Gun Control

You said you would support some mental fitness test for gun ownership, conditionally based on someone else's position on voter identification. Very bold. I was wondering also if you were in favor of these same sorts of tests as a condition of voting.

It seemed to follow logically that since we found a conditon under which you supported mental health checks for owning guns, that perhaps you would support the same tests for voting

Quote: Dalex64

You said you would support some mental fitness test for gun ownership, conditionally based on someone else's position on voter identification. Very bold. I was wondering also if you were in favor of these same sorts of tests as a condition of voting.

It seemed to follow logically that since we found a conditon under which you supported mental health checks for owning guns, that perhaps you would support the same tests for voting

Haha...please google search "irony". :D

Quote: Beethoven

Sure, I'll consider that right after you support a "Voter ID Test" to be given before people vote.

I didn't think so.

Come on Beethoven you know I support Voter ID. Just make it free to get and easy to get at the polling station. Maybe America should follow india's system (and alot of other countries too) that make you get a mark in ink once you've voted. And get rid of all of the absentee ballots, vote by mail etc, and give people enough time off to vote.

Quote: boymimbo

Come on Beethoven you know I support Voter ID.

Oops...that's right, you do. Touché!

Quote: AZDuffman

No. In PA there at least used to be a question "are you of sound mind" on conceal-carry permits. It would be a hardship for people to have to pay for this test as well. We are not supposed to have to pay even a small fee to exercise our rights.

Just use the mental health reporting systems we have now, but go back to where you pull people who can't handle life from society. Nurse Rachet kept them in line.

Interesting. Ok, so, you agree that people should be able to exercise their second Amendment rights. Does that include women and children? The mentally ill? How about those in jail? Or criminals. Obvious there are laws in place to prevent people from having guns that shouldn't. All of this can be classified as "gun control" as they are legal measures taken to prevent certain sectors of society from operating / owning guns, contrary to their second amendment rights.

So, are rights absolute, or are they subject to conditions? And if they are subject to conditions, why the huge objection to type of weapon or making guns more difficult to own, especially to sects of society that are more likely to use them contrary to the intention of the 2nd amendment (the militia and home protection thing).

You know, I would absolutely support a well armed society if guns somehow could be used just for protection and in case one needs to uprise against the govenment, and accidents, gun-suicide, homocides, etc wouldn't happen as a collorary to the 2nd Amendment.

An interesting movement in technology is the ability to only have the owner of a weapon be able to fire the weapon (via biometrics). So if someone steals the weapon, technology makes it useless. It would also be cool too to have some scan recognition in the sight to the gun too to prevent it firing at family members and at point blank range at the owner.

Deleted (accidentally posted in the wrong thread)

Quote: boymimbo

Interesting. Ok, so, you agree that people should be able to exercise their second Amendment rights. Does that include women and children?

When have I suggested women have different rights than men? OTOH, there are all kinds of rights children do not have until they reach the age of majority and I have no problem with that.

Quote:

You know, I would absolutely support a well armed society if guns somehow could be used just for protection and in case one needs to uprise against the govenment, and accidents, gun-suicide, homocides, etc wouldn't happen as a collorary to the 2nd Amendment.

How can accidents "not happen?" There is a reason they are called "accidents." Of course you try to prevent them by responsible use, but accidents will happen. Suicides, well they are going to happen, better they be painless. We have laws against homicide already.

Quote:

An interesting movement in technology is the ability to only have the owner of a weapon be able to fire the weapon (via biometrics). So if someone steals the weapon, technology makes it useless. It would also be cool too to have some scan recognition in the sight to the gun too to prevent it firing at family members and at point blank range at the owner.

Sounds like lots of extra cost for no good reason to me, I'd rather take my chances.

No, what i'm saying is that women didn't have the right to vote until the 19th Amendment, 1920. Heck, what about the 18th Amendment?

My point is that the constitution changes over time, so i wonder if you would support a constitutional amendment to the 2nd amendment? i wonder, if the internet existed in 1919, whether you would be screaming about these women pushing for a vote, or whether you would be bent out of shape in 1865 when slavery was about to be abolished.

Accidents of course, AZ, are preventable. Or is that your tax on the stupid?

I could imagine that some parents would happily buy that technology if it would prevent their kid / spouse / relative from finding it and using it.

Knife wounds are in many ways far worse than bullet wounds.

Though I know one case where there were two autopsies on a stiff found in a hotel room and neither of them concluded "GSW".
A private investigator stayed in the hotel room for six weeks working on the case and never found the bullet hole in the wall.

But a reopening of the case focused on some drinking companions ............ and that is when the cops learned it was a GSW case.

Quote: Fleastiff

Knife wounds are in many ways far worse than bullet wounds.

+1

I'd much rather die quickly from a gunshot than suffer a slow, painful death after getting stabbed 30 times.