US House of Representatives passes bill loosening gun restrictions - Polidicks

[QUOTE=evilweazel;52955711]Who foots the bill for the training?[/QUOTE] It'd probably be you Likely a weekend course, you'd pay like $100-200. And you could offer waivers to people who demonstrate need, where they wouldn't have to pay.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52955714]It'd probably be you[/QUOTE] Putting rights behind a service you need to pay for is a non-starter I should say I'm not saying this necessarily because I'm opposed to mandated training, I'm more opposed to the new guy in the oval office deciding to make training something unattainable for the average working American

[QUOTE=evilweazel;52955705]No one explicitly wants to use their gun defensively, really. I've ran what it might be like through my head, but I'd really rather not shoot someone and have to deal with that whole mess.[/QUOTE] Having been in a situation where I had to use a gun defensively it's not easy to make the call to even go for the gun, let alone pull the trigger once you've got it. I was lucky in that the sight of the gun alone ended the threat because I really don't think I would have been able to shoot.

[QUOTE=evilweazel;52955719]Putting rights behind a service you need to pay for is a non-starter[/QUOTE] Kind of like how you need ID to vote in some places? As well, conceal carry does not really have a history of being a constitutionally protected right. The supreme court settled this even in the 19th century, the second amendment isn't wholly unlimited. Conceal carry, at least right now, is an elect privilege offered by states and potentially the federal government.

[QUOTE=evilweazel;52955705]That's completely reasonable. No one explicitly wants to use their gun defensively, really.[/QUOTE] I'd sure hope so. Anytime there's a push for more concealed carry, I continue to be pretty against it. There are quite a few people that see concealed carry as the solution to gun violence. Fight guns with guns, etc. To me, I see additional guns being added to public areas as a regressive approach to tackling gun violence.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52955725]Kind of like how you need ID to vote in some places? As well, conceal carry does not really have a history of being a constitutionally protected right. The supreme court settled this even in the 19th century, the second amendment isn't wholly unlimited. Conceal carry, at least right now, is an elect privilege offered by states and potentially the federal government.[/QUOTE] You can get free ID from the state where I live and I think pretty much any other, and it's a process I think should be made easier for the average citizen. It's different than training that has to have a cost associated to it.

[QUOTE=Gbps;52955727]I'd sure hope so. Anytime there's a push for more concealed carry, I continue to be pretty against it. There are quite a few people that see concealed carry as the solution to gun violence. Fight guns with guns, etc. To me, I see additional guns being added to public areas as a regressive approach to tackling gun violence.[/QUOTE] The main serious argument I think is the individual one. Let's say that conceal carry doesn't decrease crime or, even just assume that it causes a slight increase. Some people will still want it personally for themselves, especially depending on where they live.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;52955721]Having been in a situation where I had to use a gun defensively it's not easy to make the call to even go for the gun, let alone pull the trigger once you've got it. I was lucky in that the sight of the gun alone ended the threat because I really don't think I would have been able to shoot.[/QUOTE] By far the most redeeming qualities of being able to pull a concealed gun out is when it works for de-escalation, kind of like Mutually Assured Destruction. I am still not convinced this is a big enough positive to outweigh the negatives of a gun-filled society, though. It's a tough call for me.

[QUOTE=evilweazel;52955732]You can get free ID from the state where I live and I think pretty much any other, and it's a process I think should be made easier for the average citizen. It's different than training that has to have a cost associated to it.[/QUOTE] Conceal carry licenses already cost money. And nope, not all states have free ID. In texas we only very recently got it through the DPS. That doesn't really address that this is a legislative thing and not a constitutional right either.

I'd like to point out that all of you in here going "all anti gun people are just hiding the fact they want a complete ban and to take my guns away" are basically saying the same shit as if I came in here saying "all gun owners are just dormant spree killers waiting for a trigger" you and I both know that's a retarded line of thinking and has no real basis outside of being a completely delusional, paranoid nut case. Personally I don't give a shit about gun ownership, tie it down, make it safe, centralised to avoid problems like states being able to arrest you for simply travelling through with one (NY) and yeah, keep em for all I care. They're nifty hobbies for some, a piece of mind for others (perfectly reasonable justification in rural areas), etc. But to sit here and perpetuate the identity politics of the situation literally does nothing but make you look like an unhinged loon. So what if some people want a complete ban on guns? Seems like a reasonable reaction to the thing that can take your life in an instant, fear. Maybe big cities like NY and LA need complete gun bans, that many people coexisting requires a unique look at how to help de-escalate crime that's very different from other styles of life. It's a fact that social tensions and rime rates run deeper in big cities, so keeping them as weapon free zones is a potential part of helping alleviate the problem. I personally can see a functioning future for gun rights and gun regulations, but the problem is that the second anyone tries to talk about it there's only people screaming about "they want to take my guns away" or "those dumb hicks just want to destroy shit and have a power fantasy" and nothing productive ever happens. Yeah, mental health and poverty, blah blah blah, the problem isn't one or the other, it's a clear combination of all these things and by deflecting it all from the impacts of the easiest, most effective tool for killing we have doesn't make any sense. Look at suicide for example, most suicides are considered "heat of the moment", because most people who have suicidal thoughts will back down from the idea before they can actually get around to doing it the long way. But guns make that decision much faster. It's point and pull the trigger, you don't have to tie the rope, you don't get the chance to make that 911 call before the pills kick in, it's instant. A lot of crimes are committed the same way. They're heat of a tense social moment and someone comes unhinged. Spree/serial killers and gang violence aren't going to be fixed by gun control entirely no, but that's where the other side of the fix comes in.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52955739]Conceal carry licenses already cost money, and nope, not in all states. In texas we only very recently got it through the DPS. That doesn't really address that this is a legislative thing and not a constitutional right either.[/QUOTE] It is a constitutional right though, or at least should be. "Shall not be infringed" etc. etc. but I'm sure that would make you screech so I don't think its worth pursuing.

[QUOTE=Gbps;52955737]By far the most redeeming qualities of being able to pull a concealed gun out is de-escalation, kind of like a Mutually Assured Destruction. I'm still not convinced that this is a big enough positive, though.[/QUOTE] Personally (although this conviction didn't translate to lethality when put to the test) I'm of the opinion that in a life threatening situation, killing an aggressor is preferable to an innocent victim suffering injury, trauma or death. I don't think people should be going straight for the lethal option, but in my opinion it's the defender's discretion after a certain threat level has been reached. I would rather granny shoot and kill a mugger than risk that mugger deciding to inflict a potentially fatal injury on her, for example.

[QUOTE=evilweazel;52955745]It is a constitutional right though, or at least should be. "Shall not be infringed" etc. etc. but I'm sure that would make you screech so I don't think its worth pursuing.[/QUOTE] I'd bring up hundreds of years of jurisprudence etc. but I'm sure that would make you screech so I don't think it's worth pursuing.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;52955741]The cheapest CCW i've seen is 75$, and it came with a training requirement. The most expensive I've seen is 300$, and it too came with a training requirement. I see what you're saying, but there's just no precedent to what you're saying.[/QUOTE] What I'm saying is that unless the gov't is footing the bill for training and eliminating the cost of a permit they're putting up as a barrier to a right (to bear arms), it shouldn't be allowed.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;52955759]By that logic, the fed should be providing you a weapon, as price of a gun is a barrier to the right. Which it's not. It's been legally argued, and legally proven to be acceptable.[/QUOTE] It's worth noting that that isn't a completely foregone conclusion, as there are countries that mandate their citizens be armed as part of a national defense plan. Of course that doesn't come without training (mandatory military service in every case that I can think of) but still. I think it'd be ridiculously expensive for the US and not really necessary but you know, it's not like it's not a thing.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;52955750]nah, SCOTUS precedent has ruled CCW in and of itself isn't protected by the 2nd. You could argue that, and with a decent enough case you could probably win that, but right now it's not protected.[/QUOTE] I think that ruling runs counter to the very simple wording of the 2nd Amendment and hope in the future more states flip like NH did.

[QUOTE=evilweazel;52955752]What I'm saying is that unless the gov't is footing the bill for training and eliminating the cost of a permit they're putting up as a barrier to a right (to bear arms), it shouldn't be allowed.[/QUOTE] lmao, you'd hate it here. In Quebec you have to take 24 hours theoretical + 15 hours of practical mandatory classes to drive a car. The user has to pay the fees. It's about $1000 if you include the exams. To drive a car. A thing that everybody owns and uses and is meant to travel. You know why? Because it's dangerous.

[QUOTE=evilweazel;52955752]What I'm saying is that unless the gov't is footing the bill for training and eliminating the cost of a permit they're putting up as a barrier to a right (to bear arms), it shouldn't be allowed.[/QUOTE] By this logic isn't any restriction whatsoever, even a background check, not allowable? Not costing money doesn't mean it's not a restriction. And hell, literacy tests even weren't found unconstitutional by the supreme court, it took legislative action to ban them.

Having to go through a training program and pay money for a permit isn't a barrier for you to keep and bear arms. It's a barrier from you shoving it in your pants and going for a stroll. It doesn't prevent you from having the gun or using it at your leisure. Do laws against the discharge of firearms within city limits also act as barriers of entry and infringe upon your right? No, those laws punish idiots for firing guns up in the air and potentially killing someone, it's an unsafe discharge of a lethal weapon. An improper concealed carry is dangerous not only to you but to others, similar to firing off your gun randomly in a city.

[QUOTE=evilweazel;52955769]I think that ruling runs counter to the very simple wording of the 2nd Amendment and hope in the future more states flip like NH did.[/QUOTE] Does the second amendment allow for any restrictions at all in your mind? And if so, why?

[QUOTE=Segab;52955770]lmao, you'd hate it here. In Quebec you have to take 24 hours theoretical + 15 hours of practical mandatory classes to drive a car. The user has to pay the fees. It's about $1000 if you include the exams. To drive a car. A thing that everybody owns and uses and is meant to travel. You know why? Because it's dangerous.[/QUOTE] I think its more that its legally not allowed to be like that here i dont think, cause of the bill of rights.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52955772]By this logic isn't any restriction whatsoever, even a background check, not allowable? Not costing money doesn't mean it's not a restriction. And hell, literacy tests even weren't found unconstitutional by the supreme court, it took legislative action to ban them.[/QUOTE] Basically this, yeah. I would definitely prefer to see more and more barriers removed as time goes on.

[QUOTE=evilweazel;52955789]Basically this, yeah. I would definitely prefer to see more and more barriers removed as time goes on.[/QUOTE] Does more mean all?

[QUOTE=evilweazel;52955789]Basically this, yeah. I would definitely prefer to see more and more barriers removed as time goes on.[/QUOTE] I dont think removing background checks is a particularly good idea.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52955781]Does the second amendment allow for any restrictions at all in your mind? And if so, why?[/QUOTE] I don't mind keeping guns from people with a criminal history, but I don't have a problem taking rights from those who have deprived others of theirs, which I would say most crimes that warrant a felony, do.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52955792]Does more mean all?[/QUOTE] Basically, yeah. Live free or die :terrists:

[QUOTE=AaronM202;52955782]I think its more that its legally not allowed to be like that here i dont think, cause of the bill of rights.[/QUOTE] I wish the people would think past that damn piece of paper. Just because something was written hundreds of years ago doesn't mean it can't be debated and changed now. Life changes, the world changes, laws should be allowed to change too if it means making the country a better place to live.

[QUOTE=evilweazel;52955798]Basically, yeah. Live free or die :terrists:[/QUOTE] EeeEeeEeEehhhhhhh thats maybe pushing it. [editline]7th December 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Segab;52955801]I wish the people would think past that damn piece of paper. Just because something was written hundreds of years ago doesn't mean it can't be debated and changed now. Life changes, the world changes, laws should be allowed to change too if it means making the country a better place to live.[/QUOTE] Its not like we dont. The Bill of Rights is vague and gets interpreted by the courts whenever modern things come up that relate to them and people argue about it, which sets legal precedents.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;52955748]Personally (although this conviction didn't translate to lethality when put to the test) I'm of the opinion that in a life threatening situation, killing an aggressor is preferable to an innocent victim suffering injury, trauma or death. I don't think people should be going straight for the lethal option, but in my opinion it's the defender's discretion after a certain threat level has been reached. I would rather granny shoot and kill a mugger than risk that mugger deciding to inflict a potentially fatal injury on her, for example.[/QUOTE] Okay, I understand your argument. Not sure if I totally agree, but I get you. A gun can be pulled on anything. Guns get pulled in road rage incidents, for example. I don't entirely believe that the average human, especially a granny, can be expected and trusted to have that level of quick thinking to determine if escalation is necessary to end someone's life in a situation like that. When the granny pulls the trigger, a single citizen has tried, convicted, and sentenced a person to the death penalty in a single finger movement. That's the way I see it.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;52955799]We'll have to agree to disagree then. I don't see that working well, and i'm a staunch supporter of the 2nd.[/QUOTE] If I'm going to take it seriously, I guess it's what I'd want in my ideal America, where the issues I believe cause the large portion of gun crime are solved. Poverty, Mental Health, the usual suspects. I realize it's probably not the greatest idea to be implemented today, and I'm not sure I'd be super comfortable having LEOs or myself responding to calls involving PKMs and the like all the time. But, I think it's something I'd knock more and more restrictions off of as the situation improves, were I the Supreme Dictator of the 5th Drumpfreich.