Gun control, gun registration, gun licenses.

[Samantha]

Of course when something like this happens, and 32 people have been murdered at a school, the left starts calling for gun control and the right and the NRA start calling for the left to shut the fuck up.

I support the constitution, therefore I support the right for law abiding citizens with no criminal record to own guns. I support the constitution, therefore I protest Gonzales and Bush for their torture policy, their removing habeus corpus, their illegal wiretaps. I hold the constitution as sacred to our freedom and liberty.

I don't know much about gun laws.

• So I ask the folks here, who have guns, do we have strong enough laws to prevent guns from being sold to people without the proper background checks?
  
• Do you have to pass a test to buy a gun?
  
• Do you have to have a license to buy a gun?
  
• Is there a background check?
  
• If a person is found with a gun, without it being registered, is it a federal offense?
  
• Do we need tougher gun laws?
  
• If you are a law abiding citizen, why would you be against tougher laws so that someone not as upstanding as you would be prevented from buying a gun?

[manu1959]

Of course when something like this happens, and 32 people have been murdered at a school, the left starts calling for gun control and the right and the NRA start calling for the left to shut the fuck up.

I support the constitution, therefore I support the right for law abiding citizens with no criminal record to own guns. I support the constitution, therefore I protest Gonzales and Bush for their torture policy, their removing habeus corpus, their illegal wiretaps. I hold the constitution as sacred to our freedom and liberty.

I don't know much about gun laws.

• So I ask the folks here, who have guns, do we have strong enough laws to prevent guns from being sold to people without the proper background checks?
  
• Do you have to pass a test to buy a gun?
  
• Do you have to have a license to buy a gun?
  
• Is there a background check?
  
• If a person is found with a gun, without it being registered, is it a federal offense?
  
• Do we need tougher gun laws?
  
• If you are a law abiding citizen, why would you be against tougher laws so that someone not as upstanding as you would be prevented from buying a gun?

the part in bold was not necessary....

laws vary in different states...even different cites....virgina laws are pretty lax

[Samantha]

the part in bold was not necessary....

laws vary in different states...even different cites....virgina laws are pretty lax

It was necessary to explain how much I respect the constitution.

I think we should have a federal law then, to make it very difficult for psychotic maniac killers to get their hands on guns in any city and any state in the USA.

Why are law abiding citizen, gun owners against such a thing?

[manu1959]

It was necessary to explain how much I respect the constitution.

I think we should have a federal law then, to make it very difficult for psychotic maniac killers to get their hands on guns in any city and any state in the USA.

Why are law abiding citizen, gun owners against such a thing?

no it wasn't....i thought your post and questions were teriffic the partisan shot wasn't necessary....anyway...a fedreal law on guns is not a good idea....in therory they could pass a law preventing a state from having any guns at all....i think virginas laws are a bit lax, i belive i heard no background check and no waiting period....i would think the sate should pass strickter laws than that....the dude had two 9 mil and a 22 pretty standard stuff...

i think people should be able to own guns....i just think it should be a bit harder to get one than walking into a target (not literally)....i think this dude would have gotten his hands on a gun even if guns were illegal....he seemed rather motivated to kill...

[Samantha]

Yes, it was, as I said, to show how much I value the constitution.

In theory? What does theory have to do with it? Is it all or nothing with the NRA? Don't they compromise at all?

Why would anyone be against a nationwide law that there must be background checks, licenses issued, and strict laws against unregistered gun owners?

Only criminals would be against this, IMHO.

[manu1959]

Yes, it was, as I said, to show how much I value the constitution.

In theory? What does theory have to do with it? Is it all or nothing with the NRA? Don't they compromise at all?

Why would anyone be against a nationwide law that there must be background checks, licenses issued, and strict laws against unregistered gun owners?

Only criminals would be against this, IMHO.

in therory is one of my fav phrases.....i think the states rights folks would be against a federal law re guns....nra is against anything that erods rights to a gun...you can always move to SF the voted to outlaw guns....it passed...they also voted to impeach bush...it passed...they vote lots of cool lib stuff into law....place is super expensive to live in though....not a bad place to visit though

[Gaffer]

Of course when something like this happens, and 32 people have been murdered at a school, the left starts calling for gun control and the right and the NRA start calling for the left to shut the fuck up.

I support the constitution, therefore I support the right for law abiding citizens with no criminal record to own guns. I support the constitution, therefore I protest Gonzales and Bush for their torture policy, their removing habeus corpus, their illegal wiretaps. I hold the constitution as sacred to our freedom and liberty.

I don't know much about gun laws.

• So I ask the folks here, who have guns, do we have strong enough laws to prevent guns from being sold to people without the proper background checks?
  
• Do you have to pass a test to buy a gun? No
  
• Do you have to have a license to buy a gun? Only if your a dealer or collector.
  
• Is there a background check? Yes, no convicted felon can own a gun.
  
• If a person is found with a gun, without it being registered, is it a federal offense? No, its a state matter.
  
• Do we need tougher gun laws? Some states do, most just need to enforce what they have.
  
• If you are a law abiding citizen, why would you be against tougher laws so that someone not as upstanding as you would be prevented from buying a gun?

There are plenty of existing laws that are not enforced. More laws don't solve the problem, enforcement does. States and cities all have different laws involving guns. A federal law that covers all of them could be used to take away the right to bear arms which is the first step to a totalitarian state.

[Nuc]

There is no constitutional right to "own guns" as you phrase it. The correct term is "bear arms". Then the question is "What are 'arms'?" . You might make an argument that the constitution allows us to own bazookas, anti-aircraft missiles, grenades, etc. You could just as easily argue that we only have the right to bear muskets, flintlocks, etc. because that's what existed when the constitution was drafted. Even the nuttiest NRA jerks would probably admit that we shouldn't be allowed to have personal atomic bombs although that would certainly be "bearing arms". Even the wackiest left winger would probably think it's OK to own a BB gun. So it's a question of where to draw the line.

Clearly the United States has done a miserable job of drawing the line.

[Dilloduck]

There is no constitutional right to "own guns" as you phrase it. The correct term is "bear arms". Then the question is "What are 'arms'?" . You might make an argument that the constitution allows us to own bazookas, anti-aircraft missiles, grenades, etc. You could just as easily argue that we only have the right to bear muskets, flintlocks, etc. because that's what existed when the constitution was drafted. Even the nuttiest NRA jerks would probably admit that we shouldn't be allowed to have personal atomic bombs although that would certainly be "bearing arms". Even the wackiest left winger would probably think it's OK to own a BB gun. So it's a question of where to draw the line.

Clearly the United States has done a miserable job of drawing the line.

Considering all of the variables involved, how can you possibly come to this conclusion ?

[darin]

I support the constitution, therefore I protest Gonzales and Bush for their torture policy, their removing habeus corpus, their illegal wiretaps. I hold the constitution as sacred to our freedom and liberty.

None of those accusations are based in reality.
I'd bet LOTS OF MONEY on a wager the Gunman acquired those guns ILLEGALLY.

[Gunny]

It was necessary to explain how much I respect the constitution.

I think we should have a federal law then, to make it very difficult for psychotic maniac killers to get their hands on guns in any city and any state in the USA.

Why are law abiding citizen, gun owners against such a thing?

Here's the problem with your thinking....

Most criminals do not commit crimes with legally purchased firearms.

And you cannot call psychotic maniac killers psychotic maniac killers in this nation until they actually become psychotic manic killers. Kind of like you can't call an Arab an Arab, a black a black ...etc.

[Gunny]

None of those accusations are based in reality.
I'd bet LOTS OF MONEY on a wager the Gunman acquired those guns ILLEGALLY.

He was a South Korean here in a resident alien visa. I am not aware that such persons are allowed to purchase and/or posess firearms in the US. That would preclude a legally-owned weapon.

[krisy]

It was necessary to explain how much I respect the constitution.

I think we should have a federal law then, to make it very difficult for psychotic maniac killers to get their hands on guns in any city and any state in the USA.

Why are law abiding citizen, gun owners against such a thing?

Part of the problem with this is....how do you know who the maniacs are? Sure,a background check will show an obvious criminal. What about people who have no records,but go out and do things like this guy one day becaused they cracked? Any person could loose it and not show any sign.

[krisy]

Here's the problem with your thinking....

Most criminals do not commit crimes with legally purchased firearms.

And you cannot call psychotic maniac killers psychotic maniac killers in this nation until they actually become psychotic manic killers. Kind of like you can't call an Arab an Arab, a black a black ...etc.

Exactly

[Gaffer]

There is no constitutional right to "own guns" as you phrase it. The correct term is "bear arms". Then the question is "What are 'arms'?" . You might make an argument that the constitution allows us to own bazookas, anti-aircraft missiles, grenades, etc. You could just as easily argue that we only have the right to bear muskets, flintlocks, etc. because that's what existed when the constitution was drafted. Even the nuttiest NRA jerks would probably admit that we shouldn't be allowed to have personal atomic bombs although that would certainly be "bearing arms". Even the wackiest left winger would probably think it's OK to own a BB gun. So it's a question of where to draw the line.

Clearly the United States has done a miserable job of drawing the line.

right to bear arms is what I said. I never mentioned owning arms. But at the same time you can't bear arms if you don't own them. That is the only way to control who has what kind of arm. The laws specify what constitutes a firearm and what can be carried by individuals. The interpretation was done long ago. The lines are draw with the laws of the states and in some cases the feds.