What's Sup Forums's opinion on gun control?

What's Sup Forums's opinion on gun control?
How much say should the federal government get? How about state governments?

none, deregulate it all, higher gun ownership the lower the crime rate, consistent nationwide.

SHALL

This is now an ancap thread

NOT

The government had their say and it is known as the Second Amendment

BE

>higher gun ownership the lower the crime rate
How? Proof?

Gun control at the national level is kill.

Occupied territory like Commiefornia, Jew York, Illinois and Jersey need to be liberated.

Government gun regulations should apply to the military as well as the populace.

Donald Trump Jr is now in charge of the second amendment, expect to be issued an m16 with attached grenade launcher.

...

Shockingly getting shot is a deterrent

>What's Sup Forums's opinion on gun control?
gun control is one shot one kill

>How much say should the federal government get?
none


>How about state governments?
none

Background check and mental health check. Also, mandatory training beforehand. Also, I don't know if it falls under gun control, but I remember Trump said something about a states law (I forget what state had the law) that they got rid of because it was "racist" and he wants to make it a federal law. Basically if you get caught doing any crime and you have a gun illegally on you, it's instantly a federal crime and you face up to 20 years. I like the idea of that.

...

INFRINGED

if guns are outlawed then only outlaws will have guns

Background checks are enough in my opinion.

MA fag here.
>Please help us get our rights back
>I need AR-15's

Nobody tries to rob gun shows

That's cute. You can own guns but not own ammo. I guess you forget to mention that.

Am I alone in thinking background checks is a bad idea?

I'm paranoid of slippery slopes.

That isn't true

>urr durr no ammo!

When will this trolling end?

You do know that what you are saying is completely and utterly false?

Illinois' gun laws are nowhere near as restrictive as the other states you named.

California is actually less restrictive as Chicago.

There are no FOID laws

Pro stop and frisk for confiscation.
So shit on the 4th amendment to strengthen the 2nd

Stupid question but are background checks/mental health checks regulated by federal or state governments?

The feds require a background check for any sales from a dealer. But states are free to add extra background checks if they so choose.

>What's Sup Forums's opinion on gun control?

Everyone should have a gun.

The only exception to the rule above should be convicted criminals, mentally insane people and suspected terrorists.

Should the government even be allowed to do this do this though? Would it be better, or could it even, all just be shifted on the states?

That depends on how you interpret the commerce clause of the Constitution. Technically anything that travels across state lines is fair game for the feds to stick their dick in.

Zero and zero. You can have my gun when you pry my fingers off the grip you fucking communist faggot

I wouldn't be opposed to some gun laws if they prevented people with mental illnesses/certain criminal records from attaining them, but I can't willingly vote for it.

Reason:

There most definitely is a "slippery slope" when dealing with the left. They'll claim it's not there, but we see it in action with almost everything they deal with.

For that reason alone, I will never vote for any type of gun control.

Speaking as a dirty prog, I'm opposed to gun control and wish the Dems would just shut the fuck up about it. Gun control isn't progressive, it's authoritarian.

monopoly on violence is antidemocratic

But the government doesn't have a say in what kind of the guns are sold, right?

In California there are restrictions on assault weapons and magazine size, not the case in Illinois. Once you get that FOID card you can buy anything you want.

NICS already fucking exists. Why don't people get this.

I see

Can they deny you the FOID for any reason or do they have to give it to you as long as you pass the background check?

All forms of control over weapons in means of keeping them from the public is a violation of our 2nd amendment and perpetrators of this treason should be hanged publicly.

>Fixed

Should NICS background checks be repealed?

By the second amendment they do not have a say in that.

It very clearly states that there should be no restrictions on the type of weaponry available to the population.

Gun control is by definition infringement...

Machine Gun Ban lifted
-Still require NFA background check and CLEO notification (no tax stamp)
Suppressors and SBR's completely legal with no extra regulations.
Federal Incentives for full state ccl reciprocity.

Barring nuclear and chemical weapons, ownership of everything should be legal. Open carry, concealed carry universal, full auto legal, modifications of all types legal, etc.

If you can afford it, you can own it.

Self-defense would be legal in all states, stand your ground and castle doctrine applying universally.

Explosive devices probably shouldn't be stored in or activated in areas with high concentrations of pedestrians. Ownership of them should be legal but their use should be limited to rural areas or specifically designated areas.

All current laws in regards to national parks would still apply, however. No bazookas at Yellowstone.

Hunting would also be left up to the states and counties, barring Texas. Texas would immediately allow use of RPGs and full auto firearms in hunting feral hogs in areas not at risk for wildfires.

Schools should consider offering shooting classes to students with high grades in order to encourage students to study harder and get better scores overall.

Getting pic related.
Think anyone will notice it's even a gun?

Nope, not a slipper slope if it has well defined standards.

Shall not be infringed.(PERIOD) no commas, if/else statements beyond the period. Matter of fact they finished the amendment after that period and went on to the next topic. And if you take the time to learn what they ment. Read The Federalist Papers #29

The answer is right there in the the Second Amendment, unchanged since it first flowed from the quill of James Madison: "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."

The jews know that if guns are taken away violent crime will skyrocket, they want social and societal breakdown. It's why they're funding violent riots against democracy right now

...

The second amendment should never be changed and any person in any state should be able to own weapons. But in my personal opinion and experience a person needs to do a few steps before he is able to own a weapon; first he needs to have a psychiatric evaluation, second he needs to go through a course where he will be taught about how to handle weapons, store them and any laws regarding them, lastly he can acquire a weapon only after receiving license which he will have to renew every 2-3 years.

SHALL

The mauser and the ar-15 are totally different firearms.

You just defined infringed.

>he needs to have a psychiatric evaluation
This will flag anyone with a history of PTSD, though. Not everyone with PTSD is dangerous.

I think in US it makes no sense to try and enforce gun control since it's saturated with guns already.

But it kinda works some specific situation. I must say in my country it works quite well. In 2013 only 138 people died due gun violence and that includes suicides. Most robberies are done with fake alarm guns and knives because even robbers don't have easy acces to guns.

I would like more lax gun laws though. I don't like it that the government has a monopoly on violence

And who determines if he is mentally stable? Some biased liberal psychiatrist with a pension for believing anyone who want's a gun is a psycho? There is no empirical way to say someone is a psycho so you can't allow humans to determine arbitrarily that someone is crazy. There is WAY to much room for abuse there.

SHALL

Gun control only works in a society with people that abide laws and are non violent.

But in a society like that gun control is unnecessary.

Gun control makes no logical sense.

"I don't like it that the government has a monopoly on violence"
This is literally what gun control means in its purest form. Only government has weapons. This idea is about as UN-american as an idea can get.

America

Pretty sure you get approved as long as you don't have any felonies or involuntary mental health confinements.

One of the questions on the form is, "Are you mentally retarded. If yes, explain." Seriously.

You just solved the issue right there. Guns don't make people violent. Violent people just use effective weapons to be violent, which in turn justifies allowing non criminals to defend themselves.

Explain.

I agree with both of you. The psychiatric evaluation needs to be very specific in order to avoid bias, it also needs to involve a background check. There should be a specific kind of psychiatrist who will receive orders on who should be allowed to to own a weapon and who doesn't. Also, if a person feels that there is still bias he must have the right for a second and third evaluation.

Exactly

Violent people will be violent with or without guns. Violent people are the problem.

My gun won't just go off shooting people on its own.

Why do some people have so many issues with personal liberty and responsibility?

What happened in the early 90s? Crack cocain?

> Why do some people have so many issues with personal liberty and responsibility?
Because leftists and liberals believe that all people and cultures are equal, hense why they so strongly believe in universal morals, laws and ethics.