EPTinYugi Posted May 21, 2014 Report Share Posted May 21, 2014 As the issue of smart guns rage like an infected sore, more and more people are bringing the issue of gun laws into more raging about them "Libtards" and "wingnuts," as usual political debates do. As some people know, smart guns are revolutionary technology that promotes gun safety through electronic means such as: fingerprint scanners, wristband identification, keypads, and microchips, but, as many have said, fail to do that job. Though I recognize the fear people have about the mandating of these smart phones, I find threatening gun stores from selling them as an option very childish and goes against on what gun promoters usually have said about not restricting the rights or the ban of selling guns. My thoughts are basically, "sell them if you want but don't mandate." Now YCM, let's hear your opinion or thoughts on smart guns, gun laws, and guns in general. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Amazing Avian Posted May 21, 2014 Report Share Posted May 21, 2014 They need to be legal to law abiding citizens who have been run through an extensive background check. If they're just plain illegal, only criminals would have access to them which is of course a bad thing. But even if guns were completely unavailable to everyone including criminals, someone who wants to kill someone else will find another method to do it. It's really not the guns themselves that are the problem, it's the people who get them illegally who have bad intentions with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cin Posted May 21, 2014 Report Share Posted May 21, 2014 3D printers. That puts a spanner in the works, or people just make their own or illegal import them. People will always find away to get a gun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EPTinYugi Posted May 21, 2014 Author Report Share Posted May 21, 2014 They need to be legal to law abiding citizens who have been run through an extensive background check. If they're just plain illegal, only criminals would have access to them which is of course a bad thing. But even if guns were completely unavailable to everyone including criminals, someone who wants to kill someone else will find another method to do it. It's really not the guns themselves that are the problem, it's the people who get them illegally who have bad intentions with them. I really do understand and like that, I'd even push for psych checks. The issue with smart guns is both sides expect this to be mandatory after a few years it's sold, this thing should be an option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tentacruel Posted May 22, 2014 Report Share Posted May 22, 2014 My main concern with this issue is it seems to be an all or nothing debate. (At least in the American media) TAKE ALL THE GUNS. NO REGULATION AT ALL. No one wants to talk about it calmly. It doesn't help when some jackass shoots up a school with a gun a lot of people own. People start spouting sensationalist bullshit and refuse to hear any dissenting opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EPTinYugi Posted May 22, 2014 Author Report Share Posted May 22, 2014 My main concern with this issue is it seems to be an all or nothing debate. (At least in the American media) TAKE ALL THE GUNS. NO REGULATION AT ALL. No one wants to talk about it calmly. It doesn't help when some jackass shoots up a school with a gun a lot of people own. People start spouting sensationalist bullshit and refuse to hear any dissenting opinion. Oh my god this is so true, I don't know whether to buy you a cookie or come to your house for a quickie... [spoiler=...] milkshake party [/spoiler] People go with black or white future of this situation without looking at the grey (or gray if you're comfortable with it,) there's no miracle answer to this issue, there multiple ways to handle it without being complete jack@sses. Welcome to America, or anyplace for that matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speedy the First Posted June 1, 2014 Report Share Posted June 1, 2014 Well, honestly I don't see why people can't look at the constitution when thinking about matters like this. If the founding fathers thought that guns were alright why don't we? I mean look at what the Second Amendment says, "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." Look at the last part people! It says that our right to have guns "shall not be infringed". So... why are people arguing about it, if it says that we will be able to carry guns no matter what? If you apply the 14th Amendment to it, it also says that the Government can't deprive us of our rights without due process of the law. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cin Posted June 1, 2014 Report Share Posted June 1, 2014 Because these guns are used to kill innocent people by people who disillusioned with society and have managed to get hold of these guns. People will always find ways to kill each other, guns just make it easier from a distance. While allowing people to carry guns is not in itself, you need to account for human flaws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speedy the First Posted June 1, 2014 Report Share Posted June 1, 2014 Because these guns are used to kill innocent people by people who disillusioned with society and have managed to get hold of these guns. People will always find ways to kill each other, guns just make it easier from a distance. While allowing people to carry guns is not in itself, you need to account for human flaws. Yes, I completely understand that we need to account for human flaws, but if it's the murdering that the Government is worried about why don't they outlaw cooking knives, or forks, heck, you could even outlaw pillows. I could kill with each and every one of these, so, I must ask, what defines something as dangerous enough to be outlawed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cin Posted June 1, 2014 Report Share Posted June 1, 2014 A gun doesn't necessarily require you to be close to them at the time like those and commonly used in gang culture, with knives. Which people do try to limit also, I suppose that should be more regulated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~ P O L A R I S ~ Posted June 1, 2014 Report Share Posted June 1, 2014 My Life had stood - a Loaded Gun -In Corners - till a DayThe Owner passed - identified -And carried Me away - And now We roam in Sovereign Woods - And now We hunt the Doe - And every time I speak for Him - The Mountains straight reply - And do I smile, such cordial light Upon the Valley glow - It is as a Vesuvian face Had let its pleasure through - And when at Night - Our good Day done - I guard My Master's Head - 'Tis better than the Eider-Duck's Deep Pillow - to have shared - To foe of His - I'm deadly foe - None stir the second time - On whom I lay a Yellow Eye - Or an emphatic Thumb - Though I than He - may longer live He longer must - than I - For I have but the power to kill, Without--the power to die-- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agro Posted June 2, 2014 Report Share Posted June 2, 2014 Kay. This is a cool conversation. Yin is best person so far.1. I haven't really seen anyone say "TAKE ALL THE GUNS." That's mainly been something one side is claimed the other is saying when the other side tries to push things like universal background checks, etc.2. Just because "they can always get guns" doesn't mean there shouldn't be regulations to make it harder to get them if they shouldn't be allowed to have one.3a. Second amendment is about the right for citizens to form a militia. Not for every single person to have a gun. Although the founding fathers must really not have cared about wording so it's very arguable.3b. Why are we working off a 300 year old, clearly-in-need-of-editing document again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speedy the First Posted June 2, 2014 Report Share Posted June 2, 2014 First off, please try not to be offended if I say something, I normally don't deal with politeness in matters like this, so, if I say something it doesn't mean that I think badly of you or anything, it's just part of my personality. So, now that I got that off my hands I can answer all those questions. True, I haven't seen too many people saying that we need to take away guns altogether, however, that's not to say that I haven't seen people like that. Rest assured, there are people like that. Yes! There should be regulations on guns for people who shouldn't be allowed to have them. But what I'm concerned about is that our government would take that to far,the founding fathers were concerned about that too, based on the 14th Amendment. The Second Amendment has most recently been interpreted to grant the right of gun ownership to individuals for purposes that include self-defense. At first it was thought only to the Federal government, but through the mechanism of the 14th Amendment, it has been applied to the states as well. You stepped into dangerous ground in 3b. I don't see why the Constitution would be in need of editing. Would you please give me some reasons why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agro Posted June 2, 2014 Report Share Posted June 2, 2014 There are people on both sides like that. I just hate it that both sides come out painting everyone on the other side as those who only want the extreme.If there's laws to defend it, the Supreme Court can counterbalance it. That's what they're all there for. It kind of annoys me how people assume that just because x happens, it's suddenly a dangerous road that will inevitably lead to y. Kinda like how people were all on about universal healthcare leading to socialism.That's the thing about the second amendment. It's all about interpretation, and everyone's interpretation of something is liable to be different. And each of those interpretations are also not necessarily wrong.3b isn't dangerous. The document's already had 27 amendments. A lot has changed in 300 years, there's no reason not to look back on the document and try to fix it up, especially when it comes to legal wording. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vla1ne Posted June 3, 2014 Report Share Posted June 3, 2014 Guns are one of the most efficient methods of killing currently in existence. That alone warrants some form of regulation. I agree on the times have changed thing, I'm pretty sure the founding fathers didn't realize how much more advanced guns would become at the time of writing the 2nd amendment. or how much the world itself would change. I'm all for everybody owning a gun, but without proper regulations, you really get nowhere on the "is this person actually sane enough to own a gun" front. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speedy the First Posted June 3, 2014 Report Share Posted June 3, 2014 The thing is I think that people might take it to far if we edited the Constitution, look at all this stuff that's happening now in the government. A guy getting forced to make a cake for a gay couple, even if his religious beliefs went contrary to that. Doesn't the first Amendment say not to do that? Not only that, the guy was exercising his right to free speech, also given to him by the first Amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Congress has taken things to far, and what saddens me is that people don't even know of many of their rights. Like the right to petition the Government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.Rai Posted June 3, 2014 Report Share Posted June 3, 2014 A guy getting forced to make a cake for a gay couple, even if his religious beliefs went contrary to that. Doesn't the first Amendment say not to do that?Hmm, but I imagine that the Colorado anti-discrimination laws that ruled that case don't really care. Being homophobic, racist, sexist or having some other discriminatory agenda is bad for business.Japan's done pretty well with essentially the total opposite of the Second Amendment in place, with no citizen being allowed firearms or, um, swords. Other countries have similar in place, such as the UK and Australia (both notably having laws made in the wake of major shootings; the gun homicide rates of both countries is low).I imagine that there are other ways to kerb gun violence without total gun control, and it would be fine to see that happen. Still, I'm perfectly happy living in the UK without guns or gun violence. We should probably deal with knife crime though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speedy the First Posted June 3, 2014 Report Share Posted June 3, 2014 But that still violated his religious beliefs didn't it? That shouldn't have happened. I mean, it's his choice not to accept business. The thing is, the Constitution was set in place to avoid becoming what England was at the time, a tyranny. But if we keep on ignoring it's rules we could become a watered down version of that. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for regulating guns, knifes, ect. But I am also for free speech, the right to have guns, ect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EPTinYugi Posted June 3, 2014 Author Report Share Posted June 3, 2014 The thing is I think that people might take it to far if we edited the Constitution, look at all this stuff that's happening now in the government. A guy getting forced to make a cake for a gay couple, even if his religious beliefs went contrary to that. Doesn't the first Amendment say not to do that? Not only that, the guy was exercising his right to free speech, also given to him by the first Amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Congress has taken things to far, and what saddens me is that people don't even know of many of their rights. Like the right to petition the Government. I don't think baking a cake goes under Freedom of Speech or religion since it has to do with talking and not with doing your job; I don't even think there's a passage in the bible about refusing service to gay people, correct me if I'm wrong. Also, there somethings that both religious freedom and the government can't do, so it shouldn't be used to do whatever the hell you want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tentacruel Posted June 3, 2014 Report Share Posted June 3, 2014 I don't think baking a cake goes under Freedom of Speech or religion since it has to do with talking and not with doing your job; I don't even think there's a passage in the bible about refusing service to gay people, correct me if I'm wrong. Also, there somethings that both religious freedom and the government can't do, so it shouldn't be used to do whatever the hell you want. There definitely isn't anything that specific about that in the Bible. Anyway, I definitely think he should have made the cake. They were customers, they wanted to buy a cake. I mean if they wanted him to make a dick cake or some shit I guess it would be a bit more debatable but I think it's safe to assume it was not a dick cake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speedy the First Posted June 3, 2014 Report Share Posted June 3, 2014 The cake was for a wedding. The Bible does forbid homosexuality, not homosexuals buying stuff. The guy wouldn't endorse having a wedding for homosexuals. The government said he had to. Doesn't that violate religious freedom? BTW, here is the article about it. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/06/03/baker-forced-to-make-gay-wedding-cakes-undergo-sensitivity-training-after/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tentacruel Posted June 3, 2014 Report Share Posted June 3, 2014 Eeeeeehhhh, it's pushing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.Rai Posted June 3, 2014 Report Share Posted June 3, 2014 Hmm, I don't plan to read that article in full after browsing a few of its foxy sentences.Religious freedom applies, but it conflicts with discriminatory law. Discriminatory law is basically going to rule over it, since equality is a basic human right. Religious freedom is less so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andx Posted June 3, 2014 Report Share Posted June 3, 2014 The cake was for a wedding. The Bible does forbid homosexuality, not homosexuals buying stuff. The guy wouldn't endorse having a wedding for homosexuals. The government said he had to. Doesn't that violate religious freedom? The 1st amendment states that congress won't make any laws regarding the establishment of religion or the free exercise of religion. (AKA we won't tell you how to start churches or stop you from living your faith) So unless it's a very plainly stated point of doctrine of his faith that you do not provide any services to homosexuals this is not in fact invading on his free exercise of religion as it doesn't stop him from performing any practice or observing any doctrine. (Never mind that Christians are supposed to love and show kindness to all people. We seem to forget that bit a lot) To me the bigger questions are things like can you force a private business to do anything they don't want to or is it legal for a business to refuse service at their own discretion. And of course the question of discrimination comes into the mix. It's a complicated situation really. As for the topic of gun laws and such. I personally have no desire to own a gun. I would not however tell anyone that likes guns that they can't like them or that they're dumb for liking them or anything like that. I do feel however that there need to be regulations not so much restricting people's opportunity to purchase them but more to train them on their proper use and important safety information. Cars are pretty darn lethal too but we don't see people petitioning for the restriction of their purchase. Instead we offer driver's education classes and make people pass a test to show they can safely operate the vehicle. EDIT: Rai's post has reminded me that the Supreme Court has ruled that the free exercise of religion is not absolute in that it can't be used as an excuse to break the law. Discrimination being illegal you see the argument for the cake thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tentacruel Posted June 3, 2014 Report Share Posted June 3, 2014 That's definitely the problem. A lot of more left thinking persons' opinions on guns are similar to conservatives' opinions on sex. Abstinence. Restrict, but don't talk about it it. If guns are going to be legal, people need to understand gun safety. It's not that hard to figure out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.