Second Amendment

[Tam and Martin]

Thank you! 

[Groddil]

In my personal opinion, if guns laws are introduced, they restrict buying guns for people who:

A, have a violent criminal record (history of assaults, thievery, etc).

or...

B, have medically-diagnosed anger problems that cause them to snap violently (in other words, if they had a gun and snapped...they might use it.)

In other words, most of the population would still get to keep their constitutional right, but only those who the info suggests would use them for violent purposes would be restricted.

[Tam and Martin]

I agree there should be gun laws, but there should not be a gun ban by NO MEANS.

[Banya]

In my personal opinion, if guns laws are introduced, they restrict buying guns for people who:

A, have a violent criminal record (history of assaults, thievery, etc).

or...

B, have medically-diagnosed anger problems that cause them to snap violently (in other words, if they had a gun and snapped...they might use it.)

In other words, most of the population would still get to keep their constitutional right, but only those who the info suggests would use them for violent purposes would be restricted.

Groddil stated my opinion 100%.  Gun laws are one issue where I lean to the right.  These restrictions are sensible and responsible.  I have a British friend who asked me my opinion on gun laws, knowing that I lean to the left on nearly every social issue, but he was surprised by my defense of my right to bear arms, and Groddil's suggestion is nearly exactly what I told him my beliefs are.

[Rusvul]

   Yeah... Guns in the hands of people who know how to use them and can be trusted to do so responsibly = good (or at least neutral) thing. Guns in the hands of people who don't know what they're doing or can't be trusted with them = very bad. Banning guns altogether seems unnecessary, but there's simple and non-invasive steps that could be taken to reduce gun violence.

[Wylder Treejumper]

Unless I'm very much incorrect, I believe that there is already an instituted background check for the above mentioned items. I'm not sure about its rigor or spread, but I do know background checks are already a Federal mandate.

Personally, I'm more in favor of state regulations than federal ones; I do feel that this should be a matter of state sovereignty.

[Tam and Martin]

Yes, there are. The system for the back round checks though aren't very good for telling if that person should be allowed to have a gun. If I am not mistaken, the San Bernandino shooters went through the back round checks and passed. I don't know exactly what we need to improve in them because I haven't looked into it much, but they really should be better.

[Cornflower MM]

@Groddil: A I agree with, B I do not because of a brother-in-law. I am not, however, going to spread his problems across the Internet. I'm not going to state any further on this subject either because you all are a very strange bunch of teens who like to debate and argue over political views.

[Wylder Treejumper]

Well, in that case neither had a criminal record or mental illnesses, nor did anyone know that they would be jihadists. It is a little bit hard to deny someone a gun for a crime they haven't committed yet.

@Corn: Who doesn't like a bit of debate? It may sometimes get a bit contentious, but it's all in good fun. More importantly, debate helps us become more educated on both our views and the views of others. While debate won't likely cause anyone to change their position, it will make them think harder about it.

[Tam and Martin]

Well, in that case neither had a criminal record or mental illnesses, nor did anyone know that they would be jihadists. It is a little bit hard to deny someone a gun for a crime they haven't committed yet.

Exactly. As I said, it needs to be improved, but how is a different story.

[Rusvul]

Personally, I'm more in favor of state regulations than federal ones; I do feel that this should be a matter of state sovereignty.

Why's this? Varying state regulations always bugged me a little, consistency is a virtue in my eyes.

[The Skarzs]

In states like Montana or Alaska where it is sometimes necessary to have a firearm for protection against wild animals, whereas a lot of the eastern states are not in such a situation. If federal regulations could not allow some people in the states that need firearms to get or use them, it would not be practical for state-to-state regulations to be done away with.
Consistency may be good throughout an entire state, but with a country as large as the US, there is a reason each state has the power to put up laws or relations for itself, independently of neighboring states if there is no need for it there.

[Banya]

@Corn: Who doesn't like a bit of debate?

*raises paw*

[Jetthebinturong]

Really?

Interesting. I pegged you as a debate lover.

[Tam and Martin]

I kind of thought so too.