Disarmament? Good or bad?

[PureX]

We will not be going down this road on this thread. One because it is disrespectful, two because it is a nonsensical argument. Gun owners should not be treated like child molesters or other sex offenders because they are totally different. A gun owner is not inherently violent but a child molester is inherently sick. There is no comparison, a gun is an inanimate object that can do no good nor evil. But a child molester is a person who willingly chose to do evil. They are not the same and must not be treated the same. This will not continue on this thread.

But he still has a point, if not articulated to your liking.

Why don't we keep a 'registry' of people who have exhibited anti-social behavior? Things like fighting, stalking, public intoxication, making threats, domestic abuse, etc., and use it to back-check people who want a license to own gun? Because in most instances, these are exactly the people we do not want to have them, as they have shown themselves to be irresponsible and abusive toward others.

 

[Buzzword]

We will not be going down this road on this thread. One because it is disrespectful, two because it is a nonsensical argument. Gun owners should not be treated like child molesters or other sex offenders because they are totally different. A gun owner is not inherently violent but a child molester is inherently sick. There is no comparison, a gun is an inanimate object that can do no good nor evil. But a child molester is a person who willingly chose to do evil. They are not the same and must not be treated the same. This will not continue on this thread.

Because the idea makes you uncomfortable?
Also, it is completely irrational to make a thread to "start conversation" and then attempt to filter out anything in the resulting discussion with which you disagree.

You also didn't address the rest of my post.
We have a right to own deadly weapons in this country, for the purposes of self-defense and hunting.

No one is questioning that.

But if the rationale for a publically-available sex offender registry is "the public has a right to know," then why does the public not have a right to know when their neighbors own (and in some cases hoard) deadly weapons?

Or is this another application of the idiotic notion that the public is safer when "the bad guys" don't know who is and isn't packing heat?

I personally own two pistols and a shotgun.
All three were given as gifts, and there was no paperwork required in order for these weapons to change hands.
I have a problem with that.
And my problem with it would motivate me to gladly register my weapons with the police or another government institution, were that an option.

 

[PureX]

Yes if the government see's it's citizens as "on their side",then it would only make sense that they would see it a benefit to have a well armed population in the event of invasion, That is a standing military the size of ours,plus an armed population is an overwhelming force. Again though if they see it's citizens as "not on their side",then would it be wise to disarm them,,,

Why don't we limit ourselves to OUR government, instead of these fictitious adversarial governments of yesteryear and tomorrow.

We already have the most powerful and well trained military on the planet, by far. It has no need of an armed public to back it up. And in fact an armed public would only make their job far more difficult and dangerous in the event of an incursion of some sort. As you and I both know people would be shooting at anyone and anything that moved, especially if they saw a uniform, in such an event.

Also, our government is not our enemy. It never has been, since it's inception, and it shows no signs of becoming an enemy, now. So that the very people who are worrying about it right now are, to my mind, the same paranoid idiots that we would not want to have any guns, if we had any brains. Show me the American who thinks he needs an M-16 for "home protection" and I'll show you the American who should never have one.

 

[whitestone]

If we limit our decisions away from looking at the past or the future then we will not make a sound decision. First we by not remembering why others before us were disarmed, open ourselves to the same, History is not an fictitious adversarial government. Second if we in 2015 decide to disarm ourselves we also have decided to disarm our own great grand-children who may very well need them in 2060,,hence "grand child I decided you should bow",,,

In 1991 we entered a war that has evolved from it's former state. We then said,"this will not turn into another bogged down war like Vietnam". The math to all of this though is another matter. We first invaded Iraq in 1991,,,after Bush,,then all through Clinton's term we flew no fly zones,then this expanded to Afghanistan,then Another invasion of Iraq so 1991-2015 is 24 years. So as we know the standing "army of both" Afghanistan and Iraq fell in weeks but the people of both these nations changed over to urban warfare and as we know is true we are still there today "ASK AN AMERICAN SOLDIER IF AN ARMED POPULATION IS POTENT",,,

P.S. if you get a rifle that fires .223 and Russia or China go all red dawn on us Walmart will be closed and you wont be able to buy bullets,,,if you get one that fires 7.62x39 then you can use their gun parts to fix yours and tell them thanks for bringing bullets to you,,,

 

[rexlunae]

Hey everyone, in light of what Obama has said I wanted to have a discussion on what people thing about the possibility of disarming the whole country. Do you think that would be something good or something future generations would suffer from. Add a comment.

It's not something that anyone has suggested as the solution, and it's probably impractical and wouldn't have the political support needed. But it's almost certainly true that the more heavily armed we are, the less safe we are.

Of course it wouldnt be good, the entire reason for the right to bear arms was in case we ever needed to protect ourselves from the government.

That's not exactly true. The Founders did worry about the threat of a powerful central government and federal army, and so they envisioned that the militia would largely take the place of a regular standing army, which was the raison d'etre of the Second Amendment, and the reason that the Article I Section 8 Clause 12 of the Constitution specifies that appropriations for the army would only last two years.
http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/1/essays/52/army-clause

As it turned out, when the militia almost lost the War of 1812, this was a little too optimistic, and we've had a functional standing army since then, even if it was reauthorized ever two years as required by the Constitution. Meanwhile, the courts have reinterpreted the Second Amendment as an individual right, which it was never meant to me. Note that many (but not all) of the instances of the phrase "the People" or "the people" in the Constitution refer to the People collectively as a political unit, not as individuals.

 

[Nick M]

Hey everyone, in light of what Obama has said I wanted to have a discussion on what people thing about the possibility of disarming the whole country. Do you think that would be something good or something future generations would suffer from. Add a comment.

When has that worked out? Ask Stallin, Hitler, Castro, and others victims whom were disarmed how it went for them.

 

[Nick M]

Disarmament: no citizen is allowed to own a gun.

That idea can rot in hell with Obama and Mrs. Bill Clinton.

 

[Nick M]

On an unrelated note, a friend recently made the following point:
Why do we have a strictly monitored and constantly-updated sex offender registry, but are not even considering a strictly monitored and constantly-updated gun owner registry?

Because my M4 and 1000 rounds causes no harm to my neighbors. Duh. Where as molesters should have already been executed. You have to be one of the dumbest people I have come across on the internet.

 

[serpentdove]

Lk 22:36

 

[jgarden]

Israeli gun control regulations 'opposite of US'
Jerusalem Post National News
12/18/2012

According to Yaakov Amit, the head of the Public Security Ministry’s Firearms Licensing Department, the difference between the gun laws in the US and Israel are as clear as night and day.

“There is an essential difference between the two. In America the right to bear arms is written in the law, here it’s the opposite... only those who have a license can bear arms and not everyone can get a license.”

Amit said gun licenses are only given out to those who have a reason because they work in security or law enforcement, or those who live in settlements “where the state has an interest in them being armed.”

He added that former IDF officers above a certain rank can get a license.

Anyone who fits the requirements, is over age 21 and an Israeli resident for more than three years, must go through a mental and physical health exam, Amit said, then pass shooting exams and courses at a licensed gun range, as well as background checks by the Public Security Ministry.

Once they order their firearm from a gun store, they are allowed to take it home with a one-time supply of 50 bullets, which Amit said they cannot renew.

The gun owner must retake his license exam and testing at the gun range every three years. As of January, Amit said, a new law will go into effect requiring gun owners to prove that they have a safe at home to keep their weapon in.

Amit said that since 1996, not long after the Rabin assassination, there has been a continuous reduction in the amount of weapons in public hands due larger to stricter regulations. He estimated there are about 170,000 privately-owned firearms in Israel, or enough for around one out of every 50 Israelis, far less per capita than the US, where there are an estimated more than 300 million privately owned guns for a population of a little more than 300 million.

Amit also said there are only approximately 2,500 people in the country who have gun licenses for hunting, and they must first get approval from the Israel Nature and Parks Authority.

Aside from Israel’s strict gun laws, reasons for the lack of mass shootings can be attributed to the country’s closely knit family structure, small size and intimacy and informality between strangers or the universal health care which makes mental health services available for all.

When asked why Israel doesn’t have such killings, Amit said “you can’t prevent this entirely. You can’t ensure that someone won’t someday go crazy and do something like this, but we do our best to prevent it from happening.”

There is no “Full-auto Friday” or “Ladies Night” special deals at the Lahav gun store and shooting range in Tel Aviv, a shop that bears little resemblance to its counterparts in the United States.

“Those people over there [United States] are barbarians when it comes to weapons, the situation there is insane, but here we’re too far to the other extreme,” said Yiftach Ben-Yehuda, 30, whose grandfather Yisrael opened the store with two friends in 1949.

..... “The private gun sales market is virtually nonexistent. Almost all of our business is in selling slots at the range and testing people looking to renew their gun licenses,” Ben-Yehuda said, sounding like a man whose clientele has dropped off significantly in recent years.

..... Ben-Yehuda said he doesn’t know of anyone who has received a new carry permit in the past two years, and that potential clients are deterred by the stringent regulations. “I don’t even have a gun license and I work here.”

..... licenses must be renewed every three years through the same extended process, and that he is still restricted to the same lifetime supply of 50 bullets at home.

http://www.jpost.com/National-News/Israeli-gun-control-regulations-opposite-of-US

- gun licenses are only given out to those who have a reason because they work in security or law enforcement

- around one (private gun owner)out of every 50 Israelis, far less per capita than the US (1:1)

- gun owners must retake his license exam and testing at the gun range every three years

- lifetime supply of 50 bullets

- doesn’t know of anyone who has received a new carry permit in the past two years

- the universal health care which makes mental health services available for all.

“I don’t even have a gun license and I work here.”
- Yiftach Ben-Yehuda, Israeli gun shop owner

“Those people over there [United States] are barbarians when it comes to weapons, the situation there is insane, but here we’re too far to the other extreme,”
- Yiftach Ben-Yehuda, Israeli gun shop owner

One would have assumed that Israel would be awash with guns in the hands of its private citizens - but the exact opposite is true.

Despite the terrorist threat, the actual homicide rate attributed to guns is far lower in Israel.

Gun Homicides in Israel

Chart: annual firearm homicides total
*****************************
2011: 81
2010: 75
2009: 70
2008: 61
2007: 71
2006: 50
2005: 58
2004: 67
2003: 57
2002: 91
2001: 103
2000: 74
1999: 40
1997: 15
1996: 23

Rate of Gun Homicide per 100,000 People Israel/USA
**************************************
2011: 1.04/3.55
2010: 0.98/3.59
2009: 0.94/3.75
2008: 0.83/4.01
2007: 0.11/4.19
2006: 0.71/4.29
2005: 0.84/4.18
2004: 0.98/3.97
2003: 0.85/4.11
2002: 1.39/4.11
2001: 1.6/ 3.98
2000: 1.18/3.84
1999: 0.65/3.88
1997: 0.26/
1996: 0.4/
1993: 0.72/7.07

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/israel

 

[Ktoyou]

Disarmament: no citizen is allowed to own a gun.

You are a moron! Do you know firearm control was implemented in 1968, and at that time there were few gun owners? Now we have a legal registration and more gun owners than ever.

This issue is only politics, not any real policy. Obama is past tense now and has no reason to appeal to anyone who may help him win any further elections.