What's your opinion of gun control?

[bryant.coleman]

Owning a gun should be a luxury. Not a right.

Then define the term "luxury". So in your opinion, who should be having the luxury to own a firearm? Only the billionaires, bureaucrats and the politicians? The right to live without falling victim to the criminals should not be a luxury, which is given only to the rich and affluent people or those who can afford expensive security agencies to protect them.

[MisO69]

just ban all guns every were save the deaths.

Just ban all criminal activity.. problem solved. 

[Spendulus]

just ban all guns every were save the deaths.

Just ban all criminal activity.. problem solved. 

This is absolutely brilliant!  But you should retain the exclusion for the rich and famous, and the politically connected, to have guns.  After all, it's only fair. 

[bryant.coleman]

This is absolutely brilliant!  But you should retain the exclusion for the rich and famous, and the politically connected, to have guns.  After all, it's only fair. 

Laws and regulations, which are applicable for the ordinary people, are normally not enforced on the ultra-rich and the politicians. It doesn't matter whether the politician is pro-gun rights or anti-gun rights. The Senate and the House will make it sure that they are allowed to own fire-arms, although the possession of the same is banned for the ordinary people.

[Spendulus]

This is absolutely brilliant!  But you should retain the exclusion for the rich and famous, and the politically connected, to have guns.  After all, it's only fair. 

Laws and regulations, which are applicable for the ordinary people, are normally not enforced on the ultra-rich and the politicians. It doesn't matter whether the politician is pro-gun rights or anti-gun rights. The Senate and the House will make it sure that they are allowed to own fire-arms, although the possession of the same is banned for the ordinary people.

Hey, come on.  They got their special retirement plans.  They got their special medical plans.  You wouldn't expect them to have to get in the gutter with Obamacare, would you? 

And what's this about guns?  Come on, don't be silly.  Let's get back to something seriously important, like how much we're going to give to you in free stuff next year if you vote us back in.    I know you want free stuff.

[TheButterZone]

This is absolutely brilliant!  But you should retain the exclusion for the rich and famous, and the politically connected, to have guns.  After all, it's only fair.  

Laws and regulations, which are applicable for the ordinary people, are normally not enforced on the ultra-rich and the politicians. It doesn't matter whether the politician is pro-gun rights or anti-gun rights. The Senate and the House will make it sure that they are allowed to own fire-arms, although the possession of the same is banned for the ordinary people.

Hey, come on.  They got their special retirement plans.  They got their special medical plans.  You wouldn't expect them to have to get in the gutter with Obamacare, would you?  

And what's this about guns?  Come on, don't be silly.  Let's get back to something seriously important, like how much we're going to give to you in free stuff next year if you vote us back in.    I know you want free stuff.

Free guns, ammo, and training, yes, for all law-abiding, mentally-sound, drug-free adults in the unorganized well-regulated militia described in the US 2A but seemingly only applicable to the Swiss.

[BADecker]

This is absolutely brilliant!  But you should retain the exclusion for the rich and famous, and the politically connected, to have guns.  After all, it's only fair.  

Laws and regulations, which are applicable for the ordinary people, are normally not enforced on the ultra-rich and the politicians. It doesn't matter whether the politician is pro-gun rights or anti-gun rights. The Senate and the House will make it sure that they are allowed to own fire-arms, although the possession of the same is banned for the ordinary people.

Hey, come on.  They got their special retirement plans.  They got their special medical plans.  You wouldn't expect them to have to get in the gutter with Obamacare, would you?  

And what's this about guns?  Come on, don't be silly.  Let's get back to something seriously important, like how much we're going to give to you in free stuff next year if you vote us back in.    I know you want free stuff.

Free guns, ammo, and training, yes, for all law-abiding, mentally-sound, drug-free adults in the unorganized well-regulated militia described in the US 2A but seemingly only applicable to the Swiss.

If all of the people picked up their guns and ammo, all we would have left would be "law-abiding, mentally-sound, drug-free" people in America. The rest of them would be dead, because the people wouldn't put up with their infractions.

[pilscoop]

I think that to own a gun you should be qualified and therefore you should take a test and be evaluated by a psychologist.
 

[TheButterZone]

I think that to own a gun you should be qualified and therefore you should take a test and be evaluated by a psychologist.
 

NEVER AGAIN.

[BADecker]

I think that to own a gun you should be qualified and therefore you should take a test and be evaluated by a psychologist.
 

The problem with this thinking is that it is government who directs whomever evaluates who can be a psychologist, and the kinds of evaluations the psychologist can do. It might take a number of years for the psychologists to gradually cause all gun owners to be evaluated mentally insane, or at least not qualified, but they would start right away. Government would see to it that psychologists did this if they wanted to retain their job.

People who own and practice with guns become very down to earth, once they realize what their guns can do. They don't go out on shooting sprees. They don't simply pick up and have "gun club" wars. Rather, they become respectful of other gun owners and even of themselves.

We don't need psychological reviews because the few gun crazy people out there will be killed by the sane ones when necessary for self defense.

[Spendulus]

I think that to own a gun you should be qualified and therefore you should take a test and be evaluated by a psychologist.
 

No problem.

I assume that first I can have the psychologist take my test, then I can evaluate himher?

[iCEBREAKER]

I think that to own a gun you should be qualified and therefore you should take a test and be evaluated by a psychologist.
 

NEVER AGAIN.

Bump.  +100,000,000 dead victims of communist/fascist red/brown authoritarianism.

When people try to invalidate your opinion based on armchair psychology pseudo-science, the correct response is to reach for your gun.

Know your enemy: https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/the-freudian-left-by-paul-robinson/

[Salman Anjum]

http://americanhumanist.org/HNN/details/2013-01-your-opinions-on-gun-control-from-a-humanist-perspec

I find the arguments over gun control and registration ridiculous. I usually shut my opponents up when I point out that automobiles in the hands of the inexperienced and untrained are dangerous, and therefore we have compulsory tests and licensing to drive a car. The same logic applies to gun control, they are dangerous and there should be compulsory tests to determine your aptitude to handle a gun with subsequent registration and licensing. I do not see why anyone would consider this unreason.
                                                     
                                                          (Howard McFann, Florence, South Carolina)

[TheButterZone]

http://americanhumanist.org/HNN/details/2013-01-your-opinions-on-gun-control-from-a-humanist-perspec

I find the arguments over gun control and registration ridiculous. I usually shut my opponents up when I point out that automobiles in the hands of the inexperienced and untrained are dangerous, and therefore we have compulsory tests and licensing to drive a car. The same logic applies to gun control, they are dangerous and there should be compulsory tests to determine your aptitude to handle a gun with subsequent registration and licensing. I do not see why anyone would consider this unreason.
                                                    
                                                          (Howard McFann, Florence, South Carolina)

God, I love Newspeak like "humanist" in place of "violent sociopath* safety advocate". *who perpetually have all the deadly weapons they want, whether they be automobiles, guns, blades, or blunt objects, while all those infringements only "reasonably" deny the victims of violent sociopaths, our human right to self-defense.

[bryant.coleman]

I think that to own a gun you should be qualified and therefore you should take a test and be evaluated by a psychologist.

Qualified? What type of qualification? Educational qualification? And if someone doesn't have a history of mental illness, then why he should get himself evaluated by a psychiatrist? Do you undergo psychiatric evaluation before you purchase a new car or a house? These are just excuses put up by the radical left to prevent ordinary citizens from owning guns. Nothing more.

[pungopete468]

just ban all guns every were save the deaths.

The absolute ONLY way to do this is mind control. If you don't have mind control over all the people, somebody will build more guns.

Do you really want mind control over yourself? Aren't we being propagandized by the media, etc., enough as it is? Wake up. Gun control and mind control lead to slavery.

Get back on the plantation and get to work you slave wannabe.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/08/30/217178528/dont-call-it-a-mind-meld-human-brains-connect-via-internet

look into Project Blue Beam too...

[Spendulus]

http://americanhumanist.org/HNN/details/2013-01-your-opinions-on-gun-control-from-a-humanist-perspec

I find the arguments over gun control and registration ridiculous. I usually shut my opponents up when I point out that automobiles in the hands of the inexperienced and untrained are dangerous, and therefore we have compulsory tests and licensing to drive a car. The same logic applies to gun control, they are dangerous and there should be compulsory tests to determine your aptitude to handle a gun with subsequent registration and licensing. I do not see why anyone would consider this unreason.
                                                    
                                                          (Howard McFann, Florence, South Carolina)

God, I love Newspeak like "humanist" in place of "violent sociopath* safety advocate". *who perpetually have all the deadly weapons they want, whether they be automobiles, guns, blades, or blunt objects, while all those infringements only "reasonably" deny the victims of violent sociopaths, our human right to self-defense.

Aw come on, what's wrong with a humanist approach guided by reasonable restrictions?  No one can argue with something that's for the benefit of the children...Compulsary reasonableness can be implemented with wise oversight by the guiding hand of the State.  I would propose six successive tests for gun ownership, each taking approximately three months to complete - well, unless the Agency received additional funding, of course.  The tests would be administered by  experts, and the results reviewed by the Gun Qualification Committee. 

Listen, I'm kind of busy.  Is that enough of an explanation for now?  I have to get back to devising the rules set for the Bullet Registration Division, we're currently studying fee schedules for designated Bullet Owners. 

LOL....

[Coinminer11]

If you freeze a big enough piece of water you can kill someone by dropping it off a building. I think water should be banned as well. It really bothers me how people can say guns are bad but they live in a nice suburban area with low crime rates.  I live in a bad area and honestly not having a gun here is just a bad idea
 The local criminals don't care about any laws.  Do you think gun control will stop them from carrying? These laws only hurt law abiding citizens not criminals.

[isvicre]

To defend ourselves we should have allowance to carry weapon.
I don't say I'm not humanist or anything other. I say carrying weapon may be really needed sometimes.

[bryant.coleman]

To defend ourselves we should have allowance to carry weapon.
I don't say I'm not humanist or anything other. I say carrying weapon may be really needed sometimes.

A compete ban on the possession of all types of fire-arms by the civilians can be enforced, in case the government succeeds in bringing down the crime rate to zero. If they are unable to do it, then there is no point in persecuting the ordinary citizens, who just want to defend themselves from the violent criminals, who indulge in home invasions and burglaries.