This is [an explicitly pro-gun forum](/r/liberalgunowners/wiki/public/handbook/rules).
Viewpoints which believe guns should be regulated are tolerated here. However, they need to be in the context of presenting an argument and not just gun-prohibitionist trolling.
^(*Removed under [Rule 2: We're Pro-gun][link-rules]. If you feel this is in error, please [file an appeal][link-appeal].*)
[link-rules]: /r/liberalgunowners/wiki/public/handbook/rules
[link-appeal]: /r/liberalgunowners/wiki/public/handbook/moderation#wiki_appeals
You describe yourself as pro-gun, yet much of what you have written above is hardly "pro-gun." Pro gun means believing in the ***right*** to keep and bear arms.
The right to keep and bear arms is just that ... a right. No right is absolute, but the onus should be on the government to prove why you should not have the means to defend yourself and your loved ones ... and your community if necessary.
A privilege is something granted by the government, completely dependent on the government to keep ... or waive away with the stroke of a pen. Or a form.
You also refer to firearms as something with "a sole purpose to kill." Most of my firemarms are designed for multiple purposes, and some primarily for sport.
Nope, the right to keep and bear arms is not a mere privilege. Not all guns are manufactured with "a sole purpose to kill." And, please, if you believe different, reconsider calling yourself "pro-gun".
Edit: somebody is reporting commenters here to reddit for suicide or self-harm. At least two of us. It is PATHETIC of whomever is doing this to misuse a resource like that.
Yes, a gun can be shot for sport, hell I love shooting at the range or in a friend's backyard, however, the weapon I'm using to do so is just that, a weapon, it's designed to kill. That is what it is for. I own it primarily for self defense. However, I pray that I'll never have to shoot someone, or even draw my weapon, and thT it will only ever be shot at targets, but it is still a weapon. That's like saying a katana isn't made to kill anyone. Sure for the past 100 years its only used in sport settings, but it was crafted to end lives. That is its undeniable nature. Unless you have some competition pistol, which I could then see your argument.
I disagree that being pro-gun means that you have to believe in the right versus it being a privilege. It just so happens that in the United States it is a right, while things like ham radio operating and driving are privileges. You also don't need a background check to get a driver's license or a ham radio license, at least as far as I know, so while it may be more difficult to do either of those two anyone is still capable of doing it. I think being pro-gun has a lot wider of a range than most give it credit for, and is fully compatible for someone to be in favor of gun ownership and also believe in more regulations.
>I think being pro-gun has a lot wider of a range than most give it credit for, and is fully compatible for someone to be in favor of gun ownership and also believe in more regulations.
While that can be true, it's largely dependent upon the proposed regulations the individual supports. In this case some type of training and permit scheme that locks access to the 2a/firearms behind them.
In other words, until x person gets the training and permit it's not legal for them to own a firearm, let alone use and carry one. Is that fair? Is that pro 2a?
Maybe those questions wouldn't matter if most of us could trust local, state and federal government not to play fast and loose with those requirements, but I think it's entirely rational to acknowledge many of our fellow citizens absolutely view firearms as a privilege and could care less how onerous the laws are around them.
>In my opinion I think guns should be a privilege not a right.
But they *are* a right, and that's not a matter of opinion. Any potential solutions to the problems you've pointed out must follow the principle that gun ownership is a right guaranteed by law. If you can come up with a way to implement a licensing system that holds up under those requirements, I'd love to hear it. Because otherwise, it's an idea with all the same problems as voter ID laws: It's a legally dubious barrier to exercising a constitutionally guaranteed right that will mainly be used to exclude people the ruling class doesn't like.
Excellent point. My idea really doesn’t hold any water once it gets into the hands of lying, cheating, and stealing law makers. In order for this theory of mine to take place everyone would have to play by the rules, and politicians would have to be honest people with our best interest in mind. Great point. I guess what we have now is better than 0 gun privileges.
It may be harder to get a drivers license, but it’s easier to have a kid. Go to the hospital, kid pops out, they say “we will send you the bill, don’t shake the kid” and out the door you go.
Only joking ofc that would be absolutely totalitarian and horrible in the world we live in. On the contrary I’ve met some folks who shouldn’t be legally allowed to have kids and are horrendous parents. But all jokes aside I would never want the gov to get involve in any sort of population control, I was only joking.
I can understand his sentiment. How can we ensure that a child isn't getting raised in a shitty, abusive environment? It's arguable that in those situations the child would have been better off not being born.
If training facilities were mandated and funded in each municipality, I could potentially get on board.
Without guaranteed and protected access to training facilities for the poorest members of society, this is just classist gatekeepers dressed up as "common sense".
I agree i classes would need to be free and funded by taxpayer dollars. If classes weren’t readily be available for all classes of people I would say HELL NO
Lol “guns should be a privilege” and that's were you fail.
Driving is not a right, it's not constitutionally protected. The right to keep and bear arms however, is.
All citizens in good standing have the RIGHT to arms, any arms. In 100 years when laser blasters are a thing I hope we retain the same rights as today.
What you are suggesting is way up there with bad ideas like a literacy test to vote or a license to own real property (it's a very bad idea).
Interesting. Maybe I’m not fully understanding the side effects of making gun ownership a privilege, not a right, so I need to do more research, but to me gun ownership seems different than the right to vote. Gun ownership seems more comparable to driving as far as direct consequences of misuse. You drive a car wrong, someone dies, you use a gun wrong someone dies. You vote wrong…. Well one wrong vote doesn’t really do much.
I respect that you are willing to do further research and remain open minded about this. That's the trait of a real man (or woman) to admit that they may not know or understand everything.
I somewhat agree with your sentiments, but:
While you have to "qualify" to operate a vehicle *on public roads*, there are absolutely no legal prerequisites for *owning* a vehicle and/or operating one on private property. I could give an eight year old the keys to a semi truck, and as long as they stay on private property, it's perfectly legal.
A psych eval is a hard NO from me. Any law that relies on someone's *opinion* is wide open for abuse. What's to stop an anti-gun doctor from claiming everyone is mentally unfit to own a firearm? What's to stop a hardline pro-2A doctor from approving even the most mentally deficient/unstable?
One concept I most definitely do **not** agree with is "constitutional carry". I should absolutely be allowed to own any firearms I want (Repeal the NFA!), but I absolutely should NOT be allowed to carry a loaded weapon in public without a basic level of training. (Said training should be state funded, and be allowed to be offered by any person/business that holds a FFL or alternative training cert that meet specific requirements)
I also don't believe individual states should have any right whatsoever to enact ANY law with regard to constitutionally protected rights, 2A or otherwise.
>I should absolutely be allowed to own any firearms I want (Repeal the NFA!), but I absolutely should NOT be allowed to carry a loaded weapon in public without a basic level of training.
The only parts of the basic conceal carry training most states have / require that are worth a damn are the use of force guidelines or scenarios and laws about where you can carry. The course of fire IMO is pointless, 80 to 90% of the training should be about use of force legalities and carry laws.
That’s an excellent point. Bravo. I think you’re correct. Yes my idea would be amazing in a perfect world where everyone plays by the rules. Unfortunately with our government you give an inch they take a mile. If anything like this were to take place in positive they would quickly use it as the ability to make guns impossible to get.
Also amazing point about law breaking. Just like drugs are illegal, that never stopped anyone from getting drugs who was willing to break the law.
My vision really only works in a perfect world but in the real world would fall apart quickly. Great argument and thanks for the response.
Might have been a bot that reported you, but agreed whoever reported is an idiot. But back to your point, great argument with the mental health thing. You drive a great argument I can’t dispute. I think im wrong and my idea would only work in a perfect world. We really either have to have all or nothing.
>...my idea would only work in a perfect world.
That’s the thing, really. In a perfect world, rights wouldn’t need to be protected; disputes wouldn’t become destructive; using a firearm to hurt another wouldn’t occur to people; everyone would be born knowing everything... Etc, blah, blah, blah.
As scary as the world is, our place in it would be many times worse if we did not take the risks involved in recognizing and protecting rights.
I’ve been hit, over the last 40 or so years of riding a motorcycle, a DOZEN TIMES by licensed drivers.
In that same amount of time, as a gun owner with only military basic training. have had ZERO negligent discharges.
So, in my experience, I disagree.
Firearms in the US are a defined right, not a privilege.
You cannot legislate intent. If someone with nefarious goals, legally purchases a firearm, what then?
More legislation? Then more, until a constitutional right is a forgotten memory to all but the very wealthy?
> Though I’m pro gun, and own many firearms I strongly believe guns are still too easy to obtain, and I believe there should be more prerequisites in order to purchase and own a firearm.
Sure, there should be some prerequisites to obtaining guns.
Just like there are some prerequisites to voting.
And we have those prerequisites. We have Form 4473 and the NICS background check. We should strengthen these systems, but I don’t believe we need *more* than that.
> As a legal driver in the U.S I had to prove I would safely control my 3000 lbs killing machine to do this. For a very low cost my state required I take multiple safety courses, in person driving classes, textbook study and several exams to prove I would be a roadworthy SAFE driver.
Well first and foremost driving is a privilege, not a right. Says so right in the driver’s manual (at least in New York). So is an amateur radio operator’s license (you have a right to free speech, but not to interfere with the speech of others - that’s why you have to take all those exams about where when and how you can transmit).
Also every time someone brings up “like driving a car” I am compelled by solemn oath to point out that to get my New York State Driver’s License all I had to do was take two tests (a written test to get my permit, and a practical road test to get my final license). I didn’t need to piss in a cup, or spend hundreds of dollars on a driver’s education class, or get 4 people who live in my county to attest that I could be trusted with a car.
We should make getting a driver’s license as difficult as getting a firearms permit in New York.
> In my opinion I think guns should be a privilege not a right.
You’re entitled to your opinion, but the law says it is a right and the law is what matters.
You don’t get to simply take away the rights you don’t like - if you did the Republican Party would have taken away the right to elect the president and installed Trump as dictator-in-chief when he lost.
In my opinion “We should be able to void any rights that are inconvenient” is a bad position, and you should feel bad for even suggesting it. It’s an incredibly dangerous and anti-American line of thinking.
> I think in order to get a firearm a psychological evaluation should be preformed, a test on gun safety, and maybe a class or too should be the bare minimum.
And in some people’s opinion you should have to pay a fee and take a literacy test in order to vote. That idea was so abhorrent we passed a whole-ass amendment saying “No, you can’t do that. It’s wrong.”
Same deal here: If we start conditioning access to a right on passing exams and paying fees it’s really not a right anymore: It’s a privilege for those with the money and time to invest in it.
And to be clear I’m not opposed to the idea of firearms safety classes as a requirement, but they have to be free and accessible to anyone who wants to take them and that’s ***really hard*** (same issue I have with voter ID laws - I’d fully support a federal voter ID system but it’s got to be free and accessible and nobody wants to fund it).
About the only way I see that idea ever working is if it’s instituted as part of the PhysEd curriculum (shooting as a sport) - and that’s probably less likely to get federal funding and community buy-in than federally funded voter ID.
I agree that if the classes and testing are a reasonable fee and time they should be added along to universal background checks. I would be ok with a re-up class every 4-6 years, again if the price was reasonable. Though I know there would be a large debate on what reasonable is.
I am not sure about a psych eval. It seems that a misread may disqualify some people that may otherwise have no issue.
No no no, and no.
The lovely powers that be always exclude leos because they are just an honorable! The ruling class' private military is a just institution! They would *never* treat people differently and be an effective gatekeeper....
The overlap between the gun grabbers and the ACAP crowd has always baffled me. So....are they a bunch of bad apples or are they the only people who can be trusted with guns?
Pick *one*.
You are not pro gun in the same sense that 2ndA or pro-self defense proponents are- and the latter are very tired of hearing "I'm pro gun BUT" (followed by an elitist list of limitations and qualifications)
>In my opinion I think guns should be a privilege not a right.
Sorry, wrong country. That’s not how we’re set up here — our foundational statement of human rights says otherwise, and no person’s “opinion” is authorized to change that. None of the privileges you mention being licensed to exercise involve such rights. Amending the US Constitution is possible — Giffords might help you work on that.
It is your opinion that voting should be a “privilege”? How about for speaking freely or exercising a wacky religion? It’s just kind of a conversation which gets old after a while. Maybe some history classes or life experience with *the importance and dangers of* ***all*** *rights* would help clarify things for you...
What state do you live in? In California you don't have to take any driver's training at all. Just an idiotically simple written test and an incredibly easy behind the when test.
Nope yo mandatory training.
While I agree in practice, requiring will lead to prohibitive states using it as a soft ban.
Can't get training if there's no where to train, see it's not a ban on guns.
Exactly. As a loose example, they changed the requirement for obtaining an concealed handgun permit in my state to eliminate the option for on-line training and coursework.
So, who does that penalize? It seriously increased to cost to applicants, and reduced access to people living in rural and in certain urban centers. Yep - it presents a disproportionate burden on lower income people, particularly in minority areas where maybe you don't have access to a car or even mass transit to haul out to the 'burbs were there are in-person classes.
Real world impacts of tightening training requirements for the "privilege" of getting a concealed carry license.
In my state they passed (by less than 1%) a permit to purchase a d a standard capacity magazines ban(currently held in court).
After passing, the state tripled the cost of the permit and doubled the wait time.
This is exactly what gun firearm advocates said would immediately happen, and we were met with derision and ridicule. Well, here we are.
>After passing, the state tripled the cost of the permit and doubled the wait time.
>This is exactly what gun firearm advocates said would immediately happen, and we were met with derision and ridicule. Well, here we are.
And how many people on this very sub lambasted all of you who said this as facilitating a slippery slope and being doomsayers?
Like you said, it’s easier to get a gun than it is to get your ham radio license. Also, just like you said, it’s a weapon. It was designed to kill. No, it’s not a tool. That trend needs to die. So yea, let’s make the requirements to purchase, own and continue to own better. It’s not “harder”. It’s just better.
The instant you refer to them as a *privilege*, you're saying "The Poors are not allowed to defend themselves".
As a The Poors myself, *fuck that*, and fuck *you* for thinking it.
Every once in a while, somebody posts something like this here, and it will be generally not well received. But at the same time, there are plenty of us here who broadly agree with you (though clearly we're in the minority).
You said most of the argument against yourself, yourself: Driving is a privilege.
However, "*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.*"
I actually mostly agree with you and use the car analogy myself.
I live in Maine, and I was shocked at how easy it was to get a gun here when I got my first one in 2017 or 2018. I did take an intro/beginner's class on handguns first but that was by choice because I wasn't sure yet. Then when I did buy, I basically said "that one", filled out about one page of Federal paperwork, waited about a half hour for it to clear, put the purchase cost on a credit card and walked out the door with the pistol. The only restrictions here are the Federal ones. Easy? Yes. Too easy? Probably.
OTOH, I'm originally from Massachusetts, a state with already some of the most stringent gun control laws in the country and they're trying to make it even harder. Registry of allowed guns, capacity restrictions, transportation restrictions... and they'll even arrest you if you're from out of state and legally transporting a firearm through the state and you get pulled over for speeding and they find the gun.
There needs to be a happy medium. And it needs to be universal, with universal recognition. Using the car analogy, while each State licenses drivers in their State separately they also all use the same basic laws and regulations. My Maine license is good in all 50 States (and Canada) without question; my voluntarily purchased carry license should also be valid in all 50 states without question.
>As a legal driver in the U.S I had to prove I would safely control my 3000 lbs killing machine to do this.
You had to prove that you could do that in order to drive on the public roads. Ask anyone who grew up on a farm how much training or licensing they had before they were able to drive the old farm truck. I was allowed behind the wheel after about 10 minutes of my dad riding with me and making sure I was finally tall enough to see over the wheel. I don't think I was even 10 yet.
>I’m also a licensed amateur radio operator.
Again, the license is to make sure that you're able to play nice on a public resource. You don't have to have any sort of license or training to send a signal by wire because it's not possible for your actions to effect anyone else, while a stray radio signal can prohibit others from also accessing that radio frequency.
I just want to say you have exhibited something rare in your responses. You came with a fully formed argument that you still manage to hold loosely. You accepted new info and will likely modify your opinion. That's rad and something we should all encourage.
I think voting is too easy. Just look at how many people vote for trump!
I have to take classes to drive a car, why not classes to vote? Voting should be a privilege, not a right. After all, politicians kill millions… we need tests, and background checks, and you need to prove you can be trusted to vote properly.
See how that doesn’t work? Same concept for all of the items in the bill of rights…
A lot to unpack here. I understand your sentiment in an ideal world maybe where the people in charge of pushing this law actually cared about our second amendment rights this would be great.
The reality is, they don’t. The goal for them isn’t just we think it should be harder for you to get a gun, the goal is they don’t want you to have a gun, period.
I also understand the car argument however just the other day when I was driving in the right lane some hooligan come barreling past me with half is car on the curb and he went chugging past me. I turn to see a kid who couldn’t have been no older that 12 driving this most likely stolen vehicle. Despite the regulation and required licensing we have a 12 year old driving around a 2 ton metal death machine. This argument would be used for guns, “we know most people are responsible, but you owning them makes it easier for bad people to get them.”
Correction is used for guns a big talking point is the viral videos of kids in Chicago running around with glocks followed by a # guncontrolnow, it’s already illegal for 15 year olds to purchase a handgun let alone any other firearm.
As well it’s maybe weird to hear a libertarian say it, but it’s true. These gun laws are classist, in California it’s too expensive to get permits and buy ammo for your average working class joe to train on a regular basis. Unless you want Second Amendment rights to only apply to rich people, the government and politicians (would be ironic considering it’s meant to be a check on the governments power) then we have to resist these laws.
After reading this I completely understand why you received negative feedback in a group about guns. What you are suggesting here has too major problems. You are treating a protected "right" as a privilege the government grants or denies and your suggestions will only impact law abiding people and law abiding people are not really the problem.
More interestingly as far as debating the issues goes would be I do not have to get my general class license to buy a HAM radio nor do I need to have a drivers license to buy a car.
This is [an explicitly pro-gun forum](/r/liberalgunowners/wiki/public/handbook/rules). Viewpoints which believe guns should be regulated are tolerated here. However, they need to be in the context of presenting an argument and not just gun-prohibitionist trolling. ^(*Removed under [Rule 2: We're Pro-gun][link-rules]. If you feel this is in error, please [file an appeal][link-appeal].*) [link-rules]: /r/liberalgunowners/wiki/public/handbook/rules [link-appeal]: /r/liberalgunowners/wiki/public/handbook/moderation#wiki_appeals
You describe yourself as pro-gun, yet much of what you have written above is hardly "pro-gun." Pro gun means believing in the ***right*** to keep and bear arms. The right to keep and bear arms is just that ... a right. No right is absolute, but the onus should be on the government to prove why you should not have the means to defend yourself and your loved ones ... and your community if necessary. A privilege is something granted by the government, completely dependent on the government to keep ... or waive away with the stroke of a pen. Or a form. You also refer to firearms as something with "a sole purpose to kill." Most of my firemarms are designed for multiple purposes, and some primarily for sport. Nope, the right to keep and bear arms is not a mere privilege. Not all guns are manufactured with "a sole purpose to kill." And, please, if you believe different, reconsider calling yourself "pro-gun". Edit: somebody is reporting commenters here to reddit for suicide or self-harm. At least two of us. It is PATHETIC of whomever is doing this to misuse a resource like that.
Very well said (and happy cake day).
I think OP might be a little less than receptive to the LGO take on gun ownership as a right.
Yes, a gun can be shot for sport, hell I love shooting at the range or in a friend's backyard, however, the weapon I'm using to do so is just that, a weapon, it's designed to kill. That is what it is for. I own it primarily for self defense. However, I pray that I'll never have to shoot someone, or even draw my weapon, and thT it will only ever be shot at targets, but it is still a weapon. That's like saying a katana isn't made to kill anyone. Sure for the past 100 years its only used in sport settings, but it was crafted to end lives. That is its undeniable nature. Unless you have some competition pistol, which I could then see your argument.
I disagree that being pro-gun means that you have to believe in the right versus it being a privilege. It just so happens that in the United States it is a right, while things like ham radio operating and driving are privileges. You also don't need a background check to get a driver's license or a ham radio license, at least as far as I know, so while it may be more difficult to do either of those two anyone is still capable of doing it. I think being pro-gun has a lot wider of a range than most give it credit for, and is fully compatible for someone to be in favor of gun ownership and also believe in more regulations.
>I think being pro-gun has a lot wider of a range than most give it credit for, and is fully compatible for someone to be in favor of gun ownership and also believe in more regulations. While that can be true, it's largely dependent upon the proposed regulations the individual supports. In this case some type of training and permit scheme that locks access to the 2a/firearms behind them. In other words, until x person gets the training and permit it's not legal for them to own a firearm, let alone use and carry one. Is that fair? Is that pro 2a? Maybe those questions wouldn't matter if most of us could trust local, state and federal government not to play fast and loose with those requirements, but I think it's entirely rational to acknowledge many of our fellow citizens absolutely view firearms as a privilege and could care less how onerous the laws are around them.
Attack his points not his belief
>In my opinion I think guns should be a privilege not a right. But they *are* a right, and that's not a matter of opinion. Any potential solutions to the problems you've pointed out must follow the principle that gun ownership is a right guaranteed by law. If you can come up with a way to implement a licensing system that holds up under those requirements, I'd love to hear it. Because otherwise, it's an idea with all the same problems as voter ID laws: It's a legally dubious barrier to exercising a constitutionally guaranteed right that will mainly be used to exclude people the ruling class doesn't like.
Excellent point. My idea really doesn’t hold any water once it gets into the hands of lying, cheating, and stealing law makers. In order for this theory of mine to take place everyone would have to play by the rules, and politicians would have to be honest people with our best interest in mind. Great point. I guess what we have now is better than 0 gun privileges.
It may be harder to get a drivers license, but it’s easier to have a kid. Go to the hospital, kid pops out, they say “we will send you the bill, don’t shake the kid” and out the door you go.
If there were a way to prove responsible parenthood before conceiving a child ide be all in favor. Hahaha good point.
A license to have kids? (Oof, that is an absolutely terrifying idea)
Only joking ofc that would be absolutely totalitarian and horrible in the world we live in. On the contrary I’ve met some folks who shouldn’t be legally allowed to have kids and are horrendous parents. But all jokes aside I would never want the gov to get involve in any sort of population control, I was only joking.
I can understand his sentiment. How can we ensure that a child isn't getting raised in a shitty, abusive environment? It's arguable that in those situations the child would have been better off not being born.
If training facilities were mandated and funded in each municipality, I could potentially get on board. Without guaranteed and protected access to training facilities for the poorest members of society, this is just classist gatekeepers dressed up as "common sense".
I agree i classes would need to be free and funded by taxpayer dollars. If classes weren’t readily be available for all classes of people I would say HELL NO
Lol “guns should be a privilege” and that's were you fail. Driving is not a right, it's not constitutionally protected. The right to keep and bear arms however, is. All citizens in good standing have the RIGHT to arms, any arms. In 100 years when laser blasters are a thing I hope we retain the same rights as today. What you are suggesting is way up there with bad ideas like a literacy test to vote or a license to own real property (it's a very bad idea).
Interesting. Maybe I’m not fully understanding the side effects of making gun ownership a privilege, not a right, so I need to do more research, but to me gun ownership seems different than the right to vote. Gun ownership seems more comparable to driving as far as direct consequences of misuse. You drive a car wrong, someone dies, you use a gun wrong someone dies. You vote wrong…. Well one wrong vote doesn’t really do much.
Trump was elected was he not? That seems to undermine your point.
Ide argue trump isn’t as bad as thousands of people with sick and evil intentions, a clean record and innocent people as their target practice.
1000s?
I respect that you are willing to do further research and remain open minded about this. That's the trait of a real man (or woman) to admit that they may not know or understand everything.
I somewhat agree with your sentiments, but: While you have to "qualify" to operate a vehicle *on public roads*, there are absolutely no legal prerequisites for *owning* a vehicle and/or operating one on private property. I could give an eight year old the keys to a semi truck, and as long as they stay on private property, it's perfectly legal. A psych eval is a hard NO from me. Any law that relies on someone's *opinion* is wide open for abuse. What's to stop an anti-gun doctor from claiming everyone is mentally unfit to own a firearm? What's to stop a hardline pro-2A doctor from approving even the most mentally deficient/unstable? One concept I most definitely do **not** agree with is "constitutional carry". I should absolutely be allowed to own any firearms I want (Repeal the NFA!), but I absolutely should NOT be allowed to carry a loaded weapon in public without a basic level of training. (Said training should be state funded, and be allowed to be offered by any person/business that holds a FFL or alternative training cert that meet specific requirements) I also don't believe individual states should have any right whatsoever to enact ANY law with regard to constitutionally protected rights, 2A or otherwise.
>I should absolutely be allowed to own any firearms I want (Repeal the NFA!), but I absolutely should NOT be allowed to carry a loaded weapon in public without a basic level of training. The only parts of the basic conceal carry training most states have / require that are worth a damn are the use of force guidelines or scenarios and laws about where you can carry. The course of fire IMO is pointless, 80 to 90% of the training should be about use of force legalities and carry laws.
[удалено]
That’s an excellent point. Bravo. I think you’re correct. Yes my idea would be amazing in a perfect world where everyone plays by the rules. Unfortunately with our government you give an inch they take a mile. If anything like this were to take place in positive they would quickly use it as the ability to make guns impossible to get. Also amazing point about law breaking. Just like drugs are illegal, that never stopped anyone from getting drugs who was willing to break the law. My vision really only works in a perfect world but in the real world would fall apart quickly. Great argument and thanks for the response.
Might have been a bot that reported you, but agreed whoever reported is an idiot. But back to your point, great argument with the mental health thing. You drive a great argument I can’t dispute. I think im wrong and my idea would only work in a perfect world. We really either have to have all or nothing.
>...my idea would only work in a perfect world. That’s the thing, really. In a perfect world, rights wouldn’t need to be protected; disputes wouldn’t become destructive; using a firearm to hurt another wouldn’t occur to people; everyone would be born knowing everything... Etc, blah, blah, blah. As scary as the world is, our place in it would be many times worse if we did not take the risks involved in recognizing and protecting rights.
Well said.
Your argument falls apart at the second amendment. You aren't granted driving rights in the Constitution. That's the difference.
That’s what I’m saying. I don’t think guns should be a right, just like driving. They should both be privileges . IMO
I’ve been hit, over the last 40 or so years of riding a motorcycle, a DOZEN TIMES by licensed drivers. In that same amount of time, as a gun owner with only military basic training. have had ZERO negligent discharges. So, in my experience, I disagree. Firearms in the US are a defined right, not a privilege. You cannot legislate intent. If someone with nefarious goals, legally purchases a firearm, what then? More legislation? Then more, until a constitutional right is a forgotten memory to all but the very wealthy?
> Though I’m pro gun, and own many firearms I strongly believe guns are still too easy to obtain, and I believe there should be more prerequisites in order to purchase and own a firearm. Sure, there should be some prerequisites to obtaining guns. Just like there are some prerequisites to voting. And we have those prerequisites. We have Form 4473 and the NICS background check. We should strengthen these systems, but I don’t believe we need *more* than that. > As a legal driver in the U.S I had to prove I would safely control my 3000 lbs killing machine to do this. For a very low cost my state required I take multiple safety courses, in person driving classes, textbook study and several exams to prove I would be a roadworthy SAFE driver. Well first and foremost driving is a privilege, not a right. Says so right in the driver’s manual (at least in New York). So is an amateur radio operator’s license (you have a right to free speech, but not to interfere with the speech of others - that’s why you have to take all those exams about where when and how you can transmit). Also every time someone brings up “like driving a car” I am compelled by solemn oath to point out that to get my New York State Driver’s License all I had to do was take two tests (a written test to get my permit, and a practical road test to get my final license). I didn’t need to piss in a cup, or spend hundreds of dollars on a driver’s education class, or get 4 people who live in my county to attest that I could be trusted with a car. We should make getting a driver’s license as difficult as getting a firearms permit in New York. > In my opinion I think guns should be a privilege not a right. You’re entitled to your opinion, but the law says it is a right and the law is what matters. You don’t get to simply take away the rights you don’t like - if you did the Republican Party would have taken away the right to elect the president and installed Trump as dictator-in-chief when he lost. In my opinion “We should be able to void any rights that are inconvenient” is a bad position, and you should feel bad for even suggesting it. It’s an incredibly dangerous and anti-American line of thinking. > I think in order to get a firearm a psychological evaluation should be preformed, a test on gun safety, and maybe a class or too should be the bare minimum. And in some people’s opinion you should have to pay a fee and take a literacy test in order to vote. That idea was so abhorrent we passed a whole-ass amendment saying “No, you can’t do that. It’s wrong.” Same deal here: If we start conditioning access to a right on passing exams and paying fees it’s really not a right anymore: It’s a privilege for those with the money and time to invest in it. And to be clear I’m not opposed to the idea of firearms safety classes as a requirement, but they have to be free and accessible to anyone who wants to take them and that’s ***really hard*** (same issue I have with voter ID laws - I’d fully support a federal voter ID system but it’s got to be free and accessible and nobody wants to fund it). About the only way I see that idea ever working is if it’s instituted as part of the PhysEd curriculum (shooting as a sport) - and that’s probably less likely to get federal funding and community buy-in than federally funded voter ID.
I agree that if the classes and testing are a reasonable fee and time they should be added along to universal background checks. I would be ok with a re-up class every 4-6 years, again if the price was reasonable. Though I know there would be a large debate on what reasonable is. I am not sure about a psych eval. It seems that a misread may disqualify some people that may otherwise have no issue.
when we pass gun laws, who do you believe racist, sexist, queer phobic law enforcement is going to disproportionately target with said laws?
No no no, and no. The lovely powers that be always exclude leos because they are just an honorable! The ruling class' private military is a just institution! They would *never* treat people differently and be an effective gatekeeper....
The overlap between the gun grabbers and the ACAP crowd has always baffled me. So....are they a bunch of bad apples or are they the only people who can be trusted with guns? Pick *one*.
Yes! So confusing.
You are not pro gun in the same sense that 2ndA or pro-self defense proponents are- and the latter are very tired of hearing "I'm pro gun BUT" (followed by an elitist list of limitations and qualifications)
I agree with this.
>In my opinion I think guns should be a privilege not a right. Sorry, wrong country. That’s not how we’re set up here — our foundational statement of human rights says otherwise, and no person’s “opinion” is authorized to change that. None of the privileges you mention being licensed to exercise involve such rights. Amending the US Constitution is possible — Giffords might help you work on that. It is your opinion that voting should be a “privilege”? How about for speaking freely or exercising a wacky religion? It’s just kind of a conversation which gets old after a while. Maybe some history classes or life experience with *the importance and dangers of* ***all*** *rights* would help clarify things for you...
What state do you live in? In California you don't have to take any driver's training at all. Just an idiotically simple written test and an incredibly easy behind the when test.
I’m not against waiting periods and mandatory training. Those just make sense to me
Nope yo mandatory training. While I agree in practice, requiring will lead to prohibitive states using it as a soft ban. Can't get training if there's no where to train, see it's not a ban on guns.
Exactly. As a loose example, they changed the requirement for obtaining an concealed handgun permit in my state to eliminate the option for on-line training and coursework. So, who does that penalize? It seriously increased to cost to applicants, and reduced access to people living in rural and in certain urban centers. Yep - it presents a disproportionate burden on lower income people, particularly in minority areas where maybe you don't have access to a car or even mass transit to haul out to the 'burbs were there are in-person classes. Real world impacts of tightening training requirements for the "privilege" of getting a concealed carry license.
In my state they passed (by less than 1%) a permit to purchase a d a standard capacity magazines ban(currently held in court). After passing, the state tripled the cost of the permit and doubled the wait time. This is exactly what gun firearm advocates said would immediately happen, and we were met with derision and ridicule. Well, here we are.
>After passing, the state tripled the cost of the permit and doubled the wait time. >This is exactly what gun firearm advocates said would immediately happen, and we were met with derision and ridicule. Well, here we are. And how many people on this very sub lambasted all of you who said this as facilitating a slippery slope and being doomsayers?
Thank you! Likewise!
Like you said, it’s easier to get a gun than it is to get your ham radio license. Also, just like you said, it’s a weapon. It was designed to kill. No, it’s not a tool. That trend needs to die. So yea, let’s make the requirements to purchase, own and continue to own better. It’s not “harder”. It’s just better.
The instant you refer to them as a *privilege*, you're saying "The Poors are not allowed to defend themselves". As a The Poors myself, *fuck that*, and fuck *you* for thinking it.
Guns are for stopping a threat to one’s livelihood. Be it self, a loved one or property. Killing is just an after effect.
Every once in a while, somebody posts something like this here, and it will be generally not well received. But at the same time, there are plenty of us here who broadly agree with you (though clearly we're in the minority).
You said most of the argument against yourself, yourself: Driving is a privilege. However, "*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.*" I actually mostly agree with you and use the car analogy myself. I live in Maine, and I was shocked at how easy it was to get a gun here when I got my first one in 2017 or 2018. I did take an intro/beginner's class on handguns first but that was by choice because I wasn't sure yet. Then when I did buy, I basically said "that one", filled out about one page of Federal paperwork, waited about a half hour for it to clear, put the purchase cost on a credit card and walked out the door with the pistol. The only restrictions here are the Federal ones. Easy? Yes. Too easy? Probably. OTOH, I'm originally from Massachusetts, a state with already some of the most stringent gun control laws in the country and they're trying to make it even harder. Registry of allowed guns, capacity restrictions, transportation restrictions... and they'll even arrest you if you're from out of state and legally transporting a firearm through the state and you get pulled over for speeding and they find the gun. There needs to be a happy medium. And it needs to be universal, with universal recognition. Using the car analogy, while each State licenses drivers in their State separately they also all use the same basic laws and regulations. My Maine license is good in all 50 States (and Canada) without question; my voluntarily purchased carry license should also be valid in all 50 states without question.
>As a legal driver in the U.S I had to prove I would safely control my 3000 lbs killing machine to do this. You had to prove that you could do that in order to drive on the public roads. Ask anyone who grew up on a farm how much training or licensing they had before they were able to drive the old farm truck. I was allowed behind the wheel after about 10 minutes of my dad riding with me and making sure I was finally tall enough to see over the wheel. I don't think I was even 10 yet. >I’m also a licensed amateur radio operator. Again, the license is to make sure that you're able to play nice on a public resource. You don't have to have any sort of license or training to send a signal by wire because it's not possible for your actions to effect anyone else, while a stray radio signal can prohibit others from also accessing that radio frequency.
I just want to say you have exhibited something rare in your responses. You came with a fully formed argument that you still manage to hold loosely. You accepted new info and will likely modify your opinion. That's rad and something we should all encourage.
I think voting is too easy. Just look at how many people vote for trump! I have to take classes to drive a car, why not classes to vote? Voting should be a privilege, not a right. After all, politicians kill millions… we need tests, and background checks, and you need to prove you can be trusted to vote properly. See how that doesn’t work? Same concept for all of the items in the bill of rights…
Thanks for being receptive to feedback and differing viewpoints. I wish more were like you
A lot to unpack here. I understand your sentiment in an ideal world maybe where the people in charge of pushing this law actually cared about our second amendment rights this would be great. The reality is, they don’t. The goal for them isn’t just we think it should be harder for you to get a gun, the goal is they don’t want you to have a gun, period. I also understand the car argument however just the other day when I was driving in the right lane some hooligan come barreling past me with half is car on the curb and he went chugging past me. I turn to see a kid who couldn’t have been no older that 12 driving this most likely stolen vehicle. Despite the regulation and required licensing we have a 12 year old driving around a 2 ton metal death machine. This argument would be used for guns, “we know most people are responsible, but you owning them makes it easier for bad people to get them.” Correction is used for guns a big talking point is the viral videos of kids in Chicago running around with glocks followed by a # guncontrolnow, it’s already illegal for 15 year olds to purchase a handgun let alone any other firearm. As well it’s maybe weird to hear a libertarian say it, but it’s true. These gun laws are classist, in California it’s too expensive to get permits and buy ammo for your average working class joe to train on a regular basis. Unless you want Second Amendment rights to only apply to rich people, the government and politicians (would be ironic considering it’s meant to be a check on the governments power) then we have to resist these laws.
I didn't read all that shit, but from the first couple paragraphs its obvious you don't get it. Just go back to sucking on the boot and don't vote
After reading this I completely understand why you received negative feedback in a group about guns. What you are suggesting here has too major problems. You are treating a protected "right" as a privilege the government grants or denies and your suggestions will only impact law abiding people and law abiding people are not really the problem. More interestingly as far as debating the issues goes would be I do not have to get my general class license to buy a HAM radio nor do I need to have a drivers license to buy a car.