nothing is perfect. But like I said, when it comes to this, I'd sooner trust this type of organization than I would trust the government.

I don't trust our government. They have more than adequately demonstrated that they can't be trusted, particularly on this issue.

And nothing except several decades of completely trustworthy behavior on the part of the government will ever change my mind on that.

[Pharaoh Hamenthotep]

And nothing except several decades of completely trustworthy behavior on the part of the government will ever change my mind on that.

You mean behaviour that fits with your views of how the US should be run, right?

That's why you trust the gun clubs, because they agree with your "more guns for everyone!!" policies..

[Annoyed]

You mean behaviour that fits with your views of how the US should be run, right?

That's why you trust the gun clubs, because they agree with your "more guns for everyone!!" policies..

Of course. Whose views should I base my opinions on? Someone elses?

[Pharaoh Hamenthotep]

Of course. Whose views should I base my opinions on? Someone elses?

A wide range of sources to help educate and inform your own opinion. And not just sources that agree with what you already believe.

[jelgate]

Blind mistrust in the government is just as bad as blond trust. Giving a gun club the power of gun rights is like saying AA should regulate driver's licenses

[Annoyed]

As far as the gun control issue goes, the government has already provided many examples of why they should not be trusted.

The Constitution states quite plainly that "the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." That's pretty clear. Not a lot of wiggle room.

How many laws at all levels of government ignore that basic statement?

If people think that should be changed, fine, use the process that exists for amending the Constitution, but it should not simply be ignored.

[Pharaoh Hamenthotep]

The people have the right to bear arms. Not an obligation to do so.

And that right doesn't mean they have to go out and kill each other whenever the mood strikes. And it seems to strike quite often... Clearly the American people are not responsible enough to own guns.

And it was added to the constitution a very long time ago. The reasons for doing so no longer apply so it should be reviewed.

[Ukko]

As far as the gun control issue goes, the government has already provided many examples of why they should not be trusted.

The Constitution states quite plainly that "the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." That's pretty clear. Not a lot of wiggle room.

How many laws at all levels of government ignore that basic statement?

If people think that should be changed, fine, use the process that exists for amending the Constitution, but it should not simply be ignored.

But you've cut a bit out, it says
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
That does leave wiggle room.

As for the gun club thing. Trusting a bunch of people with such a huge responsibility simply because they are not the government is ridiculous and dangerous. What qualifications do they have? What agendas? Personal and political beliefs? Criminal backgrounds so on and so forth. Who regulates them? Like others have pointed out, nobody voted for these people. And being private citizens with private businesses, yours and others best interests wont be very high on their agendas. Much like politicians, except you dont get to vote these guys out. Its them or nothing. "Dictatorships" are all well and good when you agree with whoever is in charge and tow the party line. But you're F***** if they change their minds and decide to do things differently.

[Falcon Horus]

...blond trust...

Blond trust?!

[jelgate]

Blond trust?!

*shacks fist at archenemy, autocorrect*

[Annoyed]

But you've cut a bit out, it says
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
That does leave wiggle room.

Not a lot. The first part of the sentence is the justification for the amendment, and the second is the restriction upon the government's powers. Nowhere does it say that one has to belong to a miltia.

As for the gun club thing. Trusting a bunch of people with such a huge responsibility simply because they are not the government is ridiculous and dangerous. What qualifications do they have? What agendas? Personal and political beliefs? Criminal backgrounds so on and so forth. Who regulates them? Like others have pointed out, nobody voted for these people. And being private citizens with private businesses, yours and others best interests wont be very high on their agendas. Much like politicians, except you dont get to vote these guys out. Its them or nothing. "Dictatorships" are all well and good when you agree with whoever is in charge and tow the party line. But you're F***** if they change their minds and decide to do things differently.

These gun clubs already offer training to their members so they have the staff and infrastructure in place. Those with criminal records are not allowed to own guns ( and I agree with that, if you're a criminal, you give up some of your rights, such as the right to own guns. )

Given the requirements that aside from criminals, the government should have no say in deciding who can own a firearm and that the government should not have a database of who owns weapons, if training is to be required before purchase, how would you suggest it be handled? Remember, your idea must meet those 2 requirements.

[jelgate]

Let's just go the extra step abolish the government altogether.

[Ukko]

Not a lot. The first part of the sentence is the justification for the amendment, and the second is the restriction upon the government's powers. Nowhere does it say that one has to belong to a miltia.



These gun clubs already offer training to their members so they have the staff and infrastructure in place. Those with criminal records are not allowed to own guns ( and I agree with that, if you're a criminal, you give up some of your rights, such as the right to own guns. )

Given the requirements that aside from criminals, the government should have no say in deciding who can own a firearm and that the government should not have a database of who owns weapons, if training is to be required before purchase, how would you suggest it be handled? Remember, your idea must meet those 2 requirements.

I agree about the criminal thing. Though if government is allowed no part, how are background checks carried out?

But who trained the staff? We all remember the instructor shot in the head by a little girl. Takes a special kind of genius to put such a high powered weapon in a little girls hands, regardless of environment. Who decides when one individual is qualified to instruct others correctly, safely and efficiently in the use of firearms? How does one prove they have the qualifications and that they are legit? Who regulates all of this? Who governs all of this?

Thats just it. I don't have the same paranoia that you do when it comes to government. Do i trust them completely? No, im not blind. But neither do i blindly dismiss, distrust, ignore, hate or have complete paranoid fantasies about a person or organization simply because we don't agree on everything or because they don't do things the way i want. I have no problem with a database of guns and who they belong to. Nor with government (the same guys who train our military and armed police) providing the correct training, psychological and criminal checks required before being allowed to own high powered killing machines.

You are the one who wants the clubs and such to be in charge and responsible for all things gun related so its on you to explain why and how exactly all of this would work.