While I agree with the notion that people should be able to own any weapon they want...

While I agree with the notion that people should be able to own any weapon they want, I'm confused about the justification for /k/s issues with screening. Intent is impossible to determine at purchase, and filtering out people with high potential for unlawful violence seems like the best solution

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=pSPvnFDDQHk
youtu.be/Tf14bCQFeYg
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

To clarify, we do not sell guns to minors because they are incapable of understanding the constitution and their responsibilities and rights. Why do we not extend this to crazy people?

Until they decide you shouldn't have weapons because of some trait you KNOW doesn't increase your potential for violence.

Nobody is going to come to your defense once you've let them take the rights away from everyone YOU thought seemed potentially dangerous.

Maybe potentially dangerous was the wrong term, how about "not a full citizen as they are mentally incapable"

How do you determine "crazy"?

I guess if they're below a certain iq. How do people determine whether a minor is responsible enough to do something? Use that same system

Once again, who gets to decide that? I'm bipolar. I'm not going to be hurting anyone... unless assholes like you collectively nod in agreement that you should send someone to take my guns. Idk what's happening to the second guy but the first guy through the door is gonna have a shitty day.

Aren't bipolar people capable of making their own responsible decisions? Aren't they considered legal adults? It wouldn't apply to them, only like some super autistic people who lash out at everyone 6 times a day and cannot stop

Why? What problem do you think you're solving?

Here's the absolute truth: the gun violence rate in the US is not a problem. It's not a big deal, it's not out of control, it could continue at this level forever without being too high a cost to pay for freedom.

I agree that the problem is overblown, but for the sake of safeguarding the 9th amendment(to personal safety in this case), how do we ensure that universal gun ownership doesn't inherently conflict with it? I didn't put that much thought into it, but I want to know why the idea is wrong

Shall not be infringed

Do you want a person who can't be trusted with a gun walking down your street? He can get one anyway you know, they can't be uninvented and will only get easier to obtain with the advent of robotic milling machines, but perhaps they can ban those too, and common household chemicals, and books. Could have driven a bulldozer down the street for gay pride parade and gotten more than 50 but nobody wants to ban those, or pressure cookers. Whatever, I have "assault weapons" and I always will unless the government pays to imprison me over it, and when I get out I'll get another assault weapon until I feel I've been victimized long enough.

It's already illegal to buy and sell guns to anyone that has been involuntarily committed to a mental institution and diagnosed with a mental disorder.

Until they are actually convicted or diagnosed, the definition of "crazy" or "high potential" is meaningless.

Profiling would be great in a perfect world, where gang members and terrorists are easily identified and the government didn't didn't abuse its power.

OP - GTFO

The best solution to magically making crime not happen...as is your leftists pipe dream fantasy - is to EXECUTE anyone and EVERYONE that commits a - violent Felony.

If you steal using a weapon = instant death penalty
If you rape = instant death penalty
you kill = instant death penalty

OP under current law its illegal for ME to own a weapon if I am a felon.

Luckily for me its EASY AS FUCK to buy one ILLEGALLY.

I know this is a bait thread from a troll...but its done every fucking day on this board.

Dear Troll - its easy to rebuff you - as your KIND keeps coming back here in an insane attempt to use twisted lefty logic to argue some retarded point that fails every time you use it.

in closing . You lose every time .
You will continue losing .

If you're not safe enough to be trusted with a gun, how are you safe enough to be trusted in society in general? I think this sort of applies to felons too. They get released but are still considered dangerous. Why are they released if they're dangerous?

In re mental illness: read Thomas Szasz lol
>muh sluggish schizophrenia

The other thing is that the kinds of measures that filter out potential felons also tend to filter out the kinds of people who are most likely to need to use a gun in legitimate self-defense. So equilibrium effects aren't all that impressive.

I don't know if this a copypasta or not, but I've been on /k/ for 3 years and wanted to use this thread to solidify my position to use against anti-guns.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
>USMC cook, 1979-1982
>Sheepdawg for life
>Motley laborious

>Awooga awooga awooga

They aren't safe for society, isn't why they have caretakers?

So your worried about the 9th amendment but not the second? The 2nd explicitly states "not be infringed".

I was just wondering what would happen if one infringed on the other. Which would be the priority?

Okay, fine, you've defined a line.

But why do you get to determine that line? Again, once there's a line that means you don't qualify for the rights the constitution says EVERYONE is born with, despite not having committed any crime, it's very easy for that line to be moved until I'm on the other side of it... then you. Then everyone the government wants to be on that side of it, which is everyone but the government.

My criteria fpr gun ownership.

In country legally
Able to vote
Not under a court order

But not everybody is given those rights. Minors aren't

One does not infringe on the other though. The second does not give people the right to kill others. That is a crime. Simply owning firearms does not infringe on someone's right to life and liberty. The second is a way to defend if your life and/or liberty is threatened unjustly. I get the point you are trying to make. The correlation isn't there though because one doesn't directly hurt the other in the same way hate speech can be claimed to infringe on someone's pursuit of happiness. Does that mean that we should begin to limit the first because someone could use it in a negative way?

It's a slippery slope unfortunately. It would be nice to live in a society where we can outline how things will work and people and governments abide by those laws and it's the end of it but that's not how things can work.

In the same way. Hate speech*
Missed a period.

Another interesting argument I found was that open carry was unlawful because the legal definition of assault included "displaying the means to inflict violence" and people could sue open carriers for assault because they somehow felt threatened. Are they justified in any way. American law is very confusing to me

Basically, this.

I'm a big fan of the "do what the fuck you want but if you fuck up or hurt someone we are going to put you in prison system" so you have freedoms but retards get locked up eventually.

Isn't that the same tactic Muslims use with "we are 2 billion strong if we were crazy you would know it" it isn't complete equivalence though, because religion isn't a non-infringible right

>Not under a court order

>gf/wife calls the cops saying you're beating her
>cops take away your guns
>doesn't matter if she was lying or not, now you have to fight to get your guns back and pray they haven't been damaged

Nope. is the answer. If you have enough evidence to take someone's firearms, you should have enough evidence to arrest them and charge them with a crime. Until then fuck off.

>because religion isn't a non-infringible right

Yes it is. It's why Europeans settled here in the first place.

And it's not the same because millions of Muslims support a bunch of that fucked up shit ISIS does. They might not do it themselves but they facilitate it. youtube.com/watch?v=pSPvnFDDQHk

Ban assault bruises!
think of the shoulders

SHALL

Can't the other side say that gun owners support a bunch of shit mass shooters do. (They could use guilt by lack of action or something like that)

The government has very clearly and repeatedly demonstrated an inability to be trusted on these matters.

By that logic since almost all shooters are democrats then they're party creates these monsters?

BE INFRINGED.

HILLARY/FEINSTEIN 2016

Thats a good fucking point most the shooters are deranged bicurious little introverts. Not good ol god fearing republicans (to be as stereotypical as possible). Most gun owners are working class people that don't support fucking welfare for the niggs.

So if the point is that associating propensity or support(by lack of action) mass shooting with gun ownership is false equivalence, would it be false equivalence to associate Islam with terrorism. Or is it just case by case?

Wait, what if it was a religion of cannibal murderers who regularly commanded it's followers to kill. Wouldn't that be unconstitutional?

Yes, because your rights end where other people's rights begin. Not their feelings, but their rights.

No because out of the however many million gun owners it actually is a vanishingly small percentage that support the use of violence for anything other than self defense.

That would be a civil suit and wouldn't work in court. In theory you could but in reality no. Brandishing is a crime but unless you threaten violence it will pretty much be thrown out in court.

This.

+Natural Law.

Well that answers all of my questions, thank you so much guys, you've helped my understand the constitution a lot better

Which is patently wrong.

Why? Should children be able to own firearms?

Fund it!
Kek

Yes and they do. Next question?

minors dont have the rights "removed" theyre simply "delayed".

its an arbitrary line in the sand, much like 21 and up for alcohol. Young people and alcohol tends to cause more damage than it's worth, so our government decided to increase the legal age to purchase and consume

you're arguing that gun rights should work the same way as alcohol, but no one has a "constitutional" right to alcohol. So it's much easier to draw an arbitrary line for something without constitutional protection.

"shall not be infringed" literally means the government shall not make movements towards limiting, encroaching, or undermining the ammendment -- the truth is many concessions have already been made by gun owners -- 1934 Act, the clinton EO, 1986 automatic rifles ban, etc.

dont buy into the media lies, mass shootings are statistically irrelevant. Look at paris and brussels -- extrmeely strict gun control does NOTHING to prevent willful mass shootings/bombings. you cant legislate away evil.

disarming our population does nothing but disenfranchise us.

EXCEPT RELIGION IS UNDER NON INFRINGEMENT

PLS SEE 1ST AMMENDMENT

that being said religion is fuckign stupid and mudslimes can suck a dick - religion of peace my ass

Why are people who are supposedly incapable of following the laws of the country allowed to own guns or do anything that could potentially infringe on someone else's rights. I didn't know children even counted as human legally Isn't their self defense provided by their guardians anyway. How about anybody who doesn't need a guardian gets to own a gun?

Yes, and a religion that commands it's followers to kill and conquer infidels (nonbelievers) would violate people's rights.

My argument is that a minor owning a weapon will inevitably end in someone else dying(in theory) unlawfully and breaching the constitution, wouldn't their rights end where others right to safety begins? Although maybe we don't really have a concrete definition of what a minor is, can't we make an exception only for this?

First Amendment.
Read it.

because you're blinded by the "evil" shine of alloy barrels

Remember, functionally speaking, I can infringe on someone else's rights and even their life with a simple hammer. You don't see hammers under strict regulations.

the difference here between yo uand most other people where is that people look at guns much in the same way they view a hammer - as a tool. Granted, this is *an oversimplification*.

THE KEY THING IS FIREARMS ARE CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED. MANY PEOPLE VIEW FIREARMS AS TOOLS -- WHETHER ITS SPORTING, HUNTING, HOME DEFENSE, PERSONAL DEFENSE, OR A WEAPON FOR FIGHTING AGAINST A DESPOTIC GOVERNMENT.


The truth is, over the years, gun owners have made many, many concessions. Especially insome states like NY and CA.

the problem here isn't guns. The problem is terrorism and the mentally deranged. No amount of gun control is gonna stop that.

That's what I said.

>we are 2 billion strong if we were crazy you would know it
But the only people who don't know it are those who are willfully ignorant.

Like the second amendment, it is infringible if it infringes on another right

My bad.

thats a big "what if" exception.

Remeber that even something as common sense as "universal background checks' seems to be, it actually functions as a de facto database of who owns what guns.

On the off chance they want to confiscate guns (and do away with the 2nd amendment) the government would know exactly where to start.

Most gun owners would rather just deal with statistically insignificant mass shootings and acts of terrorism rather than deal with a potentially despotic government.

Frankly i think the fears are a little "out there" but I don't think there's any compelling evidence that gun control prevents mass violence. Just look at the countries with plenty of violence that have extrmeely strict gun control.

Why risk disenfranchisement for little to no gaurantee to safety?

>muh thought crimes

>supposedly incapable of following the laws of the country

"Firearms" are not constitutionally protected.

The right to bear arms, -is-.

If something better comes along, the right encompasses them.
If I come up with a 10 terajoule pistol sized particle beam weapon, the "Second" covers it.

Some more infographic for you.

Your argument is wrong, and we know what a minor is you goddamned retard

At that point the law comes into effect, i/e "Murder" vs "homicide" vs "Justifiable Homicide"..

Someone exercising their "church" which demands virgin sacrifice, and my exercising my second amendment right by shooting said practicioner of the aformentioned church many, many times with a legally owned GAU2A/A does negate one nor the other, nor the document as a whole.

Why though, did we decide that the term minor is meaningless and that they are capable of exercising their rights without infringing others?

I've wondered this too. Don't you need a psych test before joining the military/police? why not just require that?

>children don't follow laws
>no juvenile system
>children haven't defended their households from burglary with firearms

Ok I think I figured it out. Everyone should own guns unless it is known for a fact that they intend to infringe on someone's rights with one, like "intent to murder" or something.

Who determines who is mentally fit? The government? An anti-gun shrink? A 'you pay me a bunch of money and I'll make sure you're approved' shrink?

Not only that, who pays for it? The government? The purchaser?

Depending on how it's legislated, it could either be laughably ineffective (and create actual loopholes, instead of non-loopholes like the 'gun show loophole') or it could make the cost or ability to obtain a firearm extremely difficult. And yes, theoretically there could be that happy sweet spot, but with the way government bureaucracy works, it usually leans one way or the other.

Meanwhile a perfectly legal citizen is unable to defend themselves and is killed while waiting to be approved to purchase the tool that could have saved their life.

yeah i mean i get the "worse case draconian gun ban" scenario, but just make civilians take the EXACT same test by whoever administers it to police/mil(i mean they do currently have a test right?) free of charge (taxes) but since its a RIGHT it would be covered, just like churches/mosques are tax free even of you dont go to them/believe. But I'm not even sure this would really help but a feeeeew spree shooters, like james holmes. pretty sure most crime guns are stolen

No they dont have a comprehensive test to determine this made up standard of mental normity. If you're just working on assumption here (you are) then how about you use google and stop pretending people are out for your best interest.

If there was a test the cops took to make sure their not psychos, we wouldn't have all this police brutality shit.

Here's a better suggestion, why not focus on the causes of unlawful firearm use? A huge chunk of firearm violence (and really violence in general) comes from gang activity, and low income urban areas.

Not easy, sure, but what that's actually worthwhile is?

> It's invasive

>who defines "crazy", does this extend to political ideologies?

>background checks/screening don't do shit anyways, there are a bagillion other ways to get a gun

>gives more power to a government of historically questionable moral integrity

>a minor owning a weapon will inevitably end in someone else dying
I owned a rifle as a minor. No one died because of it.

Fuck off.

>Use that same system

How does age and the possibility of mental illness correlate?

You can't just look at someone's date of birth and determine if they're a psycho or not.

I loves muh guns

>potential

its called due process you faggit.

if they are Muslim extremists or other melanin enriched savages they should be deported because of just that.

If the US rounded up all non white people and sent them to Africa then crime would drop precipitously in the USA, sure it would rise in Africa but fuck them, what are they gonna do write us an angry letter?

youtu.be/Tf14bCQFeYg

>sorry, we cant give you a drivers license, you fit the most dangerous demographic
>male, late teens to mid 20`s

this post is pretty baffling. first he says due process, which is, the state must respect all your rights...and then literally the second sentence is "fuck these peoples/savages rights".

So what is it? the freedom to practice your religion ( be it atheist, buddhist, sandniggest ) or...not the freedom? what do you believe in? insertyourreligionorlackofonehere? ERR WRONG, your worshipping kazikistania spaghetti monster now, since, ya know, no freedom of religion. hate them as much as you ( and i ) want, but that shits a freedom and a right

some asshole said something about it, pic related

Please pull the trigger nigga

I am not against a background check, or training requirement. Most vets can understand the concept of knowing what the fuck you are doing. My neighbor's kid is an example of someone who should never own a gun. Shot himself in the foot, not cleaning it, not an accident on the firing range , no because he wondered what it would feel like to be shot.

Hello Sarge. I was wondering where you went. Have you beaten up anymore gf's/wife's since your last visit?

Its looks like a Cobra Denali, It probably won't even fire.

However, other stable countries that have implemented tough gun control don't have these problems anymore. I mean, knife crimes kill substantially less people on average, and just because violent assaults went up, doesn't take away from the fact the murder rates are lower.

Now there's your typical leftist argument. Respond without crying about the Constitution. This is where and why the issue is never solved. One side screams SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED and the other screams NOT ONE MORE LIFE. Who do you think has a more compelling and acceptable platform here? The public cares more about dead people than it does a potential fantasy world where Obama enslaves them (not that they actually really care much about either though). Furthermore, they'll just point to other places with control measures and say "see they aren't enslaved or oppressed, their lives are great now that guns are gone!"

>just because violent assaults went up, doesn't take away from the fact the murder rates are lower.
most of the time this doesn't always happen.
In fact, there's no correlation between gun ownership and the ability to acquire a firearm and actual murder or violent crime.

i can easily speed if i want to. guess speeding should be illegal?

protip: im not saying gun regulations are acceptable or reasonable in any way, shape or form, because, they arnt.

im saying your argument is fucking retarded, and makes actual, reasonable gun owners, look retarded.

thank you for your time

>shouldnt
wouldve helped, but, hey. freedom bitches, i can mispell whatever te fuck i went

But speeding shouldn't be illegal, unsafe driving is the actual problem. And there is no right to own cars.

NOT

im sorry, you said unsafe driving twice for some reason, could you rephrase that

I think he meant that unsafe maneuvering at speeds that qualify them as unsafe is the problem. He may have meant that speed alone isn't dangerous.

BE

>The government uses psychiatry to preemptively determine if a citizen qualifies for legal rights

The government is a shitshow that does morally repugnant things daily, why the fuck would you give them more control?

Psychiatry is sort of a sham as well, they have no concrete scientific evidence for their theories and their theories and treatments are constantly changing. I mean...in the past they have done lobotomies, insulin comas, electroshock, all this nasty shit with no scientific basis, why should we trust them now?

Inb4
>Muh chemical imbalance
>Muh meds

No proof chemical imbalances exist without drugs or organic damage.
No proof medication helps in long-term outcomes and even some evidence it hinders recovery.

So people of "lesser intelligence" are less deserving of human rights? Does this mean then that I can enslave the local speds?

My dad bought me my .22 rifle when I was 6
bought me a 12 gauge shotgun when i was 10

my weapons have never hurt anything but clay and paper, even to this day (28 now), explain to me how my rifle inevitably killed anyone because of my age?

it all boils down to proper instruction (in my case, from a young age), respect for the weapon, and knowing the consequences of my actions had i ever chosen to act irresponsibly with said weapon.

I swear, any libtard that proposes that every gun owner is a murderer, or exclaiming that one could simply "go to a gun store, buy one, and start shooting people in public" is simply projecting their own desire to do so and I'm glad they chose not to own firearms if they can't handle the responsibility

INFRINGED